Who was the first clothes-puller?

[Rubyretro]

In Polly's case, the killer cut her abdomen in a downward movement. To achieve this, his knife has to be dragged through areas of different density which may result in the knife getting stuck momentarily and then jump forward as soon as more force gets applied. This almost inevitably leads to a bit of blood spattering about so it seems very likely that some of it landed on the killers extremities and/or clothes.

Did he ? I've just been rereading Bob Hinton's chapter on the murder.

He said that she was stabbed in the abdomen, and then the killer made a first cut upwards, which veered to her groin and over her (left ?) hip. He then made a second upwards cut to her breastbone.

It would make sense for the killer to cut away from himself to avoid blood spatter.

I,too, have often cut up dead animals ( I was a sheep farmer) and I can't
remember ever getting much blood on me, although granted, it was not in the dark.

[Bridewell]

Bridewell:

"Now that's evidence!"

Sorry, Bridewell. It is not. It is only evidence if it was there, and we do not know this. Maybe it was some air leaving the lungs - this can occur quite some time after death, depending on movement of the victim, I believe. Blood could have clogged the airways out of the cut neck, and then it may have opened up as Paul felt her chest, offering some pressure. And the heart will not stop beating immediately because the neck is cut; it is the heart that pumps out the blood afterwards.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

I stand by what I said. It's not proof, but it is evidence. Paul was of the opinion that he may have felt a faint heartbeat. He may not, but it is evidence of Nichols possibly still being alive when he reached her. If she was alive, or even if there was a faint possibility that she was, Cross if he was the Ripper, would want to get Paul away from the scene.
The other stuff about maybe having resented his step-father, his mother living on Pinchin Street or wherever, his not walking past the Tabram murder site, that's not material evidence, but this is.

I'm slightly bemused that you're against me on this, quite frankly, given your endorsement of Cross as a likely suspect, and my own scepticism, but I guess that's just the way it is.

Regards, Bridewell.

Just noticed I've made sergeant even quicker than Abberline!

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Now, if we're all done here?"

We are by now, Sally. Now we ALL know that you refuse to give an answer to my question.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Lynn:

"Of course, I would not conclude he must be violent, kill again etc. But I would expect signs of the pathology."

Okay, Lynn - but where would you expect to see it recorded? Itīs not like we have a full diary over his meek and loving life together with his family. He could have lived that kind of life - or the life of a psychopath. How would we know which applied?

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

.

If I try to picture myself in Cross' shoes who just killed and mutilated Polly, I would have chosen the easy way out and simply ran away. A short dash down to the school corner, a turn to the left and I would have been out of sight. Even if there would not have been visible bloodstains on my person, I still would have had the blood-dripping knife in my pocket, read, a very telling piece of evidence which would have brought me in deep trouble if it had been discovered during the police inquiry.

I think that the killer always knew the Police beats. If Cross were the culprit, and he was disturbed by Paul, he might have been afraid to run into PC Neil, shortly to enter the road from the opposite direction. How would he explain running away from the body ?

Personally, I'd rather brazen it out with Paul.

Why couldn't he have rapidly wiped the knife on Polly's clothes, by the way ?

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

"I stand by what I said. It's not proof, but it is evidence."

Aha? Well, you are of course right - the information is there and it belongs to the case.

But then it ALSO applies that victims were killed on his road to work: evidence (the information is there and it belongs to the case).

But when you read this, you called for evidence, did you not? I find it slightly confusing.

The best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

I don't

Sally:

"Now, if we're all done here?"

We are by now, Sally. Now we ALL know that you refuse to give an answer to my question.

The best,
Fisherman

I don't know anything of the sort. My recollection is that Sally was quite prepared to discuss Hutchinson but (quite properly in my view) not on this particular thread. That's what she said. Do us all a favour and post your Hutchinson question on a Hutchinson thread. Who knows, she may even answer it!
Poor Lechmere is just beginning to see a bit of encouragement, and now his chief supporter is disrupting his thread.

This (Mary Ann Nichols) thread asks:

Who was the first clothes-puller? My guess is that you don't think it was Hutchinson. Stop going off-topic please. Thank-you.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Robert]

Fish, if Cross was as cunning and clever as you think, he would have already decided what he was going to do in the event of someone coming along, yes? So what was he going to do if someone had swung round the school into Buck's Row?

[curious]

Lynn:

"Of course, I would not conclude he must be violent, kill again etc. But I would expect signs of the pathology."

Okay, Lynn - but where would you expect to see it recorded? Itīs not like we have a full diary over his meek and loving life together with his family. He could have lived that kind of life - or the life of a psychopath. How would we know which applied?

The best,
Fisherman

Perhaps because some of his descendants seem to believe he was possibly the Ripper.

[Rubyretro]

I'm slightly bemused that you're against me on this, quite frankly, given your endorsement of Cross as a likely suspect, and my own scepticism, but I guess that's just the way it is.

Fish might be machiavellian of course......

[Bridewell]

Confusion.

Bridewell:

"I stand by what I said. It's not proof, but it is evidence."

Aha? Well, you are of course right - the information is there and it belongs to the case.

But then it ALSO applies that victims were killed on his road to work: evidence (the information is there and it belongs to the case).

But when you read this, you called for evidence, did you not? I find it slightly confusing.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman.

Confused? You and I both. I "called for evidence" which supported the case for Cross being the Ripper and, when I saw a post which provided some, immediately welcomed it.

This evidence, suggested that Nichols may have been alive when Paul reached her and is therefore supportive of the case against Cross.

The fact that he walked along Bucks Row on his way to work makes Cross a member of the hypothetical "Walkers To Work Along Bucks Row Club", one of whom was likely to be the first, at that time of the morning, to notice any body lying there. There is nothing of evidential value pertinent to his being the Ripper in the fact that he walked along Bucks Row because that is entirely consistent with his innocent explanation.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Rubyretro]

So the Ripper was disturbed -I think that is certain- and he was certainly disturbed by one of those "walkers to work along Bucks Row club".

There was no one else that we know of in the road at that time.

Given that no one else 'found' the body, it had to have been either Cross that disturbed the killer or he was the killer. However, Cross didn't hear any footsteps running away, nor see anyone.

The only other option is Bob Hinton's theory that the killer stepped back into the shadows of the stable yard and waited for Cross and Paul to leave (Bob then went on to speculate that he was the "unknown man" who spoke to Mulshaw).

[lynn cates]

down

Hello Ruby. There was a press report to that effect, but at inquest, it seems that the cuts were described as "downwards."

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

help

Hello Christer.

"Okay, Lynn - but where would you expect to see it recorded? Itīs not like we have a full diary over his meek and loving life together with his family. He could have lived that kind of life - or the life of a psychopath. How would we know which applied?"

Well, if the symptoms were very noticeable, one might expect the Mrs. to seek out help, whether doctor or constable.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

puzzled

Hello (again) Ruby.

"So the Ripper was disturbed -I think that is certain- and he was certainly disturbed by one of those "walkers to work along Bucks Row club"."

I'm puzzled. Why should one think him disturbed at all?

Cheers.
LC