Who was the first clothes-puller?

[DVV]

This thread is turning psychedelic.

[Wickerman]

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

Dave

Now don't be a party pooper Dave,

Regards, Jon S.

[Cogidubnus]

whatever

[Lechmere]

"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;"
Remind me again Sally - you favour Hutchinson as the no. 1 suspect... yes? Hmmmm.

Bridewell - there has never been a suggestion that Cross innocently pulled Polly's clothes down before Paul turned up. If he had he would presumably have seen her abdominal injuries and known she was dead.

I think Fisherman was joking about the bloodstained pocket by the way.

However it is a fact that Cross says he set off at 2.30 (or even 2.20) and was 40 yards ahead of Paul who said he set off at 2.45, even though they only lived 5 minutes walk apart.
It is a fact that Polly's dress had been pulled down indicating that the murderer had been disturbed
It is a fact that Paul saw Cross near the body.
It is a fact that Cross frightened Paul when he approached.
It is a fact that they did not immediately raise the alarm.
It is a fact that Lechmere gave a dubious name to Mizen.
It is a fact that despite claiming to be late for work, Cross chose to walk a longer route.
It is a fact that the shorter route would have taken him past the Tabram murder scene of a couple of weeks before.
It is a fact that the longer route took him past the Chapman murder scene (and the Kelly murder scene).
It is a fact that Cross turned up to the inquest in his work clothes unlike other attendees.
It is a fact that the outlying murder - that of Stride - took place on a Saturday night near Cross's mother's house, where his daughter also lived.
It is a fact that the apron was left on the direct route back to Cross's house from Mitre Square.
It is a fact that Cross's personal background has features in common with those that might be expected to be found with a serial killer.
It is a fact that Cross moved into the locality where his walk to work traversed the killing field shortly before the murders started.

These facts can be presented as evidence that Cross should be regarded as a prime suspect in this case.

[Bridewell]

Quote:
His bloodsoaked pocket is the evidence, Bridewell!

(by Fisherman)

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

Dave

Hi, Dave,

I asked the same question in Post 444. To be fair, though, it may be that Fisherman hasn't seen it yet. If Cross did indeed have a blood-soaked pocket, I may start to show more interest in his candidacy - depending on the source.

Sorry, Dave. I've just seen Lechmere's post above. It seems that Fisherman's reply was a joke. I'm taking it that the answer to the question, "What evidence is there that Cross was carrying a knife?" is not going to be answered. I'll draw my own conclusions and move on.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Sally]

"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;"
Remind me again Sally - you favour Hutchinson as the no. 1 suspect... yes? Hmmmm.

Lechmere - the fact that you adopt this sort of debating tactic only demonstrates that you don't have any evidence. I have been perfectly civil to you on this thread, have considered your agruments carefully, and would certainly be congratulating you if you had made some real headway here. My reservations concerning your proposition has nothing whatever to do with my preference for any suspect - about which you know nothing anyway.

If you want people to take you seriously, you'll refrain from making playground accusations and respond to criticism like an adult.

Grow up.

[DVV]

These facts can be presented as evidence that Cross should be regarded as a prime suspect in this case.

Hi Lechmere. Ok, but when ? Sunday is April 1st.

[lynn cates]

disturbed

Hello Lechmere.

"It is a fact that Polly's dress had been pulled down indicating that the murderer had been disturbed"

I don't follow this one. I really don't see why anyone believes that Polly's assailant was disturbed--unless one tries to account for why she had no organs removed.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

It seems that Fisherman's reply was a joke.

I thought I heard a hurricane approaching, ....must have been the deafening sigh of relief from "Casebook"..

Regards, Jon S.

[Robert]

Lynn, as far as I can make out, the argument is : Polly was the only victim not left on display. Why? Because Jack was disturbed. But Cross heard no retreating footsteps. Therefore unless some unknown person disturbed Jack, Cross is actually Jack, and Paul is the man who disturbed him.

[Bridewell]

Which Fact?

[B]"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;"
Remind me again Sally - you favour Hutchinson as the no. 1 suspect... yes? Hmmmm.

Bridewell - there has never been a suggestion that Cross innocently pulled Polly's clothes down before Paul turned up. If he had he would presumably have seen her abdominal injuries and known she was dead.

