Who was the first clothes-puller?

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Robert. OK, that explains it. Thanks.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

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

Unlikely fully buttoned, but almost definitely from collar to waist.

As for them WEARING it fully buttoned... Well it was pretty cold. Showing cleavage in the lower classes got you some unwelcome police type attention. Not that opera gowns covered more, but those were on "decent" women I guess. Basically it all depends on where your stays start. And where you were wearing them, but Nichols had short stays, which typically would be from about two inches below the collarbone down to an inch above the bellybutton. So she wouldn't have her dress undone to show her stays. Unless she needed to nip in the waist more than she needed to support her bosom, and she was wearing them as a waist cincher. But I think they would have mentioned that.

[Phil Carter]

Unlikely fully buttoned, but almost definitely from collar to waist.

As for them WEARING it fully buttoned... Well it was pretty cold. Showing cleavage in the lower classes got you some unwelcome police type attention. Not that opera gowns covered more, but those were on "decent" women I guess. Basically it all depends on where your stays start. And where you were wearing them, but Nichols had short stays, which typically would be from about two inches below the collarbone down to an inch above the bellybutton. So she wouldn't have her dress undone to show her stays. Unless she needed to nip in the waist more than she needed to support her bosom, and she was wearing them as a waist cincher. But I think they would have mentioned that.

Hello Errata,

Perhaps a prime example of how things were worn, if perhaps a little overdone, is the apparral of Catherine Eddowes? I would suggest that the temperature also had something to do with why she wore so many clothes, and how many were buttoned up? This would apply to all poor "street walking" women with no "flash" clothes to show off, no?

best wishes

Phil

[Errata]

Hello Errata,

Perhaps a prime example of how things were worn, if perhaps a little overdone, is the apparral of Catherine Eddowes? I would suggest that the temperature also had something to do with why she wore so many clothes, and how many were buttoned up? This would apply to all poor "street walking" women with no "flash" clothes to show off, no?

best wishes

Phil

It is a good example, but it isn't just about temperature or fashion. I mean, yeah it was cold so Eddowes was bundled up, but it's hard to really understand how profoundly a total lack of storage affects everything. I mean, I lived out of a sedan for a month when I was on a job, and that was really bad. My fiance lived out of a backpack for 6 months. But even a backpack is a place to put things. These women had pockets. And that's it. Everything they owned went out the door with them in the morning, with no place to stash it and nothing to even pack it up in. Nichols was wearing astonishingly little as far as a doss house lodger goes. I don't know if maybe she had a place to keep some things, or if she was just that impoverished that she could not even afford a change of clothes. But if that was in fact all she had, she wouldn't have lasted through the winter. I think it's very likely that she was dying long before Jack the Ripper ever got to her.

[Fisherman]

Robert:

" 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."

I see your point, Robert. But hereŽs the thing; if we make the assumption that Cross was the killer, then it would seem that he used the time window when he went to job as his opportunity. Taken together with how he handled Paul - again, IF he was the killer - one must accept that he would have planned things rather carefully and chosen his moves in quite a clever and adaptable way. In short, if Cross was our man, then we are not dealing with an irrational, "disorganized" man.
I find that when one ponders a guy like Cross, one makes the mistake of sort of doing the walk with him in thought, innards in pockets and all. One arrives at Pickfords and asks oneself: Good Lord, where do I put this stuff..?
But in truth, if he planned things, then he could of course also have planned the innards stash in advance. He may have spent a lot of time thinking about and perhaps even creating that stash, and it may have been very cleverly chosen.
Likewise, we donŽt know that he would have wanted to keep the innards as souvenirs. Maybe it was the extracting that appealed to him? Maybe he threw them to the street dogs? The possibilities are many, although I of course accept that killing people, digging their guts out and going to job is not the "ideal" solution. But if the ideal solution had always applied, then maybe Jack would have not been hidden to us?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"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. "

Sally, the truth of the matter seems to be that he did not "also" use the name Lechmere - he actually used the name Lechmere on all occasions BUT FOR his dealings with the police, by the appearance of things. All the census listings we know of and from the time we speak of, for example, are signed Lechmere.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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."

Good to see you around, Lechmere! Yes, I know that you suggest these details as possible causes for his giving up the ripping - you said as much when we met back in November. And I think that this matter can be overcome, since we know that other killers have given things a rest for very long periods of time, and it is very reasonable, I believe, to argue that some of the unsolved serial killer cases involve killers that decided to give up on killing, thus ending their series of killings and leaving us non the wiser.

Thanks for listing the points speaking for Cross/Lechmere being a very viable candidate. In many senses I agree with you that he should top the list of candidates. Not least the fact that he fits the bill geographically to such a large extent is compelling!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Robert:

"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."

My take too. And that effort did probably not involve just speaking to Paul, but also approaching him physically, which would be why Paul made an evasive half-circle passing Cross. He (Paul) apparently was unnerved by Cross, and that would have increased if/when Cross took a step or two towards him.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Errata:

"here's the thing. The dress likely had buttons, because Victorian clothing was very fitted."

