Who was the first clothes-puller?

[Fisherman]

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."

To be perfectly honest, I think you are writing some pretty strange things, Robert! Then again, you seem to think the same about me ...

Robert, if Charles Cross was the Ripper, I think that he perhaps did not wish his family to find out that he had been involved in the inquest into one of the Ripper victims. Likewise, the less his working comrades knew about it, the better. This is my proposition, and I really donīt find it odd in any way.

As for calculating ahead, who said that he did NOT have plan for what he would do if somebody did come around the corner? It was not me, at any rate. And if the thought of killing out in the open street appealed to him, then what could he do but take his chances? All serial killers, intelligent or stupid, planning or not, are strange creatures, Robert.

Take a look at Paulīs entrance on the stage. That was something Cross could not have foreseen. We know that if he was the Ripper, he killed anyway, and then he adrdressed whatever problems that came along.

We may also observe that he may well have picked Nichols up in Whitechapel Road. No prostitute would have gone to Buckīs Row for trade, since only few men passed along it at that time in the morning. So, if we work from the idea that they hooked up in Whitechapel Road, you may take some comfort in the fact that he was not disorganized enough to kill her there. Instead Buckīs Row was opted for, a silent thoroughfare with a much better rumour than the adjacent, closer Winthrop Street. In that sense, we seemingly have a man who has little time to spare, and who optimizes things according to it.

The risks - huge ones - that came with the territory points to him representing one out of two types of killers: the type who fails to see the risks, or the type that does see them and kills anyway. My contention is that if Cross was the killer, he very clearly belonged to the second type.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Bolo:

"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."


Then I think that it would have been: "Whooops, I must have gotten that blood on my hands when me and my friend here touched the woman".

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

". If you’re in favour of Stride as a ripper victim, it should be because crime scene evidence leads you to that conclusion, and not because your recently decided-upon favourite suspect might have had a relative that lived near Berner Street according to someone else's research. If I’ve read you wrong, I’d be interested in hearing an answer to the question: do you consider Stride a likely ripper victim? Previously you didn’t - that much is clear from years and years of posts in the Stride forum - and now…?"

The crime scene evidence has not changed, has it, Ben? Therefore I remain where I have ALWAYS been: The evidence as such points more to a domestic killing than to a Ripper killing.
This is what I have said for many years. Before that, I said that it was probably a Ripper killing - I started out that way, and I have said so on the boards before.
I have ALSO said on the boards that I am in no way 100 - 0 on this. I know I have mentioned a number somewhere, but I cannot find it now, and I do not want to spend time looking for it. Anyway, I have specified that my stance represents something in the vicinity of, say 55-45 or perhaps 60-40 in favour of the Stride killing not being made by the Ripper. You see, I have always acknowledged the fact that there WAS a killer on the loose that cut necks, and that this must have some sort of bearing when assessing Stride.
But nobody needed me to say that Stride MAY have been the Ripperīs - there were - and are - scores of people saying so. And these people were very repressive when somebody promoted the idea of another killer, which is why that particular line of thought needed to be defended, and I have done so many a time. Moreover, I will do it AGAIN if anybody says that Stride must have been a Ripper deed; she must NOT have, and the evidence at the murder place speaks more against it than for it.
That evidence, though, is not nearly enough to say taht it COULD NOT have been a Ripper deed - of course it could have.

And you know what, Ben? When I look at a suspect like Cross, who had the opportunity, who can be knit to three of the victims by way of his working route, who apparently lied at the inquest, who left the murder site and the vicinity of it without being checked by the police, when I look at such a suspect and have it added that his mother and daughter lived just beyond Berner Street, I donīt go "No, it cannot have been him that did Stride, because I have decided that it is more likely to be a domestic of some sorts".

That is not how I reason. I do NOT lock myself onto a suspect or suspect type, only to defend him against ANYTHING, no matter how obvious or telling it is. Others do this, but not me. I instead say "Alright, I would have thought that Stride was not a Ripper victim, but since we now can tie her to the moving pattern of a potential Ripper, then I may have been wrong on that score."

And that only potentially makes me wrong on the score about being a Ripepr victim or not - it does not make me wrong about what story the Stride evidence seemingly tells.

I am flexible, Ben. I have an intellect that adjusts to the material. Added material will call for constant perception and a willingness to look at things from new perspectives. It is an approach that is very vital in my line of work - when reality changes and you are called upon to describe it, you have to adjust to the changes.

It would be nice to know that you understand this. If you donīt, donīt bother to post about it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

" The Kelly murder was always going to be visually shocking on account of the sheer butchery inflicted on her corpse, but the body itself did not appear posed at all."

Why were there organs under her head, forming a macabre pillow? Did she roll onto it by herself? Why was her hand stuck inside her abdominal cavity? Did she put it there herself?

The discussion is really more for a Kelly thread, but it cannot be denied that these are points speaking much for a wish to display and shock on behalf of the killer.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Bolo:
"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."

Then I think that it would have been: "Whooops, I must have gotten that blood on my hands when me and my friend here touched the woman".

... inviting a quick frisk down from the Constable who finds the bloodied knife and he is hung.

