Who was the first clothes-puller?

[Bridewell]

Knife

David:

"1) Paul was the one who suggested that he would go alone and send a constable, implying that Cross, in the meantime, would wait at the spot.

2) Cross decided to come along, instead of waiting near to the body, but was much worried about the bloody knife he had in the pocket.

These are the points you have made, Fish, but if Cross was much worried about the knife, why not letting Paul go ? That would have given him a unique and unhoped-for opportunity to get rid of it."

In a mini-universe like the one you are speaking of, you may have a point, David. It all seems logical and sound thinking on your behalf.

But Cross/Lechmere made other considerations than just the one about the knife, if I am correct. And in scheming this, he made VERY good use of Paul! And you know what? You are going to have to take my word for it, since I am not yet ready to tell you exactly what it was Cross did - and how he did it. Let me just tell you that I consider it a complete masterpiece of adjusting to the problems that surfaced after he had killed Nichols!

Iīm sorry to frustrate you in this manner, David, but there you are.

The best,
Fisherman

All very interesting, but all based on the assumption that Cross had a knife in his pocket. Let's find some evidence for the possession of a knife and then start speculating on his reasons for carrying it.

Where is the evidence that Cross was carrying a knife?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

David:

" But he was not. It was dark. He could just walk.
If Cross-the-Ripper had had no time to leave, Paul would have caught him red-handed, or at least, would have had a "good look" at the Ripper at work."

Thatīs surmising, David. And "walk" would not have been a choice at any rate; it was staying or running. And the pulled down dress is an almighty pointer to how Cross/Lechmere may have reasoned; "Damn it, where did HE come from ...? Do I run ...? No, too risky, letīs play it cool, he hasnīt seen me yet ..."

The salient point, David, is that much as you would like to know, you simply donīt.

The best,
Fisherman

Fish,

If David isn't allowed to "surmise" on this thread, then neither, in the interests of fairness, is anybody else. What exactly is the case against Cross when "surmising" is taken out of the equation?

Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

Facts

Harry - nor was Hutchinson found virtually over a body.

Let's not talk about things which different people "virtually" were. Let's talk about what they actually were.

Cross wasn't "found" anywhere. He approached another pedestrian and told him of what he had found - a woman apparently dead or drunk. Hutchinson wasn't found over a body - nor was Cross.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

"In this scenario, you'd arrest him first and ask questions later. No police officer would take any of the suggested innocent alternatives at face value."

Mmm - but you may have noticed that it was an example? I used it to show that we are often very quick in offering alternative explanations.

"All very interesting, but all based on the assumption that Cross had a knife in his pocket. Let's find some evidence for the possession of a knife and then start speculating on his reasons for carrying it.

Where is the evidence that Cross was carrying a knife?"

His bloodsoaked pocket is the evidence, Bridewell!

... but since we will have some trouble establishing itīs whereabouts, we may need to accept that we will not be able to lay our hands on this kind of evidence. But I take it you are not fully serious in your request?

The best piece of evidence we have is circumstantial: He stood by Nicholsī cut body, SOMEBODY had done the cutting and Cross may well have been that someone. Thatīs as far as we can take it, so itīs suspectology - a much adorned art out here.

"If David isn't allowed to "surmise" on this thread, then neither, in the interests of fairness, is anybody else."

Correct! What goes for David goes for you and me too! ... but who said that he is NOT allowed to surmise?
Itīs another thing that it needs to be pointed out, ESPECIALLY when one words oneself the way he did: he claimed as a certainty that Cross could not be seen by Paul, and I am a lot more opposed to certainties than I am to any sort of surmise. In fact, many certainties must instead be called surmise to be viable. But wait ... was this not where we began ...?

"What exactly is the case against Cross when "surmising" is taken out of the equation? "

Strikes on his workway on workdays, a strike on the way to his mother on a Saturday night, his giving a name he did not use when signing official documents, his standing over Nicholsī dead body with no knowing on our part how long he head been there, the pulled-down dress. Find more on another suspect, and I will congratulate you on these boards. I may even sing.
If it isnīt enough, maybe we should close the site down ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

"a strike on the way to his mother on a Saturday night"

No, no Fish - you can accuse Cross of all sorts of things, but not of striking on his way TO his mother. Outrageous!

You meant from his mother, of course.

[Fisherman]

Actually, he was very late that night ...

Oh, **** - I admit it, then!!!

Thanks, Robert, by the way

Fisherman
Getting some things wrong. Some!

[Lechmere]

It's simply amazing - but then perhaps not - when calls for absolute proof are made. Absute proof is not available for any suspect. I repeat to the sceptics - find a better suspect who can be linked to the murder scenes and whose story can be tested in any way.

[Fisherman]

Oh, I donīt know, Lechmere, surely a request for proof that Cross wore a knife must be a very reasonable one...?

Just kiddin'

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

QUOTE=Fisherman;213961]Oh, I donīt know, Lechmere, surely a request for proof that Cross wore a knife must be a very reasonable one...?

Just kiddin'

The best,
Fisherman

[/QUOTE]
Cross was bound to have a knife. I would bet that all working men had knives
at the time. Not just for his job (and he would need a knife for cutting bits of leather on the horses tack for example or hooving it, cutting rope around packing cases maybe..) but also for cutting hunks of bread or meat when he ate.

[Lechmere]

Yes he probable had at least a pen knife with one of those bits for getting stones put of a horses hoof - and probably actually used it

[lynn cates]

cutting remarks

Hello Christer, Ruby, Lechmere. I have little doubt that Cross carried a knife. Of course, just ANY knife would not do. It needed to be a surgical one or a butcher's knife well ground down.

Cheers.
LC

[Rubyretro]

Yes he probable had at least a pen knife with one of those bits for getting stones put of a horses hoof - and probably actually used it

Used it for what ? The horse or Polly ?

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Cross was bound to have a knife. "

Actually, pondering the subject does not keep me awake at nights, Ruby!

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Ruby:

"Cross was bound to have a knife. "

Actually, pondering the subject does not keep me awake at nights, Ruby!

The best,
Fisherman

It would have to be long bladed knife though -Lynn is right (I just read that
Old wounds dissertation). However, if he was putting packing cases on a cart, I presume that he tied them down with rope. I realise that he would use the type of knots which can be undone easily, but those knots can can go wrong. He surely couldn't risk not carrying a knife which could cut a rope 'in case' -more than a penknife.

[Fisherman]

To be exact, Cross/Lechmere was never obliged to kill only with his working knife. If he felt like it, he could bring any knife he wanted to along as he hit the streets.

I canīt believe we are discussing this...

The best,
Fisherman