If so, then the listing of her clothing mentions the ulster buttons, but leaves out the dress buttons. At any rate, I donŽt see a killer with potentially very little time to do his work, who sets about unbuttoning an ulster and a dress. And if he HAD done that, then the better guess would be that the garments slumped down on one or both sides, leaving her fully exposed. If the buttons were only undone halfway down, he would not get full access.
No, I donŽt think the button suggestion works very well. And I do think that it would have been mentioned if the garments had been unbuttoned.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"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."

... and like Dennis Rader was, being a devoted family man! And like Robert Hansen, a meek baker with a family, always in clear sight of the community in which he lived. And there are other examples too.

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

That is very true - but a person without ties and regular habits would be exactly what the police targetted and prioritized in the East end back in 1888: those who could not show the alibi of being visibly adjusted to and fit in with society.
It works both ways, does it not? Any killer such as Jack would have to take bad things with the good ones whichever way he lived:
Seemingly well adjusted family man - serious problems keeping the family and friends unknowing.
Loner with no regular habits - serious problems with drawing police attention to his lifestyle.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Sally:

"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. "

Sally, the truth of the matter seems to be that he did not "also" use the name Lechmere - he actually used the name Lechmere on all occasions BUT FOR his dealings with the police, by the appearance of things. All the census listings we know of, for example, are signed Lechmere.

The best,
Fisherman

Hello Fish

Well, to be exact we don't actually know that for a fact. We know that in official documents surviving the only time he appears as Cross is in connection with Nichols.

And ok, that might be seen as suspicious by some - but then again, there may be any number of reasons for that which don't necessitate him being a murderer - he may have wanted to protect his identity, to escape the inevitable attention and to protect his family. In other words, maybe he didn't want to be involved any more than he had to be. Using the name Cross isn't damning in itself by a long chalk.

I'm not averse to Cross/Lechmere as a suspect per se -and fine, again one could view his appearance at the murder scene suspicious - but it's a bit thin, I think. There doesn't seem to be much to hang the suspect label on here so far as I can see - so, he was at the scene and he used an alias in dealings with the police - but easily explanable if he didn't want to get involved for personal reasons; or even if he was guilty of other, petty crimes and didn't want the police getting wind of it.

There needs to be more, in other words.

All the same, interesting posts and thoughts, Fish.

[Sally]

Robert:

"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."

My take too. And that effort did probably not involve just speaking to Paul, but also approaching him physically, which would be why Paul made an evasive half-circle passing Cross. He (Paul) apparently was unnerved by Cross, and that would have increased if/when Cross took a step or two towards him.

The best,
Fisherman

I agree - but I don't see what choice Cross had - he had to draw Paul's attention, or risk being viewed as suspicious later - as Robert points out. Then again, if he was simply a man on his way to work, he must surely have been in shock at discovering a dead woman in his path and may well have been behaving oddly anyway, as people in shock do.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"he may have wanted to protect his identity, to escape the inevitable attention and to protect his family."

Mmm. Lechmere pointed me to a detail that is interesting in this respect. At the inquest, all the witnesses called arrived in their best clothes.

But Charles Cross showed up in his working attire.

And maybe this is where your suggestion applies very much - that he wanted to keep his family out of things. Now, if he was NOT the Ripper, he would not need to keep it out; what protection did they need in such a case? Exactly, none. But if he WAS the Ripper, and wanted to keep his wife unknowing of his having been called to a murder inquest, how would he best go about such a thing? Perhaps, Sally, by putting on his working clothes, the way he did every day, and wawing goodbye to the Mrs: "Off to work, dear, have supper ready when I come home!"

But would not his wife, illiterate though she was, have gotten the news that her husband was written about in the papers? No she would not - because that papers wrote about a Charles Cross, and not about Charles Allen Lechmere.

Food for thought, IŽd say.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Perhaps, it not being unusual in those days to pass persons lying out on the streets.and there not being any telltale signs that anything was wrong,Cross did not pay particular attention.Not unusual in London even in these days.W as his wife illiterate?

[curious]

But Charles Cross showed up in his working attire.

And maybe this is where your suggestion applies very much - that he wanted to keep his family out of things. Now, if he was NOT the Ripper, he would not need to keep it out; what protection did they need in such a case? Exactly, none. But if he WAS the Ripper, and wanted to keep his wife unknowing of his having been called to a murder inquest, how would he best go about such a thing? Perhaps, Sally, by putting on his working clothes, the way he did every day, and waving goodbye to the Mrs: "Off to work, dear, have supper ready when I come home!"

But would not his wife, illiterate though she was, have gotten the news that her husband was written about in the papers? No she would not - because that papers wrote about a Charles Cross, and not about Charles Allen Lechmere.

Fisherman

Actually, that does appear very telling, doesn't it?

He did not want the wife to start adding things up in her head. So, hubby goes off to work, a fella named Charles Cross testifies . . . nothing whatsoever to raise any red flags.

Very interesting.

Otherwise, you would think finding a dead woman on his way to work and having to testify at an inquest would be something he would be talking about, perhaps endlessly, with his family and circle of friends.

Unless, he could not afford to take much time off from work and dressed for work so that the second he was released from the inquest, he could go finish the day???

Maybe?