Even if the Police didn`t see any bloodstains on Cross there was great risk of PC Mizen insisting the pair accompany him back to the body, or one of the now alerted J-Div constables catching up with the the pair as they talked to Mizen.

[Fisherman]

Jon:

" I would suggest to you that anyone in the commission of such a crime will be "alert", his senses like radar, as to the approach of a potential witness.

Whereas someone confused, who's brain is more occupied with figuring out, "is this a tarpaulin, or a body?", is more likey to be too preoccupied to notice the approach of another person."

Our man was not stealing apples or painting obscene portratis on the stable doors, Jon. I think it is a fair suggestion that he may have been totally swallowed up by what he did, oblivious to the world around him.

I even think that he may have felt reluctant to leave his work behind.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Ben your discourse about Fleming entirely consists of conjecture – which was my point about other suspects. The purpose of mentioning other suspects in this thread such as Hutchinson and Fleming was to demonstrate that the cases against both of these suspects are overwhelmingly based on conjecture. There’s nothing particularly wrong with that, but it is hypocrisy to hold Cross up to scrutiny by saying ‘oh that’s conjecture’.
Also most of the issues raised on this thread have been aired piecemeal on other threads over the past few months or so. However besides the bare bones of the theory - that Cross was suspicious and had used an alternative name – virtually all the case presented here against him is in essence new, contrary to the claims by one or two posters that there is nothing new here.

Robert
“I would have thought the killer would be kneeling beside her”.
This would mean that he slashed crosswise, or at right angles, in front off him which I would suggest would be somewhat awkward.

Wickerman
Paul would have entered Bucks Row when Cross was a good 100 yards from Polly’s body. Cross walked down Bucks Row with Paul behind him for about 100 yards before noticing Polly’s body – and he didn’t notice him. Allegedly.

Jon Guy
Whoever was the Ripper would have run the risk of being stopped and frisked at some point. The contention here is that Cross was compromised, ended up in tandem with someone else and then had to bluff it out. When they bumped into a policeman (and it would have been by no means certain that they would have bumped into one) Cross did the talking and minimized the urgency of what had transpired. As two people approached Mizen it would have seemed less suspicious to Mizen. That would have meant that there would have been less chance of them both being searched and in any case Cross just said they had found a woman who needed help. By setting the agenda of what was said to Mizen, Cross effectively eliminated the possibility of him being seriously questioned or searched.

[bolo]

Hi Lechmere and Fisherman,

I will also re emphasise that after the body touching episode, Cross would have had a perfect excuse for having blood on his hands or clothes.

Bolo:
"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."


Then I think that it would have been: "Whooops, I must have gotten that blood on my hands when me and my friend here touched the woman".

good points, I will take this into consideration concerning my opinion on Cross and his possible involvement in the case.

There still is the knife, though.

Did the LVP police do body searches of some kind, either case-by-case or on a regular basis?

Regards,

Boris

[Jon Guy]

There still is the knife, though.
Did the LVP police do body searches of some kind, either case-by-case or on a regular basis?

Hi Bolo

PC Sharpe stopped and searched a bloodstained Tom Sadler.

[Robert]

Fish, if Jack was at all like the man you describe, then I suspect he did have a plan for what to do if someone came from the western end - he'd probably have walked away briskly, breaking into a run if need be. And he'd have done the same if someone came from the opposite direction. The worst thing would have been to hesitate on the spot, trying to work out what to do.

[Bridewell]

Why Didn't He Invent Them?

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.

I think this suggests that Cross was not the killer. If he had been, having decided to bluff it out with Paul that he had simply found the body, would he not have adopted the simple expedient of claiming that he did hear retreating footsteps and so deflect the blame altogether? Saying that he didn't hear any footsteps - when hearing them would have been so beneficial to "Cross the Ripper" - has the ring of truth methinks.

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).

On this point, does anyone know if there was a Judas gate in the stable gate proper?

Regards, Bridewell

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lechmere

Jon Guy
Whoever was the Ripper would have run the risk of being stopped and frisked at some point. The contention here is that Cross was compromised, ended up in tandem with someone else and then had to bluff it out. When they bumped into a policeman (and it would have been by no means certain that they would have bumped into one)

They missed PC Neil by two mins and walked straight into Mizen, and there was a fixed point constable nearby on the Whitechapel Rd. Unlike today, they knew they would soon run into a Policeman.

[Bridewell]

Indeed

Hi Lechmere

They missed PC Neil by two mins and walked straight into Mizen, and there was a fixed point constable nearby on the Whitechapel Rd. Unlike today, they knew they would soon run into a Policeman.

Just so. People wanting to report an incident hope to find a policeman. Criminals hope not to. Cross & Paul were actively seeking a policeman.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Robert]

Lechmere, re your inclusion of Tabram in the series, and your description of the way he killed Nichols, the order of wounds etc : you might be right in some or all of this. And there may have been some "leaving on display" in the subsequent murders - Kelly is the obvious one. But I think if you are going to have the Ripper's style changing and developing from Tabram to Nichols and then on to Chapman, then to try and hang an argument on the position of Polly's dress is a bit over-ambitious. The position of the clothes might merely have been another element that was in development.

[Robert]

Ruby, could you replace the tomatoes in that recipe with several good dollops of ice cream? Ta.