Who was the first clothes-puller?

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"I disagree with Fisherman here...
Cross and Paul were not actively seeking a policeman - they were carrying on their way to work and intimated that they would tell any policeman that they happened across. That is at least what they said afterwards. There could in fact have been no guarantee that they would have necessarily come across a policeman on their route. It is simply wrong to suggest otherwise just because they did happen upon Mizen. If they had missed Mizen then would they have found one somewhere down Hanbury Street? Who knows."

Point taken, Lechmere. I would have been overenthusiastic about things here. But I do think that they at least stood a very fair chance of finding themselves a PC!

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

2

Hello Boris. Thanks.

Don't want to go off topic, but my lad carried 2 knives.

Cheers.
LC

[Ben]

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

Thanks for clarifying that, Fisherman.

So, in other words, the much spoken of proximity of one of Cross's relatives to Berner Street stands a 55-60% percent chance of being irrelevant to his ripper candidacy, to your estimation? As far as you're concerned, Stride is probably not a ripper victim, and the so-called Berner Street "connection" to Cross is therefore probably a non-issue. Good. In which case, I can't help but wonder why so much noise is being made about this, in the conspicuous absence of the accompanying research to demonstrate that such a "connection" existed, and especially given the highly tenuous nature of the connection. Other suspects have far more direct and compelling geographical connections to the crime scenes, so what's the big deal here?

Yes, he had the opportunity, but no, there's no reason at all to think that he "lied at the inquest", and if the crime scene was insufficiently checked by the police, that amounts to a failing on their part, and not a good reason to treat Cross with suspicion.

But you still consider it improbable that Stride was a ripper victim, which is fair enough. You did have me perplexed for a moment or two there. I really did wonder if perhaps you had disavowed years and years of arguing against Stride as a ripper victim, and all on the basis of Charles Cross's family living near Berner Street. If you say you have an "intellect that adjusts to the material", I'm very pleased to hear it, but I'm most reassured that you haven't "adjusted" such a heavily invested-in Stride theory on the basis of a tenuous connection to a witness from the Nichols murder.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere,

but it is hypocrisy to hold Cross up to scrutiny by saying ‘oh that’s conjecture’

But this has never been my problem with the Cross theorizing. I can perfectly accept that all suspect theories are based largely on conjecture. My problem is that the conjecture isn't very convincing in this case. As I've said from the outset, you can do a lot worse that Cross as a suspect because he had the means and the opportunity, but that doesn't make him suspicious. Could he have used his non-suspicious exterior as a cover and still been the killer? Of course, but there's no good reason to think he did, or was. Hutchinson was doubted by the police at the time, and probably loitered outside (and fixated upon) Miller's Court shortly before the murder, while Fleming used an actual alias (as opposed to a family name) and reportedly ill-used the most brutally murdered victim in the series. This qualifies as suspicious, to my mind, whereas I find that the suggested reasons for suspicion lacking in Cross' case.

Also, and without wishing to impugn your own efforts, it's not really the case that anything new has been presented here because the promised (by Fisherman) research findings have yet to be provided.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

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.

Hi Robert
Exactly. Ive asked before and am still wiating for an explanation. If lech was the Killer, why did he not only wait for Paul to come near but also chase him down? Seems to me the killer woud have left the scene as soon as he noticed paul. Or, if for whatever reason he lingered near the body, once he noticed Paul trying to move out of the way and go past, just let him pass.
His actions are totlly consistant with a wtness who discovers a body. he flags down the first person he sees and then goes to the police.

Oh and to the original poit of the thread? Its a total nonstarter. There are many reasons the skirt could have been discovered partially back down. The obvious ones being that it came bck down on its own or moved accidently (or not)by the killer as he finished.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"So, in other words, the much spoken of proximity of one of Cross's relatives to Berner Street stands a 55-60% percent chance of being irrelevant to his ripper candidacy, to your estimation? As far as you're concerned, Stride is probably not a ripper victim, and the so-called Berner Street "connection" to Cross is therefore probably a non-issue. Good."

I would sometimes like to spend a little time in that simplified universe of yours, Ben! It must be interesting.
Well, this at least explains very clearly why nobody else but Hutchinson could have done it.
Eh, to your mind, that is.
Kosminsky, Druitt, Cross, Kelly, Chapman, Issenschmidt, you name ' em - they all stand a lesser chance to be the killer than your champion, and consequently, they are therefore probably non-issues. Good.

It is very obvious that you are picking a fight here, my friend. But I will leave you to it. The way you argue, Iīm sure that you will knock yourself out in no time at all and thus win the fight. Congratulations in advance!

Meanwhile, Iīve got better things to do.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Also, and without wishing to impugn your own efforts, it's not really the case that anything new has been presented here because the promised (by Fisherman) research findings have yet to be provided."

Oh, so you failed to notice that we can now tie Cross to Berner Street by means of his mother's address? Or you knew that before? It was not new to you?

Which is it?

