Who was the first clothes-puller?

[Fisherman]

Robert:

"OK, if you detach Polly from the series, and treat her killing as a stand-alone murder, then maybe you can build a case against Cross. But if you want him to be responsible for the rest of the murders, then surely you have a problem : Cross kills Chapman and takes her womb to work with him?"

Would you not say, Robert, that if he took the innards with him for keeping, then he would store them at the best place possible? And if so, what is there to say that this place was necessarily at home?
Think about it: if he hid a couple of wombs and the odd kidney at home, and it was found - then the perpetrator would be easy to pick out.

If there was a place at Pickfords that offered a reasonable hiding place, and if this place was found - who would be able to tie it specifically to Cross?
Anonymity may well have been the key to how the Ripper stayed undetected. And if the innards were hidden away at a place to which hundreds of people had access, it would tally with the anonymity part.

Then again, maybe he had relatives or close friends living in the area, and maybe their homes offered a stash of some sort, who can tell?

No matter who it was, if he cut out innards and took with him, then the risk of detection was always there. Of course, a lone man living on his own would have the best opportunity to store things undetected, but it is no absolute demand, I think.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Actually, my own main objection with Cross is the good old "why did he stop?" But we do have the BTK killer and the Monster of Florence to point to serialists that seemingly could stop or at least lay off for a very long time, so I donīt see that as an absolute no-no for Cross.

Thoughts, anybody?

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

And the magic number is . . .

Hello Robert. Thanks.

"Since the police could hardly have supposed that one man murdered Stride, travelled to Mitre Square and there committed a second murder, and then returned to Berner St to hide, including inside the club of all places,
I would say that this showed that the police were alive to the possibility that the Stride murder, at least, might not be part of the series."

And on October 2, "The Times" published a piece in which it was claimed that the City of London Police had abandoned the idea of a single killer.

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Steady on chaps.

Have I missed something? Did Nichols have any organs removed?

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

No, Simon, you have not missed anything. Nor did Nichols

Robert just suggested that Cross would get a womb to accompany his lunchbox with if he killed Chapman too, and that it may have been an awkward thing to bring into Pickfords.

Thatīs what I responded to.

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Hi Fish

Well, if the organ were found on the day of the murder, the police would presumably ask questions as to who had arrived at work that day, with special attention directed to who had come in soon after the murder. On the other hand, if the organ stayed concealed for too long, presumably people would discover it with the aid of their noses. In any case, presumably the killer took the organs in order to "do things" with them, or at least gaze at them, and it's difficult to imagine when he'd have had the privacy to do this while at work.

Lynn, could you direct me to the place where the Times says that? It seems to be saying the opposite :
"for the belief is now generally entertained in official quarters that to one person alone is attributable the series of crimes which in the last few weeks have horrified and alarmed the public."

Simon, not strictly speaking removed, no, but Polly's intestines seem to have been protruding, so it sounds as if the killer was just short of "unpacking" her.
Besides, you said :

"Why were five murders which had no common denominator encouraged to be perceived as the work of one mythical perpetrator?"

Again leaving out Stride, if you want common denominators then the throat-cutting, the prostitution and the targeting of the abdomen are three to be getting on with.

[Robert]

Fish, just because Cross worked for a removal company needn't mean that he was keen on anatomical removals.

[Sally]

Its interesting, this Cross business: he's the first person at the scene, and already there when spotted by Paul -is he the killer?

Well, he could be, but the most immediate obstacle in the way of that is that he became known to the police via his involvement with Nichols. Is it feasible that he could have killed a few other prostitutes subsequently? I'd think not, more or less.

The only 'suspicious' thing about him is that he also used the name Lechmere - but actually, not so suspicious when you look at his background - it was his to use.

So probably he was only the first person after the killer on the scene, and nothing more - but there can't have been more than a few minutes between the killer departing and Cross arriving - which I suppose begs the question - did Cross 'disturb' the killer?

[Lechmere]

Why did he stop?
Try the death of his second step father removing the grudge against his domineering mother being in the arms of another man.
Or the death of his infant daughter.
These events were after Pinchin Street torso.
He used to live in Pinchin Street if course (as a kid) and his mother lived there later.
Cross can be connected to the other murders as well circumstantially anyway - unlike any other suspect I am aware of.
No other murder victim except Nicholls was 'tampered with' by the people who found it. No other victim in all the Whitechapel murders was abandoned by the first people to find it (unless thyy kept their 'find' secret).
We know Cross gave a dodgy name.
We know Cross took a longer route to work even though he claimed he was late.
We know Cross had the time to do it.
We should know that the geography of Bucks Row makes it plain that he should have known that Paul was only 40 yards behind him well before he found the body - implying that Paul was initially much more than 40 yards behind him.
We could go on.
It is not rare for a serial killer to kill on his way to work.
It is almost the best time for him to do it as it gives him an alibi for being out and about.

[Robert]

Hi Sally

It sounds to me as though Paul was about to walk on, so that Cross had to make a slight effort to draw his attention. If Cross was the killer, he may have had the dilemma of whether to let Paul pass, with the risk that he might later give a description of Cross to the police once the murder came to light, or to speak to Paul and try to cover himself.

[Errata]

Errata!

She wore an ulster with brass buttons (seven of then, I think) over a linsey frock. I have never heard it suggested that the buttons were undone. I think we must accept that the clothes were lifted up over her as he cut. The frock would still be in the way even if he did unbutton the ulster.

The best,
Fisherman

Well, here's the thing. The dress likely had buttons, because Victorian clothing was very fitted. Secondhand, the fit isn't as good, but it's unlikely that this was a dress she could pull over her head unbuttoned, because the waist wouldn't allow it. Which would mean that there is only so far he could push the dress up unbuttoned. Likely he would not be able to push it up over the ribs, certainly not over the breasts. Which means the dress is still in the way. Really the way to get unobstructed access to the abdomen would be to unbutton the lower half of the buttons, and then shove the dress up.

And even if he didn't touch the buttons I can't imagine he could have shoved the dress up like that without popping the buttons. So the dress should have been unbuttoned either way. And I don't know if someone buttoned her up before she was examined, or if no one felt the need to mention that her dress was unbuttoned. But I would be curious if it were the former, because that's a bit more work than just pulling her skirts down to her knees.

[lynn cates]

no/to

Hello Robert. I am reading the article from Evans and Skinner. It has, "that no one person alone is attributable . . ."

A typo?

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Not being funny...In the LVP would the dress be fully buttoned?

Clients do like to cop a feel (or so I'm assured!)

Dave

[Sally]

Hi Sally

It sounds to me as though Paul was about to walk on, so that Cross had to make a slight effort to draw his attention. If Cross was the killer, he may have had the dilemma of whether to let Paul pass, with the risk that he might later give a description of Cross to the police once the murder came to light, or to speak to Paul and try to cover himself.

Hi Robert

That's reasonable - but wouldn't that have occurred to the police as well? After all, he was the first person on the scene. I also think if it was him, where was he keeping his trophies? At home? Surely that would have been impractical. At work just as risky.

A person like Cross, with a wife and family, a job and workmates, would have been accounted for most of the time, as most of us with families and jobs are. If he was the Ripper, he would have needed not only the time alone to kill his victims; but the means to transport his trophies to a safe place undetected and to keep them there, undetected, for however long he needed to.

Not impossible, but I think a person without those ties and regular habits would have found it easier.

[Robert]

Hi Sally

Don't tell me, tell Fish.

Lynn, yes, a typo apparently: