Who was the first clothes-puller?

[Sally]

New?

I don't think this is the first time that commentators on the Ripper case have considered Cross. I'm not sure how much of this current argument is new -

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3

Not to mention published articles.

One wonders why it is, when this theory has been around for some time; that Cross hasn't become a mainsteam suspect?

[Sally]

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.

Who's asking for absolute proof? I'm not. I just want evidence if I'm going to take Cross seriously as a suspect. I would hope that most discerning people would ask for the same.

And I hope somebody does find a 'better suspect' - or that you go off and do some more research and come up with the goods - because if you can find a single piece of evidence which suggests that Cross may not have been all he appears to have been; one single fact that points to his having had a violent nature; sexual problems; hatred of women - or prostitutes, even - anything whatever that makes Cross a more viable suspect; then I'll take my hat off to you Lechmere, as I would to anybody who uncovered new evidence pertaining to the case.

Who wouldn't like to see the Ripper revealed? Good luck to you with it - but as it stands, I don't think you have much of a case.

[Bridewell]

Agreed

I don't think anyone is trying to close this site down. The chances of any suspect ever being universally accepted or even accepted my
By a majority or even 25% of people interested in this field ever - is nil!

On that we are entirely in agreement. To be fair, I don't think either Fisherman or I were considering it a serious possibility.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

Exactly

Who's asking for absolute proof? I'm not. I just want evidence if I'm going to take Cross seriously as a suspect. I would hope that most discerning people would ask for the same.

And I hope somebody does find a 'better suspect' - or that you go off and do some more research and come up with the goods - because if you can find a single piece of evidence which suggests that Cross may not have been all he appears to have been; one single fact that points to his having had a violent nature; sexual problems; hatred of women - or prostitutes, even - anything whatever that makes Cross a more viable suspect; then I'll take my hat off to you Lechmere, as I would to anybody who uncovered new evidence pertaining to the case.

Who wouldn't like to see the Ripper revealed? Good luck to you with it - but as it stands, I don't think you have much of a case.

Hi Sally,

My thoughts exactly, but much more eloquently worded than I managed. A demand for absolute proof would be absurd, but some kind of supportive evidence:- history of violence, conviction for perjury, evidence of duplicity beyond the use of two names (each of which he could lay a legitimate claim to) is a bare minimum requirement. I don't mind conjecture - I use it myself - but it's not evidence.

Best Wishes, Bridewell.

[Sally]

Indeed.

Hi Sally,

My thoughts exactly, but much more eloquently worded than I managed. A demand for absolute proof would be absurd, but some kind of supportive evidence:- history of violence, conviction for perjury, evidence of duplicity beyond the use of two names (each of which he could lay a legitimate claim to) is a bare minimum requirement. I don't mind conjecture - I use it myself - but it's not evidence.

Best Wishes, Bridewell.

Hi Bridewell - thanks.

I agree entirely. I think the distinction between supportive evidence and pure conjecture must be clearly drawn for any theory to enjoy credibility.

[Bridewell]

Da Capo

Hi all!

The Victorians were a prudent breed. We can tell that from how the people who found the victims pulled their dresses down to hide their bodies from sight.

The most interesting victim in this respect is Polly Nichols. We know that Robert Paul pulled her clothing down to her knees, for decency´s sake.

The problem is, when he started pulling, "Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach", as deposed by Paul himself. So, almost to the stomach, but not fully that long.

But Nichols had suffered a cut that went from the breastbone all the way down, as we can tell from the reports. So it would seem that somebody had already pulled the clothes down before Paul got to try his hand on it. And the first puller apparently did enough pulling to cover the gaping wound in Nichols abdomen. If "almost up to her stomach" meant below the stomach, then reasonably the body would only have been exposed from the genital area down.

We know from the reports that the clothes had not been cut through, so evidently somebody lifted her clothes and cut her abdomen open. After that, it would seem that somebody pulled the clothes over the wound.

Who would that somebody be? The killer? And if so - why?

