Who was the first clothes-puller?

[Robert]

Cross had a very large family - by my calculations, seven children living at home in 1888. It is possible that he didn't want his wife to know about the murder and inquest, because she already had enough on her plate. But that doesn't go very well with the idea of his being a psychopath, uncaring of the feelings of others. In fact, it would show him as being a very considerate husband, especially I suppose for that period and for that economic class. I can think of no other reason why Cross should be anxious that his wife didn't find out about the murder, so anxious that he'd rather give his name as "Cross" to Mizen, instead of his usual "Lechmere."

[Cogidubnus]

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

I think all that knifework makes him pretty disturbed Lynn...or wasn't that what you meant?

Dave

[lynn cates]

cute

Hello Dave. Cute.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

"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."

Okay. Iīll do that, and we shall see!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

...and there we go! The question is now at hand for Sally to answer on the "Innocent, by George"thread, under Suspects: George Hutchinson.

That should keep us all happy - and informed - should it not?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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?"

Thatīs your contention, Robert, not mine.

I am picturing a man who felt very convinced that whatever surfaced, he could deal with it. But that may of course be totally wrong. It could also apply that he simply was a quick thinker and a lucky guy. There is not the evidence to decide any way, but one inevitably gets a "feel" and pictures things as one goes along. I can offer no more than that, as it stands.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Robert:

"It is possible that he didn't want his wife to know about the murder and inquest, because she already had enough on her plate. But that doesn't go very well with the idea of his being a psychopath, uncaring of the feelings of others. In fact, it would show him as being a very considerate husband, especially I suppose for that period and for that economic class. I can think of no other reason why Cross should be anxious that his wife didn't find out about the murder, so anxious that he'd rather give his name as "Cross" to Mizen, instead of his usual "Lechmere.""

How about a wish to be able to proceed killing people undetected, Robert. I came to think of that in no time at all! Practical instead of considerate, thus.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

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

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

In Tom wescott's dissertation " Old wounds" he has the deepest cut running down from the sternum, and the 'left hip' one running up.

[Robert]

That would imply that all wasn't well with the Cross marriage, Fish, if he felt unable to mention the murder for fear of arousing her suspicions!

Strange that he has not thought far enough ahead to work out what he will do if someone comes swinging round the school, yet he is thinking several murders ahead by giving a name calculated to hide his involvement from his wife.

[Rubyretro]

s;214272]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[/QUOTE]

Hi (again) Lynn,

I thought that it had been established that the killer pulled the dress down to hide the wounds, rather than displaying them. Tom Wescott says that it is
possible that he began removing the intestines (unless they started sliding out when she was being transported).

[bolo]

Hi curious,

Do you think that Cross and Paul walked side-by-side? One in front of the other? How did they walk?

[...]

So, when walking down the street with someone, how much is actually observed of the other person?

I think they walked side-by-side. Maybe they did not observe eachother too closely while walking but then they met PC Mizen and must have stood in front of him when Cross informed him about the incident. In other words, I think that if Cross had blood on his body or clothes, Mizen and Paul would have noticed it at this moment.

Hi Fisherman,

I may sound harsh, but we canīt be sure of that blood, can we. Moreover, it was pitch dark! How would Paul see the blood? How would Mizen? He did not examine Crossīhands.

It was almost completely dark at the crime scene but as I already mentioned, there must have been some street lights on the way to Baker's Row/Hanbury Street, and PCs carried lanterns.

"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."

Me too, Bolo. But I donīt think we compare to the kind of man Cross would have been if he was the killer. His behaviour points to a very cool anc calculating man, or, to put it otherwise: a full-blood psychopath. That is, if he DID do what I think he did as he heard Paul approaching.

A little bit too cool and calculating for my taste but I know that some serial killers indeed injected themselves in police inquries so I'll remain on the fence in this regard.

Hi Ruby,

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.

Then there is Dr Llewellyn's inquest statement: "There were also three or four similar cuts, running downwards, on the right side, all of which had been caused by a knife which had been used violently and downwards" (taken from JTR Sourcebook, paperback 2001, pg. 39).

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.

I think most of the cuts to the abdomen were applied with a downward movement of the knife. In my opinion, the killer cut Polly's throat, then laid her on her back, rose and "reefed" her clothes/petticoats and started cutting the lower part of the abdomen as far as he could comfortably reach. Then he simply let the clothes fall back and ran away. At least that is how I picture the last moments of Polly's life.

Yes, it would make sense to cut away from you if you want to avoid getting blood on your hands and clothes but it's much more inconvenient and leads to less powerful cuts (triceps (weaker) vs. biceps (stronger)).

I hope this makes any sense to you.

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.

He would not have had to explain anything if he would have dashed a few yards down the street, turned left at the school building and then speedily walked towards Whitechapel Street or even the London Hospital area and from there to his place of work.

At least that is what I would have done. Guess I'd make a bad serial killer, eh.

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

Good point.

Regards,

Boris

[lynn cates]

Polly

Hello Ruby. Well, there was a press report like that. But at inquest I found down only.

Either:

1. The press report was premature.

or

2. I overlooked the note at inquest.

I searched rather diligently as I have GREAT interest in Polly.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

varia

Hello (again) Ruby.

"I thought that it had been established that the killer pulled the dress down to hide the wounds, rather than displaying them."

Well, the dress was pulled down over the abdomen.

The intent? Difficult to say.

By whom? Well, that is the premise of the thread.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

inquest

Hello Boris.

"I think most of the cuts to the abdomen were applied with a downward movement of the knife."

That is my take--from inquest.

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

Hello Boris.

"I think most of the cuts to the abdomen were applied with a downward movement of the knife."

That is my take--from inquest.

Cheers.
LC

And mine. I'd have thought the killer started just below the sternum. Other views may differ, of course. I find the abdominal stabs interesting - If one killer was responsible for say Tabram - Kelly (a bit arbitrary, but hey) then I'd see every murder as an experiment; building on the experience of the last to see what he could do next. I do wonder where Kelly would have led him.

Anyway, I digress...