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

"There are many reasons the skirt could have been discovered partially back down. The obvious ones being that it came bck down on its own"

If you think that a dress would creep down half a metre on itīs very own on a victim lying down, Abby, then you may need to read up on the laws of gravity!

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

If you think that a dress would creep down half a metre on itīs very own on a victim lying down, Abby, then you may need to read up on the laws of gravity!

The best,
Fisherman

[/QUOTE]

If Lechmere is right, and the killer was at her head and held her dress in front of himself against blood spatter as he cut, then the dress could just fall back
when he let go of it in a hurry.

However, this would mean that he was a) thinking about what he was doing
(protecting himself against blood and surveilling the corner of the school) and
was not a 'mad' Issy type, and b) was certainly disturbed if he let the dress just drop rather than display the body.

It would still be consistent with Cross as the killer.

[Bridewell]

Ties?

Ben:

"Also, and without wishing to impugn your own efforts, it's not really the case that anything new has been presented here because the promised (by Fisherman) research findings have yet to be provided."

Oh, so you failed to notice that we can now tie Cross to Berner Street by means of his mother's address? Or you knew that before? It was not new to you?

Which is it?

Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

I, for one, didn't know it before. However, I think that to say that a mother living on Pinchin Street "ties Cross to Berner Street", is over-egging the pudding somewhat. He may, or may not, have taken that route when visiting her. Isn't 1am (or thereabouts) rather a strange time to be starting or ending a visit to your dear old mum, though?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

Really?

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 addressed whatever problems that came along.

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman,

The argument presented hitherto has been, among other things, that Cross knew this route well because he used it every day on his way to work. That's fine as far as it goes. We can't then stand the thing on its head and argue that Paul's entrance "was something Cross could not have foreseen". If he walked that way to work every day - as suggested on this thread - then he must have had a pretty fair idea as to how many people did the same. He can't be cunning and observant, but also stupid and unobservant surely?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

If we're going to treat Cross's (entirely plausible) account as suspicious, let's, instead, study the relevant part of Paul's testimony and see what that tells us.

'He left home about a quarter to 4 on the Friday morning, and as he was passing up Bucks-row he saw a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness approached him he walked towards the pavement, and witness stepped on to the roadway in order to pass him. He then touched witness on the shoulder, and said, "Come and look at this woman here". Witness went with him and say a woman lying right across the gateway.'

he saw a man standing in the middle of the road

so we see that, when Paul first catches sight of Cross, he is emphatically not "virtually standing over a body", as has been previously alleged. He is (at least) several yards away from it , on any sensible interpretation. He is not reacting to Paul's presence, but looking out for someone to come to his aid.

As witness (Paul) approached him he (Cross) walked towards the pavement

Paul is making his way to work and is waylaid by Cross

and witness stepped on to the roadway in order to pass him.

so Paul, quite clearly, hasn't seen a body and is actively trying to get past Cross and avoid being delayed on his journey.

He (Cross) then touched witness (Paul) on the shoulder, and said, "Come and look at this woman here"

Cross will not allow Paul to pass, taps him on the shoulder, and has to explain his reason for doing so, in order to prevent Paul from doing what he wants to do , which is to walk on up Bucks Row towards Spitalfields.

Witness went with him and saw a woman lying right across the gateway.

Cross is actually having to point out the body, which Paul, quite clearly hasn't seen and was never going to see unless, and until, Cross pointed it out.

Emergency reaction? In danger of being caught? Has to come up with a cover story? Not credible because, even when Cross is flagging him down, even when Cross steps onto the pavement, Paul side-steps into the roadway in order to get past. He's then touched on the shoulder so that he has to interrupt his walk to work and accompany Cross to where the body is. Paul's account exonerates Cross, so they're either both lying, or Cross is innocent.

You can hit me with as many "Yes buts" as you like on this. It's game over for me as far as Cross being a suspect is concerned.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

"I, for one, didn't know it before. However, I think that to say that a mother living on Pinchin Street "ties Cross to Berner Street", is over-egging the pudding somewhat."

Aha. Then we disagree. And it IS Easter, is it not - as for the eggs.

Myself, I find it extremely interesting that Cross/Lechmereīs mother and daughter lived at an address to which Berner Street offered a very useful thoroughfare. Taken together with the fact that Cross himself had lived in the Berner Street area for many years, I think it will be difficult to get the pudding recept wrong.

"He may, or may not, have taken that route when visiting her."

Yes. And the first option is what makes it interesting.

"Isn't 1am (or thereabouts) rather a strange time to be starting or ending a visit to your dear old mum, though?"

I donīt know. And we canīt ask them, can we? Moreover, he would have left his motherīs before he killed, since you canīt do both simultaneously. And to be fair, it would seem that the murder should be placed in the vicinity of 12.45-1.00 to be correct, potentially peeling off a quarter of an hour on your bid. It would also have taken him some time to walk to the murder site, taking more time off. Maybe he saw Stride there and decided to have a go at her, but waited for the right opportunity before striking, further slicing some time off. So whatever time he lft his motherīs if he was the killer, it was NOT 1 AM!

