Who was the first clothes-puller?

[Robert]

Hi Lynn

I was trying to make Fish's scenario work by adopting the earlier time for Chapman's murder. If you take the murder as occurring around dawn, it doesn't really go with the Lechmere-as-planner idea.

Fish, I'm not convinced by Cross but I admit he's well worth looking at.

[Fisherman]

Robert:

"I'm not convinced by Cross but I admit he's well worth looking at."

I´m not convinced either, mind you, Robert. The only thing I am convinced about is that he deserves a lot more attention than he has gotten over the years!

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

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

He did not want his name getting out that he was a witness and/or involved in the case, for whatever reason. maybe he did not want himself or his family
to be bothered about it, least of all from the real killer who was still at large.

[lynn cates]

ah!

Hello Robert. Thanks. Now I get it.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

Abby - when he gave the name 'Cross' to Mizen he had no reason to suppose that any killer was loose.

Cross's mother was living literally a couple of minutes walk south of the Berner Street murder scene. One of his daughters was brought up by his mother for some reason. That is a good potential reason for him to be visiting that locality on Saturday night when he didn't have to work next day. Also he used to live in that immediate vicinity (James Street, now Burslem Street) until mid June 1888. He knew the Berner Street area and had a good reason to potentially be there on Saturday night.
If he botched the Stride murder and wanted to kill again he would surely not have headed home - he went in the opposite direction. The apron/graffiti are located on his direct route home from Mitre Square.

We don't know his shift patterns nor do we know how difficult it would have been to nip out of work - or whether his duties as a Carman would have enabled him to stop off on the way to some job. Serial killers not infrequently turn out to be white van drivers or mini cab drivers and the like as their work patterns facilitate the commissioning of their crimes.

As for organ storage - this would have been a problem for anyone I would submit - just as would blood splattered clothes. Maybe he took his clothes off in Kelly's room?
Maybe he took the organs and threw them away soon after? We don't know why he took them or what he got out of it. There are theories that medical students took them from the morgues.
In short the organ removal issue is hardly one that precludes Cross as a suspect.
Anyway I would guess that he would have had his own 'grooming' area and his own allocated or regular stable at Pickfords and could have stored his stuff there.

[Lechmere]

Also on the topic of buttons and so forth on Nicholls's clothing... it seems inconceivable whoever did it, that they did her buttons up afterwards.
The presumption must be that the murderer yanked her dress up and attacked her lower abdomen. He seemingly had some problem as the stays seem to have inhibited his attack. The most likely explanation is that he had not worked out how to do it 'properly' from his perspective. In later attacks he adopted a different approach.
The significance of this in the Nicholls murder is that the dress was not left fully up. He must have yanked it fully up to access the abdomen. Why pull it back down, at least partially? As Fisherman pointed out at the outset of this thread, this strongly suggests interruption. No other Whitechapel murder has this feature. I would suggest that there are very serious reasons for supposing that Cross was the person who was interrupted.

Why didn't the police think this?
They had preconceived ideas about likely culprits.
Initially they thought it was either a gang attack or the work of a mad foreigner. They soon focussed on Pizer and then Isenschmidt.
Cross was in a stable household (i.e. not an itinerant Lodging House dweller - another group the police were prejudiced against).
Cross had a stable job. The police thought that people with stable jobs were not criminals - as indeed most are not, but serial murderes are not normal criminals.
Cross did not seem mad - and most psychopaths do not seem mad.

[Robert]

Hi Lechmere

Do you think that Cross was BS, or Pipeman, or some third person?

[Abby Normal]

Abby - when he gave the name 'Cross' to Mizen he had no reason to suppose that any killer was loose.

Cross's mother was living literally a couple of minutes walk south of the Berner Street murder scene. One of his daughters was brought up by his mother for some reason. That is a good potential reason for him to be visiting that locality on Saturday night when he didn't have to work next day. Also he used to live in that immediate vicinity (James Street, now Burslem Street) until mid June 1888. He knew the Berner Street area and had a good reason to potentially be there on Saturday night.
If he botched the Stride murder and wanted to kill again he would surely not have headed home - he went in the opposite direction. The apron/graffiti are located on his direct route home from Mitre Square.

We don't know his shift patterns nor do we know how difficult it would have been to nip out of work - or whether his duties as a Carman would have enabled him to stop off on the way to some job. Serial killers not infrequently turn out to be white van drivers or mini cab drivers and the like as their work patterns facilitate the commissioning of their crimes.

As for organ storage - this would have been a problem for anyone I would submit - just as would blood splattered clothes. Maybe he took his clothes off in Kelly's room?
Maybe he took the organs and threw them away soon after? We don't know why he took them or what he got out of it. There are theories that medical students took them from the morgues.
In short the organ removal issue is hardly one that precludes Cross as a suspect.
Anyway I would guess that he would have had his own 'grooming' area and his own allocated or regular stable at Pickfords and could have stored his stuff there.

Hi Lech
Abby - when he gave the name 'Cross' to Mizen he had no reason to suppose that any killer was loose.

He didn't? other than th fact he just found a dead body? Even if murder was not first on his mind, surely it crossed his mind, or at least some kind of foul play.

Serial killers not infrequently turn out to be white van drivers or mini cab drivers and the like as their work patterns facilitate the commissioning of their crimes.

Right. modern day killers who can use there autos as a mobile bolt hole.

