Who was the first clothes-puller?

[Ben]

Oh, youīve had plenty of time, Ben.

I'm afraid not, Fisherman. Pesky, interfering things like life outside the message boards have a habit of consuming my time just when I could really do with sitting in front of the computer and responding to your posts. Then, when I eventually find the time to do so, I find you've also responded at length to the posts I've directed to others.

If we are to go on discussing him, though, letīs do so on another thread!

Despite our history of Hutchinson debating? Well that's up to you. There are over 11,000 posts dedicated to Hutchinson in the suspects forum alone (that's approximately 7,000 more posts than the next most discussed suspect), and more books naming him as the most likely suspect than any other contender. But if you feel that's not enough, and believe there are some hitherto unexplored Hutchinson arguments that should be superadded to those 11,000 posts, by all means do so. Hutchinson will forever remain a more popular and mainstream target of suspicion than Cross, and for extremely good reason, in my opinion. Disagree if you wish, but that's us done for Hutchinson on this thread. Unless?...Nah, there won't be an "unless".

I think a more productive line of enquiry for you might be to research cases of serial offenders who claim their victims whilst walking to work. My contention, based on my study of a number of serial killers, is that very seldom occurs because it would constitute such an imprudent move on the part of the killer.

Both men had just traversed Buckīs Row, ill-famed though it was, Ben. I donīt think that they had very much choice but to walk streets carrying danger.

Yes, but that was before they discovered the body; before it was ascertained that a violent individual and probable murder was active in the immediate area. Hardly surprising that they stuck together thereafter.

Well, he varied between 3.20 and 3.30. And it would have taken five, not six minutes to Buckīs Row according to Connor. That means that he could have walked the stretch AND back again in that time.

The timings are too vague for allow for any reasonable suspicion to be attached to Cross in this case. "About 3:30" can mean anything thereabouts, and do you really invest so much significance in the difference between a five minute walk and a six minute one?

Regards,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

I think a more productive line of enquiry for you might be to research cases of serial offenders who claim their victims whilst walking to work. My contention, based on my study of a number of serial killers, is that very seldom occurs because it would constitute such an imprudent move on the part of the killer.

Whoever killed Annie -even it were Hutch- most probably did it on their way to work.

[harry]

There was nothing callous or suspicious about continuing on to work,It was a legal situation.Once the police had been notified and attended at the scene,it bacame a police matter.Neither Paul nor Cross could exercise any personnel option,except at the ddiscretion of the police.They could not touch,move or in any way interfere with the victim,only on orders of the police.and no one has provided any information that the police ever asked or directed that they do anything.Whether it be you or anyone else,placed in the same situation,yes,I would continue on.Nothing could be gained by staying.Before making any observation on the use of two different names,it would be wise to know the reason.As Cross never appears to have been charged because of it,it can be considered that it was never used dishonestly.

[Fisherman]

David:

"When a policeman tells me I can go, I don't think it twice and I go."

They already HAD gone when they spoke to Mizen, David.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought Mizen went to Bucks Row, (from whence PC Neil sent him for an ambulance - presumably one of those little handcarts rather than an ambulance as we know it)...but did Cross and Paul accompany him back, or simply go on from Hanbury Street/Bakers Row to work..."

They went Hanbury Street westwards to Corbettīs court, where Paul took off. After that, Cross/Lechmere presumably went to Pickfordīs.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"There are over 11,000 posts dedicated to Hutchinson in the suspects forum alone (that's approximately 7,000 more posts than the next most discussed suspect), and more books naming him as the most likely suspect than any other contender. But if you feel that's not enough, and believe there are some hitherto unexplored Hutchinson arguments that should be superadded to those 11,000 posts, by all means do so."

Keep your shirt on, Ben! Charles Cross and George Hutchinson are a very useful comparison, and it needs to be made to show what kind of evidence we have on them respectively, and how it compares. You really need to get to terms with that, instead of threatening with some silly "stamina war".

The comparison as such is quickly done, and the outcome is obvious: Charles Cross is a better suspect in all of the practically oriented issues - closer to the victim, obvious axess to body, three of the murder sites situated along working route, and a fourth along the way to his mother, definite swop of name when speaking to the police.
These are all down-to-earth arguments that are established.
Those who speak for Hutchinson as a candidate rely to a greater extent on much more etheric values, mainly a feeling that he seems suspicious. He was perhaps - but it is not established beyond reasonable doubt - outside Millerīs Court on the night, and if he was, he was relatively close to Kelly, though not in physical contact with her; he was outside her room, in the street. At any rate, we CAN tie him to one of the murder spots, but that is all. It has been suggested that he was using a false name, but that is merely a suggestion.

