Who was the first clothes-puller?

[Fisherman]

Oh, come on, Robert! He did not take Paul to Pickford´s with him, did he? And it was not as if Paul would search him! Ergo, getting away from the murder site meant moving away from potential danger.

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Well Fish, he's very changeable, isn't he? First he hangs around waiting for Paul, engaging him in conversation etc. Then he suddenly wants to get away.

Lechmere, re point 6, according to the inquest report on Casebook, it was Paul who refused Cross's suggestion of the prop.

[DVV]

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

I know, Fish. They had gone to look for a constable / help.
Just like Bowyer, Davis, Reeves and Diemshitz did.

[Rubyretro]

QUOTE=Robert;213600]Well Fish, he's very changeable, isn't he? First he hangs around waiting for Paul, engaging him in conversation etc. Then he suddenly wants to get away.

[/QUOTE]
I think that the case has already been made for why Cross may have waited for Paul and engaged him in conversation; The 'Fight or Flight' idea. He decided to fight. Once he saw that he could manipulate Paul, he got them both away from the scene as quickly as possible.

Lechmere, re point 6, according to the inquest report on Casebook, it was Paul who refused Cross's suggestion of the prop.

[/QUOTE]

I reread the inquest report on Casebook myself (sorry for answering something not addressed to me -I was curious), and I couldn't find that detail .

[Robert]

Hi Ruby

I'm posting Cross's testimony and I'll try to mark the relevant section in bold :

Chas. Andrew Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for over twenty years. About half-past three on Friday he left his home to go to work, and he passed through Buck's-row. He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement." They both crossed over to the body, and witness took hold of the woman's hands, which were cold and limp. Witness said, "I believe she is dead." He touched her face, which felt warm. The other man, placing his hand on her heart, said "I think she is breathing, but very little if she is." Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her. Just then they heard a policeman coming. Witness did not notice that her throat was cut, the night being very dark. He and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's-row they met the last witness, whom they informed that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row. Witness said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on. The other man left witness soon after. Witness had never seen him before.
Replying to the coroner, witness denied having seen Police-constable Neil in Buck's-row. There was nobody there when he and the other man left. In his opinion deceased looked as if she had been outraged and gone off in a swoon; but he had no idea that there were any serious injuries.
The Coroner: Did the other man tell you who he was?
Witness: No, sir; he merely said that he would have fetched a policeman, only he was behind time. I was behind time myself.
A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?
Witness: No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row.

[Lechmere]

Robert - if you read the various newspaper reports of the inquest, there is some confusion over the reporting of Cross's testimony - who did what bit of touching etc.
However the consensus is that Paul suggested the prop
Initially to be honest my initial interpretation (like you) was that Cross had suggested it out of bravado, knowing that Paul was a bottle job and would not agree. I think that Cross established dominance over Paul very quickly. However I think it is clear that Paul made the suggestion in fact and that Cross's refusal to assist meant there was no question that Paul would do it on his own.

Regarding Cross hanging about with Paul and then not wanting to be around, it realy isn't that hard to work it out.
Imagine for a moment that Cross did do it...
Initially he chose to bluff it out with whoever was walking up behind him, rather than scarpa. That was probably a sensible decison. Had he ran and been seen the person following would soon have raised a shout once they saw the body.
Then he wanted to get away from the body as soon as possible and take Paul with him - before a policeman came along and detained them at the scene and possibly searched him once her injuries became apparent.
He wanted also to make sure that if they bumped into a policeman that he did the talking (as happened).
Then he wanted to accompany Paul and bend his ear about what had happened and find out where he worked (and also avoid walking passed the Tabram murder scene).
Cross will have wanted to avoid being in the company of a policeman for too long - not avoid being with Paul. He will have particularly wanted to avoid being with the corpse when a policeman came along as he had a bloody knife on him. That is why his account to Mizen was so vague.

Why tell a nightwatchman or neighhbour about an unconcious woman, if the discoverer couldn't legitimately stay with her? Do I really have to answer that? It is surely what any responsible person would do.

Yes Ben, as Fraulein Retro says - Paul was interrogated as a suspect because he didn't report to the police to be a witness at the inquest and because the Chapman murder happened a hundred yards fgrom his workplace. Cross had reported to the police and appeared at the inquest on the Monday - and I suggest killed someone at that location to implicate Paul.