Anyway I would guess that he would have had his own 'grooming' area and his own allocated or regular stable at Pickfords and could have stored his stuff there.[/QUOTE]

Even then showing up with bloodstains, however minor, a bloody knife and internal organs (that would start to smell within hours) and continuing to do so after he is so involved with police/inquest etc just does not seem realistic IMHO, let alone getting away with it.

These were sexually motivated murders by a street smart cunning serial killer who I would pretty much fairly bet used his trophies for sexual arousal and possibly also cannibalism. They would begin to rot immediately so I imagine the killer wanted to get somewhere private as quickly as possible to get away from people and police, clean up and do whatever he did with his trophies. Not head to work, nor home to a wife and kid.

[Cogidubnus]

A stable job...

Anyway I would guess that he would have had his own 'grooming' area and his own allocated or regular stable at Pickfords and could have stored his stuff there

Horses are quite sensitive creatures...Wouldn't the scent of fresh blood or unfresh meat drive them to react?

Just a thought...

Dave

[Fisherman]

Abby:

"He didn't? other than the fact he just found a dead body? Even if murder was not first on his mind, surely it crossed his mind, or at least some kind of foul play. "

He would not have known that he had found a dead body, Abby - at least he did not know this, if he was the good guy he claimed to be. This, I believe, is what Lechmere is saying.
Cross said to Mizen that he had found a woman that was either drunk or dead, and that would mean that he had not concluded that she was dead. Moreover, even if she WAS dead, how would Cross know that foul play was involved? Could have been a heart attack or anything else, all much more likely than murder. So why call himself Cross instead of Lechmere under such circumstances?

"Even then showing up with bloodstains, however minor, a bloody knife and internal organs (that would start to smell within hours) and continuing to do so after he is so involved with police/inquest etc just does not seem realistic IMHO, let alone getting away with it."

Let´s first establish that we do not know that he DID take the innards to Pickfords! And even if he did, why must we presume that he let them lay and rot out in the open? He would have heard of jars, and understood the practicality of them when it came to hiding smell. And would the rest of the people at Pickfords know that he had been involved in the investigation? All they may well have known was that a guy called Cross had witnessed, and that their employee - called Lechmere - had been sick one day, not arriving at his work.

Last, but not least, I don´t think he must have had blood on his clothes, nor do I think that a tiny bloodstain would have had his co-workers suspecting him to be the Ripper. Most people would perhaps have expected the killer to be a madman soaked in blood, not a family man, engaged in regular work and totally rational.

The best,
Fisherman

[Errata]

Horses are quite sensitive creatures...Wouldn't the scent of fresh blood or unfresh meat drive them to react?

Just a thought...

Dave

they'd try to bust out the wall to escape.

I'm also not sure why interruption would cause the killer to pull the dress back down. Her throat was butchered, and he couldn't hide that. Why hide the other mutilations? It doesn't make her stick out less, given thats she lying prone in the street so to speak.

I've been thinking about it. Regardless of whether buttons were open or not, he had a lot of skirt to deal with. If he is mutilating her from the side, the easiest thing would be to draw her skirts up into his lap. He laid her down, knelt at her side, and pulled the skirts up from the waistband. This has the benefit of letting him hold on to the skirts if he has to pull the fabric up more. He wouldn't have to get up to do it. If the skirts were in his lap, and the waistband above her breasts (which I think it was. The workers pulled her skirts down to knees, not her ankles as modesty would dictate. I think the skirts were shortened by the waistband being so high up) Then as soon as he stood up, the skirts would fall across her and cover her abdomen. It doesn't require an active act of covering her, the way a knee length skirt would. Three yards of fabric in an ankle length skirt is a lot of material to manage. Simply dropping it covers quite a bit.

[Cogidubnus]

I suspect you're right

Dave

[Bridewell]

No other victim in all the Whitechapel murders was abandoned by the first people to find it.

You think?

If by "abandoned" you mean that they went for help, the sentence should surely read:

"No other victim in all the Whitechapel murders apart from Martha Tabram (John Reeves) Annie Chapman (John Davies), Elizabeth Stride (Louis Diemschutz), Catharine Eddowes (Pc Watkins) and Mary Kelly (Thomas Bowyer) was abandoned by the first people to find it".

So, apart from the fact that virtually all of them were abandoned in this way, none of them were. Absolutely.

Regards,

Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

I love the earlier discussion about whether Polly Nichols' killer did, or did not, undo her buttons. If he wanted access to her abdomen he'd have torn her clothing open, wouldn't he, rather than "unbutton" it? It's quicker.

What's the alternative? A killer who's prepared to cut a woman's throat, but too much of a gentleman to give offence by ill-using her apparel? Actually, on second thoughts, it's quite possible he did think that way. Apologies, one and all.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Sally]

He did not want his name getting out that he was a witness and/or involved in the case, for whatever reason. maybe he did not want himself or his family
to be bothered about it, least of all from the real killer who was still at large.

Absolutely. Thank you Abby, for a sensible, down to earth approach.

Right, this Cross business - ok, so he called himself Cross to avoid being identified as Lechmere - fair enough, I'll buy that. However, it takes a truly outstanding game of mental leapfrog to turn him into the Ripper just because of that - so far, what else is there?

Solid evidence, I mean, not speculative fun. Let's see it if we're going to have Cross as a serious object of suspicion.