All the best,
Fisherman

Hi All,

I'm as guilty as anyone in this, but I think we've lost sight of the question originally posed & are in danger of converting this into a "Cross Suspect" thread - if we haven't already. I've therefore re-posted Fisherman's original post (see above).

If Paul pulled Polly Nichols' dress down to preserve her decency - as appears to have been the case - why is it illogical to ascribe a similar motive to Cross, if he was in the process of doing likewise when he broke off to waylay Paul?

My view, in a nutshell: The first clothes-puller was either the killer or Cross, just possibly (but by no means certainly) both. I've probably said all I usefully can at this point. Good luck with your research, Lechmere. If - and it remains a big if - Cross was the Ripper, I hope you find the evidence to support your theory.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Robert]

I think that the anti-Lechmerians are going a bit too far here. Watkins obviously didn't kill Stride, and is unlikely to have killed Nichols, Chapman and Kelly unless he was pounding Mitre Sq during the day on the dates of those murders, instead of during the night. Diemschutz, Davis et al would have been fools to murder on their own doorstep (in Davis's case, literally). Charles "Hamlet" Lechmere isn't that bad a suspect. He's the sort of suspect who might develop, after more research.

[Sally]

Era?

I think that the anti-Lechmerians are going a bit too far here.

Anti-Lechmerian? It sounds like a geological era -

The Anti-Lechmerian Era was dominated by carboniferous rhubarb, and birds of gigantic proportions...

But anyway, back to the thread..

[Bridewell]

Context

I think that the anti-Lechmerians are going a bit too far here. Watkins obviously didn't kill Stride, and is unlikely to have killed Nichols, Chapman and Kelly unless he was pounding Mitre Sq during the day on the dates of those murders, instead of during the night. Diemschutz, Davis et al would have been fools to murder on their own doorstep (in Davis's case, literally). Charles "Hamlet" Lechmere isn't that bad a suspect. He's the sort of suspect who might develop, after more research.

Hi Robert,

Context is everything. Who said that Watkins killed anybody? I simply used him to make the point that finding a body and seeking help from the nearest available person is not, on its own, sufficient to make someone a suspect. Nor am I "anti-Lechmerian". Nor am I opposed to speculation, provided it is acknowledged to be what it is. I don't like speculation masquerading as evidence. Nor do I like claims that a man's bloodstained pocket is proof of possession of a knife, when there is no recorded evidence of a bloodstained pocket!

Lechmere is, as you say, not that bad a suspect, but he's not, at the moment, that good a suspect either. I'm quite prepared to get on the Lechmere bandwagon, but only when it's got some wheels underneath it. Until then, it's not going anywhere.

Regards, Bridewell.

[lynn cates]

right

Hello Robert.

"Charles "Hamlet" Lechmere isn't that bad a suspect. He's the sort of suspect who might develop, after more research."

Now THAT is as good as it can be put.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

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.

You could quite reasonably make the same argument against Hutchinson & BS-man, so two more suspects hit the dirt.


Regards, Jon S.

[Sally]

You could quite reasonably make the same argument against Hutchinson & BS-man, so two more suspects hit the dirt.


Regards, Jon S.

Well, as many people would doubtless have carried a knife for perfectly legitimate purposes; the carrying of a knife might not be indicative of very much per se.

But it's all academic in any case, since we have no idea whether Cross had a knife, or not.

[Wickerman]

Of course, he could have had a work knife and a separate murder knife.

Nope!!
Re Tabram thread,..."killers do not carry two knives" (so 'they' like to tell us).

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

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

His bloodsoaked pocket is the evidence, Bridewell!

Strikes on his workway on workdays,

If I'm reading this correctly, Cross shows up to work late, with a bloodstained pocket, containing a likewise bloodstained knife. And, he's telling a story of finding a woman dead on the footpath all cut-up.

And no-one at work was suspicious?

Regards, Jon S.

[Cogidubnus]

Bloodsoaked

His bloodsoaked pocket is the evidence, Bridewell!

I'm sorry...I'm a newbie...but where exactly does this come from?

Dave