This, then, is the comparison. There is little more to add to it, I think, but if you wish to do so, it would be welcomed by me.

"Yes, but that was before they discovered the body; before it was ascertained that a violent individual and probable murder was active in the immediate area."

Yes it was. If they were scared, then your reasoning is viable. If, that is.

"I think a more productive line of enquiry for you might be to research cases of serial offenders who claim their victims whilst walking to work. My contention, based on my study of a number of serial killers, is that very seldom occurs because it would constitute such an imprudent move on the part of the killer."

It occurs, Ben, and that is all we need to know. Specifics will have applied t oCross/Lechmere, the way specifics always attach to any killer looked upon in isolation, and we do not know these specifics. Maybe he did what I suggested in my former post - got his working attire on, wawed goodbye to his wife, and went out and killed, staying away from job that day. Gary Ridgway did it, and his wife was none the wiser. The same, sadly, applied to the Green River task force for more than a decade.
We can safely establish that it would not be the most common thing for a knifekilling serialist to do, and I suspect that everybody would agree on that. But I donīt see that adding any more hinders than the purely statistical one - life, history and practicality ALL allow for it in spite of this, Ben.

"The timings are too vague for allow for any reasonable suspicion to be attached to Cross in this case. "About 3:30" can mean anything thereabouts, and do you really invest so much significance in the difference between a five minute walk and a six minute one?"

Yes! And the reason is that I look at the percentages. Five minutes is not much in the context of the history of universe, but if Usain Bolt was to add five minutes to his 100 meter dash, then well ...

Five minutes, Ben - and it could have been fifteen! - would have DOUBLED the time it took Cross to walk t Buckīs Row! Therefore it is a very interesting thing.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"They could not touch,move or in any way interfere with the victim,only on orders of the police."

Donīt be silly, Harry! When Cross/Lechmere and Paul stood by Polly Nicholīs side, she was not any victim at all - ad far as they knew. Therefore they had every right to try and help in whatever way they saw fit to. Moreover, everybody who comes upon somebody in need of help has a moral obligation to provide that help.

It is another thing altogether if you KNOW that a crime has been perpetrated.

"Before making any observation on the use of two different names,it would be wise to know the reason.As Cross never appears to have been charged because of it,it can be considered that it was never used dishonestly."

And if nobody discovered it, Harry?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Now, once again trying to bring the thread back to where it started, Iīd like to point to another thing that is interesting when it comes to the pulling down of Nicholsīdress.

I need to make an analogy to point out what Iīm after here. This is it:

Imagine a school and a schoolyard. In the schoolyard, there are hundreds of school kids.
There is a room in the schoolhouse with an closed but unlocked door. Any kid from the schoolyard can enter the room.
In the room, there is a table with a cake on it. All the kids are aware of this.

Now, letīs assume that one of the schoolkids decides to steal a slice of cake. He walks into the room, he cuts a slice and he leaves the room again, unseen.
How do we nail him afterwards, if he leaves no trace behind? Exactly - we canīt.

But letīs change the scenario somehow! Here comes the cake-longing pupil again, he enters the room, cuts himself a piece of cake ... and hears approaching steps outside the room! He quickly finds himself a bowl, turns it upside down and puts it over the cut cake, concealing what he has done.

Why does he do that? Because, of course, the implications are clear: He is in a room, alone, with a cut cake. Therefore, the cakecutter is robbed of the anonymity that belongs to the kids in the schoolyard.

Okay, letīs swop the cake for Nichols and take a look at things!

Cross/Lechmere stated that he heard or saw nobody leaving Buckīs Row. Therefore, the killer could do so without being noticed. He could, so to speak, join the other kids in the schoolyard.
Therefore, there was no need to find himself a bowl, was there? He could have left Nichols as she was, on display.

And on display was how Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were left. It can be argued that the killer left them as they were, but Kelly swears against this. We know that he put innards under her head, like a ghastly pillow, and that he put her hand inside her abdominal cavity.