I think Fisherman was joking about the bloodstained pocket by the way.

However it is a fact that Cross says he set off at 2.30 (or even 2.20) and was 40 yards ahead of Paul who said he set off at 2.45, even though they only lived 5 minutes walk apart.
Did either man own a watch, or are these approximate timings, do you think?

It is a fact that Polly's dress had been pulled down indicating that the
murderer had been disturbed
Is that evidence that Cross was the murderer?

It is a fact that Paul saw Cross near the body.
Cross went to look at the woman when he saw her. I would have done the same. This isn't in dispute.

It is a fact that Cross frightened Paul when he approached.
What would be your reaction if someone tapped you on the shoulder in the street at 2.45am - which is what Cross is reported to have done to Paul?

It is a fact that they did not immediately raise the alarm.
"They agreed that the best thing they could do would be to tell the first policeman they met."

It is a fact that Lechmere gave a dubious name to Mizen.
He gave one of the two surnames by which he was known.

It is a fact that despite claiming to be late for work, Cross chose to walk a longer route.
And that they were trying to find a policeman - or was this later?

It is a fact that the shorter route would have taken him past the Tabram murder scene of a couple of weeks before.
And if he'd gone past the Tabram murder site that would have been the fact presented, would it not. The "fact" is that he didn't go past the Tabram murder site.

It is a fact that the longer route took him past the Chapman murder scene (and the Kelly murder scene).
So if he'd gone the other way, the facts would have been that he went past the Tabram murder site and avoided Chapman & Kelly. Whichever route he chose implicated him!

It is a fact that Cross turned up to the inquest in his work clothes unlike other attendees.
Not really an incriminating fact though, I don't think.

It is a fact that the outlying murder - that of Stride - took place on a Saturday night near Cross's mother's house, where his daughter also lived.
It's not an "outlying" murder though, is it? It's a couple of hundred yards south of Whitechapel Road, and his mother lived where? Other side of the railway line?

It is a fact that the apron was left on the direct route back to Cross's house from Mitre Square.
Just Cross's house??? It was the direct route to Spitalfields & beyond.

It is a fact that Cross's personal background has features in common with those that might be expected to be found with a serial killer.
I hope this consists of rather more than having a step-father whom he may or may not have got on with?

It is a fact that Cross moved into the locality where his walk to work traversed the killing field shortly before the murders started.
We don't know for certain which was the first of the Ripper murders, do we? Where did he come from & how soon after the last murder did he move away?

These facts can be presented as evidence that Cross should be regarded as a prime suspect in this case.

None of them is evidence that Cross did anything other than what he said he did. They're circumstance, happenstance, call it what you will. None of them is evidence of his involvement in murder.

Which of these is the "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"? which Sally asked you for?

Has he got convictions for violence? Has he got convictions for perjury? Bigamy? Anything which shows that his word cannot be trusted? Is there any evidence? I'm not asking for proof, just evidence, just something more than that the murders happened in the area where he (and his mum & sister) and 76,000 other people also lived and worked?

Goodnight.

Bridewell.

[lynn cates]

C S I

Hello Robert. Thanks. I suppose that display business involves serial killers and CSI?

Right.

Cheers.
LC

[Rubyretro]

Sally -I think that Lechmere's debating tactic was to provide a whole list of
unassailable facts.
Each one taken on its own might not be important, but the whole list taken together constitute a strong argument.

What could be childish about that as a debating tactic ?

[Jon Guy]

So, Nichols was standing in a near deserted Bucks Row looking to raise her doss money when the lively Whitechapel Rd was nearby.

I `d always thought it more likely that Nichols and her killer entered Bucks Row together, and I suppose Cross could have encountered her elsewhere and took her back to Bucks Row which he knew was quiet, but did he have enough time?

[DVV]

Hi Ruby, I agree this is not childish and I respect Lechmere's work.
However, what he calls "facts" are actually mere speculations over facts that do not incriminate Cross-Lechmere.
Bridewell is right : evidence is completely lacking (that you can call a fact).
I'm not saying Cross is a non-starter or unviable, but he's a very dim suspect at best.
And my mutt is fine, thanks.