Ben - the apron coincided with Cross's direct route home from Mitre Square to Doveton Street. I was not discussing whether or not it also coincided with Hutchinsoin's route back to the Victoria Home as this thread isn't about Hutchinson - sorry. Although thinking about it, Hutchinsoin wouldn't have been able to get into the Victoria home at that time of night unless he had one of those special passes and would have had to wander the streets again all night. Ha!

I was highlighting why Hutchinsoin would have been suspicious to the police in 1888 and hence would have been checked out whereas Cross would not have been. You seem to be agreeing with me. That has no bearing on whether each acted in general, in a more suspicious manner.

It is also time to accept that all sorts of criminals insert themselves in crimes - not just serial killers. It is a fary common occurance and the police would ahve been aware of it in 1888.

Regarding Dan Norder's points:

1. Yes Cross doesn't seem to have been doubted. But he was a witness to finding the corpse and not to a suspect. It is my case that the police blundered in neglecting to properly cross examine Cross. It seems almost definate that they did not and there are big holes in his story as I have repeatedly pointed out.

2. Yes Cross's statement was minimalistic which is sensible if he did indeed do the crime. However as minimalistic as it is - I have highlighted numerous holes in it that were not properly examined at the time or at the inquest. I have pointed out that his work, family and householder status led the police to take him at face value.

3. Yes Cross had somewhere to go. But there were numerous fountains and troughs on his way. At his workplace as a carman of 19 years status he would almost certainly have hasd his area where his cart and horse where kept with grooming kit and so forth. Bear in mind - that if it was somelike like Cross who did it - when could they have carried out their crimes. What window of opportunity would they have had? The only viable time available to a potential serial killer who was in a position similar to Cross's would have been on his way to work.

4 and 5 are just suitable for a Hutchinson thread.

6. Cross's account was constrained by the presence of Paul. It was about encountering a dead body. It was totally of a different character to Hutchinson's.

7.Yes Cross was involved early in the cycle and the murders continued. It isn't hard to find examples of serial killers who continued their activities after involvment with the police. It is a little fatuous (if I may be so bold) for a non psycopathic murder to doubt what complusions might drive such a person to kill and measure them against their own sensitivities. This goes for the 'wouldn't have done it on his way to work' reasoning as with the 'wouldn't have continued after contact with the police' argument.

[Cogidubnus]

Furthermore, if Cross/Lechmere is 38/39 years old in 1888 and is a carman of 19 years standing, then he presumably wasn't that young and impressionable when he started with Pickfords, and this tends to militate against him using the (presumably by then resented) Cross surname name when he commenced employment there...which raises that question again...

Dave

[Sally]

Yeah.

There appears to be no evidence that Cross had any resentment for either of his stepfathers.

Contraindications, in fact.

Since he named his eldest son after the first - Thomas - suggesting that he viewed him as a father - and was witness at the wedding of the second to his mother. Oh, and he sent his daughter to live in his house. Cross and his own family lived very close to his mother, as Lechmere points out, until he moved to Doveton Street - Looks to me like more of a happy close family than a fractured familiar background in which a seethingly resentful young Cross plotted to eviscerate prostitutes.

And the domineering mother? Another hopeful guess, I'd submit. And I'm not sure that being married three times makes a woman 'remarkable' exactly. It might on the other hand indicate that she had moral standards, which her children inherited. And indeed, absolutely eveything in the historic record concerning Cross suggests that he was an industrious, enterprising and responsible man.

Oh I know, somebody's going to tell me that he could just have looked like that for all his life but really been an evil lady slicer all the time. Well true, it's possible. But plausible? Nah.

If Cross was the Ripper, he came out of nowhere, he killed a few birds, stopped for no apparent reason, and never did it again. Possible? Oh sure it is. The real Ripper appears to have done just that. Plausible? Nah. Not in the case of Cross - it'd be the same problem that the Barnett Fanciers have - the rest of his life.

Just like Barnett, Cross lived a mundane life for several decades after the events of 1888. Nothing dramatic happened.