Furthermore, we also know that many killers take pleasure in doing this exact thing - leaving their victims on display. Bianchi and Buono, for example, could have concealed their victims - but chose to display them in explicit sexual poses on a hillside. The Black Dahlia killer cut his victim in two, washed her, and took her to a public field, where he layed her out, legs spread.
It would seem that the Ripper may have belonged to this group of killers, judging by Kelly - at the very least. Tabram (if the Rippers), Chapman and Eddowes may all exemplify this behaviour.

But Nichols was concealed, woundwise. Would a killer that arguably liked and took pride in displaying what he had achieved do this, unless he was in the room with the cake?

To me, this is a very compelling argument against Charles Cross/Lechmere.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"but that was before they discovered the body; before it was ascertained that a violent individual and probable murder was active in the immediate area. "

Forgot the most important part here, Ben. It was also BEFORE it was discovered that it was a murder. When Cross/Lechmere and Paul walked down Hanbury street, they did so unknowing what had happened to Nichols. Could have been a heart attack, or a boose binge.

Why would that have them anticipate foul play, murder and violence coming their way? It would seem you have gotten it sequentially mistaken, Ben.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Fish -one argument for Hutch and against Cross, would be that when Hutch
became known to the Police, the murders stopped. When Cross became known to the Police it was near the beginning of the series (I count Tabram).

Both of them gave a reason for being in proximity or at a murder site which was believed. If either of them had been spotted at a second murder site it would have been very incriminating indeed. Would Cross have taken the risk ?

I will say that Hutch was given publicity by the media and his walking around with Policemen, while Cross was unknown to the public. However, that gives an even better reason for Kelly being the last victim (if you think that she was). Also, Cross was still known to the Police -he could hardly have pretended to be discovering a body twice.

[harry]

Fisherman,
You obviously do not read what I write.I distinctly said AFTER the police arrived and took charge,there was no need to stay and going on to work not callous or unnatureral.Sure they had a duty to help,and that is what they did.,untill the arrival of the police.Nothing in their conduct can be construed as s uspicious,especia lly that of Cross. And leave out the silliness remarks,or i'll be obliged to call you a liar,for at least two of your posts.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Fish -one argument for Hutch and against Cross, would be that when Hutch
became known to the Police, the murders stopped. When Cross became known to the Police it was near the beginning of the series (I count Tabram)."

Thatīs true, Ruby! But if we once again take a look at Gary Ridgway, we know that he kept on killing in spite of having enjoyed much attention from the police. We also know - although this behaviour is only documented from more recent times - that some serialists actually enjoy battling it out with the police, boldly reassured that they are more clever themselves.

One of the real snags with this kind of argument is that we will have a hard time proving that this is how things work. Some serialists may have stated that they have lain low for some period of time, I donīt know - but how do we find proof of the thesis that serialists will stop killing for fear of the police? If they stop killing, they will normally not get caught, reasonably.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"I distinctly said AFTER the police arrived and took charge,there was no need to stay and going on to work not callous or unnatureral.Sure they had a duty to help,and that is what they did.,untill the arrival of the police."

But they left the place BEFORE the police arrived, Harry!

"And leave out the silliness remarks,or i'll be obliged to call you a liar,for at least two of your posts."

Itīs a free world, Harry, but I would not recommend you doing so. In fact, I would very much like to see what it is you interpret as two lies. I do my very best never to go near such things, so you have me intrigued here.

All in all, I would prefer if too much hostility can be avoided on the threads. It disrupts and obscures the real aim of the boards.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Fisherman,
This is what I read.It was the body of a woman lying on her back,with her skirt around her waist.They adjusted them to afford her some dignity,before summoning a policeman,pc Mizen.'She looks to me to be either dead or drunk' says one,That clearly shows they did not leave before the police took charge,and that the only aid they offered was to adjust her skirts.

If you want to avoid hostility,then don't make personnel remarks,but if you think it's a free world,you'll find it's free for all.

[Robert]

Fish, I feel you're making too much of the dress. Your argument is that Cross heard no footsteps, therefore the murderer wasn't interrupted by Cross, therefore the dress was pulled down either by the murderer quite voluntarily (which would have been unlike him) or by Cross (which would have been suspicious and probably non-voluntarily). But Morris was astonished that he'd heard nothing in Mitre Sq. Perhaps Jack owned rubber soled shoes or wore slippers?

I remember in his book Bob Hinton gave an account of how Jack might have escaped from the scene, but my JTR books are packed away at present and probably will be for some time.