But surely, Bridewell, the TRULY interesting thing here is that Cross HAD a reason to walk Berner Street? And surely, it is compelling that a murder that could NOT be knit to his way to work, actually tok place on this spot? Equally one must ask oneself why this particular murder, perpetrated at a spot he did NOT pass on his way to work, instead was committed on a Saturday night?

THIS is where the significance lies. After that, we can argue as much as we want to that he may have preferred other streets, walking to his mother, or that he would not want disturb her at a late hour - it matters little. We may just as well suggest that he probably disliked killing people. It is equally viable - but it does not alter the evidence one scrap.

"The argument presented hitherto has been, among other things, that Cross knew this route well because he used it every day on his way to work. That's fine as far as it goes. We can't then stand the thing on its head and argue that Paul's entrance "was something Cross could not have foreseen". If he walked that way to work every day - as suggested on this thread - then he must have had a pretty fair idea as to how many people did the same. He can't be cunning and observant, but also stupid and unobservant surely?"

You are having me on, yes? Surely, this is not something you argue seriously?

But what the hell - Iīll bite!

To begin with, it is wrong to say that he was specifically used to the Doveton Street - Broad Street tour. He had only moved to Doveton Street a short time before the Nicholīs murder.
Nor did I argue that - what I argued was that he had gone to work for more than 20 years, and thus he was very familiar with the streets being patrolled by PC:s using beats.

But even if we were to make the assumption that he knew the Doveton Street - Broad Street route very well (he had walked it less than a hundred times, though, going to his job), then why would we assume that he had ever seen Paul? Paul was late for work, remember, and maybe he normally walked Buckīs Row a lot earlier than he did on this morning. If this was the case, how would Cross/Lechmere know that Paul would oversleep on this particular day? He would not have been THAT clever, I think.So how should he have foreseen Pauls appearance on the scene..??

Bridewell, you need to consider that there were NO streets that would ensure total solitude. Buckīs Row, though, would have been a very reasonable bid for a relatively deserted street. And that was as good as it was going to get.

"when Paul first catches sight of Cross, he is emphatically not "virtually standing over a body", as has been previously alleged."

Other reports have Paul stating that Cross stood "where the body was". I for one have not said that he stood virtually over the body - but I think there is a good chance that he did.

"Emergency reaction? In danger of being caught? Has to come up with a cover story? Not credible because, even when Cross is flagging him down, even when Cross steps onto the pavement, Paul side-steps into the roadway in order to get past. He's then touched on the shoulder so that he has to interrupt his walk to work and accompany Cross to where the body is.Paul's account exonerates Cross, so they're either both lying, or Cross is innocent."

And Cross would have known that Paul was not going to see the body because ...? He would have been sure that Paul would not cross the street because ...?

Consider, Bridewell, that there was a man standing in the road when Paul came along. Reasonably, this would be where Pauls attention focused, thus reducing the chance that he would notice Polly. But would Cross realize that this was the case? He had himself not had any trouble spotting Nichols, and the reasonable thing to think would then be that Paul would not fail in that way either.

On occasions when there are not two sides to a thing, there are more, Bridewell.

"It's game over for me as far as Cross being a suspect is concerned."

Youīre welcome. It is always like that, you see - some agree, some donīt.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

How would you account for the time lost by Cross between him leaving home and meeting Paul ? I'm too lazy to go and check it, but I believe that Cross has about 15 mins unaccounted for. what might he have been doing....go on, speculate, Bridewell.

Cross certainly had approached the body before meeting Paul, because despite the dark, he knew that it was a woman. So he had moved back when he heard Paul coming.

If Cross and Paul both took the same route to work regularly, in a similar time frame, they must surely have passed each other before even if they didn't know each other.

If Cross recognised Paul as he went to pass him, how could he be sure that
Paul wouldn't recognise him ? (if I saw somebody pass me in the street that I knew by sight, I would think that they might know me by sight as well).

The body was sure to be discovered and witnesses called for. How would Cross explain standing near the body and not stopping Paul, if the latter identified him to the Police ?

It would make more sense for him to stop Paul and try to involve him in the discovery, wouldn't it.

Ho ! My answer has just crossed Fish's and I see that we both argued opposite reasoning (whether Cross would have passed Paul before in the morning).

That's good then -we've got both options covered !

[Robert]

"And Cross would have known that Paul was not going to see the body because ...? He would have been sure that Paul would not cross the street because ...?

Consider, Bridewell, that there was a man standing in the road when Paul came along. Reasonably, this would be where Pauls attention focused, thus reducing the chance that he would notice Polly. But would Cross realize that this was the case? He had himself not had any trouble spotting Nichols, and the reasonable thing to think would then be that Paul would not fail in that way either."

Fish, Cross never did spot Nichols. He's guilty in this scenario - remember?