Barnett took up with another woman, settled just round the corner from Cross's old stamping ground - and oh, hilarious - just a few doors down from Cross's own Mum in 1901 - and lived and worked in the immediate area until he died. He had gout. Cross had some more kids, had a successful family, carried on working until he died, and left a decent sum in his will (as Lechmere points out). £262? Something like that. You can use several different indices to estimate how much that would have been in today's money, but in terms of purchasing power, about 50k at the moment.

Aside from the fact that Cross was plainly more successful in life than Barnett, it's pretty much the same story - just an ordinary life, for the rest of their lives. And it's a pretty good indication in itself that neither of them was the Ripper. The Ripper didn't want to be ordinary. He wanted to be special. He wanted people to know what he'd done as is evident (at least) in the display of his victims. He was an attention seeker. If he'd ever been a witness, he'd have gone to the papers - Of the two men at the Nichols scene that morning, I'd have agreed with the police - Paul was the more likely to be suspicious.

Cross wasn't an attention seeker. Plainly. He didn't seek publicity in 1888, and thanks to Lechmere, we now know that he probably never spoke about te events of that morning again. I fail to see why this should be regarded as suspicious. Not everybody wants to be involved in a scandal.

Oh, and the Cross name thing - not so hard to work out if you think about it. But it'll have to wait for now.

[Robert]

Hi Lechmere

But now imagine for a moment that Cross was innocent. Would he not have done exactly the same thing? In the time it took him to bring out a neighbour, he would have found a policeman. In an ill-lit road with a bad reputation, at 3.45 AM, knocking on someone's door would probably have taken some time to elicit a response. The first reaction of anyone looking through their window to see two men would probably have been "Go away, or I'll yell for a policeman." It could have been a long haul.

Whether Cross and Paul were familiar with the location of the nearest night watchman, I cannot say.

I suppose in August 1888 Cross was still 38, possibly a month or two short of his 39th birthday? He said at the inquest that he'd worked for Pickford's for over 20 years, so it's reasonable to suppose he'd have been 17 or younger when he started.

[Lechmere]

Dave
I got that wrong I think - Cross said he had been at Pickfords for 20 years - that would be from 1868 when he was 19. His step father died in 1869.
There is a slight chance that he called himself Cross when he started at Pickfords as his step father was still alive when he started there and accordingly a chance that when in 'work mode' he regarded himself as Cross. I have mentioned this before in a previous thread and it is only fair to mention it as a possibility.
However having obtained a very great volume and variety of documents and records relating to Cross there are none at all in which he calls himself Cross. His Lechmere name had a degree of cachet attached to it - he was descended from the gentry. It would not be usual for a child to resent a step father.
In all likelihood he never called himself Cross and only did it in 1888 out of mockery.

[Cogidubnus]

OK so argue it the other way...and I say this with no agenda in mind at all and no real feelings either way...perhaps he feels Lechmere is his legal "birth" name and uses it in any legal connection...but on a day-to-day basis (perhaps because he appreciates all his step-dad did for him) calls himself Cross all his life...could well be as simple as that...

Just thinking aloud

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Cross...or not

It would not be usual for a child to resent a step father.

Did you mean unusual?

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Wos rong wiv us stepdads?

PS - Careful what you say about us stepfathers - I brought up three stepchildren as well as two of my own and treat them alike!

Dave

[Lechmere]

Sally I think it was remarkable for a 32 year old widow with two kids in tow to marry a 23 year old policeman - bigimously as in fact she had not divorced her first husband. Particularly in the East End where second marriages are relatively rare -and third marriages even rarer.

Yes unusual!!!

[Wickerman]

Thanks Ruby. The "old man" thing is interesting - didn't Packer say that the man buying grapes called him "old man"? I seem to remember "old man" cropping up somewhere else too. Probably just a coincidence.

You have a good memory Robert, in fact I gathered a few quotes on that very subject some months ago on the, Who did Sarah see? thread.


On Nov. 9th, Mrs Paumier said, "a man, dressed like a gentleman, came to her, and said, "I suppose you have heard about the murder in Dorset-street."

Then there's Mulshaw, the nightwatchman round the corner from Bucks Row, a stranger came past him and said:
"Watchman, old man, I believe somebody is murdered down the street."

Remember what the stranger said to Packer?
"...I say, old man, how do you sell your grapes."

Do we hear the same voice?

Regards, Jon S.