Who was the first clothes-puller?

[Fisherman]

Abby:

"However, he was on his way to work. I think the ripper was cunning and planned his murders (to the extent he picked which nights he went out hunting) so i find it highly unlikely JtR would kill on the way to work with all the problems that would entail"

It is a fair remark. Then again, Cross was a married man too, so maybe the walk to work was what provided him with the best opportunity?
What conveniencies he would have had to brush up at Pickfords or on his way there - who knows? It is not easy to say to what extend it was called for either.

If the killer got lots of blood on him, then somebody walked the streets drenched in blood without anybody picking up on it. Better then to make the guess that the killer did NOT get much blood on him, and could therefore take to the streets unnoticed.

As for the timing, Cross said he left home around 3.30 and he found Nichols 3.45 or thereabouts. And it took only a few minutes to walk from his dwellings to the murder site, not a full quarter of an hour at any stretch. Michael Connor timed the distance to five, possibly six minutes. So IF Cross left home at 3.30, then he had around ten minutes to pick up Nichols, take her into Buck´s Row, kill her - and find out that Paul was on his way.
The Ripper was a fast worker, so the time issue is not that important, I feel. In a matter of minutes, he could find and despatch a victim, we all know that - Eddowes makes it very clear.

The Cross scenario calls for a cool customer, yes - but only the coolest of customers kill and eviscerate in the open streets.


The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Robert:

" if Jack was in control of himself when he killed Polly, why kill her on his way to work?"

Maybe he recognized it as his only useful window of time, Robert? He would have gone home when it was still light and lots of people in the streets, and as a family man, it would seem strange if he left home and walked the streets on the nights when the victims were killed. His illiterate wife may have become suspicious.

The early morning, though, provided darkness and empty streets - and he had a perfectly good reason to be out on them streets, should anybody ask him: he was just another carman on his way to work. It´s a great alibi, in fact.

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Hi Fish

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?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Robert,

If the eminently self-possessed Cross had murdered Nichols, why need he have been responsible for the others?

It's this bogus JtR "did one did all" trope that's screwing up our thinking.

Regards,

Simon

[Robert]

Hi Simon

Ah, well that's a completely different issue - or rather, five completely different issues.

[Cogidubnus]

Were Tabram's clothes not in a similar state ?
(Ducks)

Dave

[lynn cates]

Yes.

Hello Christer.

"Issenschmidt, that is, yes? Then he would have been very lucky indeed to walk both in and away unnoticed, one has to say. And it would have been only the shortest of times before she was discovered, judging by the warmth in the body and the possible little twitch Paul felt in her."

To be sure. Luck, as you say.

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi Robert,

I get it.

Sod a solution: keep the mystery going.

Regards,

Simon

[Sally]

Were Tabram's clothes not in a similar state ?
(Ducks)

Dave

Were they? Oh yes, so the they were.

Coincidence, surely?

[lynn cates]

my tune

Hello Simon.

"If the eminently self-possessed Cross had murdered Nichols, why need he have been responsible for the others?

It's this bogus JtR "did one did all" trope that's screwing up our thinking."

Now you're talking!

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi Lynn,

Welcome aboard.

Regards,

Simon

[Robert]

Hi Simon

Is the contention that five different murderers (or for simplicity, let's call them four different abdomen slicers) sprang into action at the same time and stopped at the same time?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Robert,

No. That is the most weak and exhausted counter-suggestion in the universe.

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

That is the true mystery of the Whitechapel murders.

Regards,

Simon

[Cogidubnus]

or even six?

Dave

[Robert]

Hi Simon

Well, I'll leave Stride out of it because I'm not more than 60-40 about her.

You say no common denominator. What about the throat-cutting? What about the organ removal?

Perhaps the police viewed the crimes as the work of one man, because they were?

Actually there is an interesting passage in the AF report posted by Lynn which I'm sure he won't mind my quoting :

"During these examinations the police inspector received a telegram [saying] that in Meyter Square near Duke Street Oldgate, another woman had been murdered. This one had been cut into pieces just like the murdered Annie Chapman. Once again there was a commotion among the policemen and people began to run—out of the club, into the club, out into the yard, back from the yard. It went on like this until 4 [o’clock] in the morning. They searched everywhere; they looked for the murderer in all the neighbors’ houses, in the editor’s office, in every corner, under the tables, on the tables and in every pocket."

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.