Who was the first clothes-puller?

[Robert]

Fish, I think there's an excellent chance that the police found out about Cross's other name. It doesn't seem to have bothered them though.

[Fisherman]

Robert:

" I think there's an excellent chance that the police found out about Cross's other name. It doesn't seem to have bothered them though."

If they did, it didnīt end up in any source! But I do see what you mean; that the police would have checked the address and at Pickfordīs. Sounds reasonable to me - but I am not sure, I must say, not in the least. Maybe he did not slip through the net - maybe there WAS no net for a man who so clearly had done his duty as a citizen ...?

And so to bed!

Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

Christer

Pepys you ain't!

Dave

[Ben]

The problem with any attempt to finger cross as the killer is that he simply isn't suspicious. It is perfectly fine to consider him a possible killer, and observe that he was locally resident and present at the scene of the crime shortly after its commission etc. These are all perfectly sound arguments in support of the premise that he was suitably placed to commit the Nichols murder, but means and opportunity alone are insufficient in the absence of any good reason to think that Cross was anything other than what he presented himself as - a man on his way to work who discovered the body.

He had a legitimate reason for being there: he was on his way to work. His presence at the crime scene at that time is vindicated. Had he been seen at the crime scene and subsequently provided a non-existent or spurious reason for being there, then you'd have grounds for actual suspicion. Had his statement been doubted, or had it seemed obviously implausible, that too would be grounds for suspicion. Ditto if he had provided a woolly, unconvincing alibi-less account of his movements immediately after the accepted time of the murder (when, we might imagine, the real killer was preoccupied with getting rid of blood etc). But all are absent in Cross's case.

Additionally, a serial killer who is subject to high-profile police and public exposure, as Cross was, will usually abort further murderous activities for some time afterwards, if not abandon them completely. In this case, however, we know the Chapman murder happened just days later. Had Nichols been the last murder, I might be inclined to view Cross with more interest, but as she was one of the first, I'm not.

I'd file him under "probably not", but would rate him considerably higher than some of the more "mainstream" suspects.

[harry]

On the points raised about Cross,cannot the same be said of Paul?.Let us say that Paul left Nicholls lying there,and was departing in the direction from which Cross was arriving.He sees or hears Cross,hides untill Cross passes and stops at Nicholls body,then follows and joins Cross at Nicholls body.An audatious killer taking risks.It is all right raising possibilities,but as Ben points out,the probability is that both Paul and Cross were doing what they claimed,just going to work.

[Sally]

All very interesting, but..

There is, to begin with, the fact that three of the victims fell prey along his way to work. And another of them was killed on a street leading to his motherīs house. Thatīs four out of five victims that can be geographically positioned along routes that Cross would have used.
There is also the timing, where we have him walking to work at the times - roughly - when the deeeds were done.
There is also the strange fact that he used the name Cross when talking to the police.
There is the fact that he was in place together with Nichols in Buckīs Row - and with no other persons present until Paul turned up.

Oh assumptions, assumptions...

All of the above is circumstantial, with the exception of the name changing and a known appearance at the Nicols murder scene.

To say that three of the victims were killed on Lechmere's way to work is an estimation only, unless you know a) which route he took to work and b) that he always took the same route to work.

The victim killed on a street leading to his mother's house is more interesting - which vicitm was that; and was his mother living there at the time?

I'm afraid that 4 out of 5 victims 'can be' placed along routes that Cross 'would have' used is speculation - see above.

Timing is little more than very broad and generalised circumstantial evidence - the same could be said to apply to many thousands of men going to work in Whitechapel every morning. As Harry points out - much of what you suggest here could as easily be applied to Paul as Cross. Or somebody else entirely.

The 'strange fact' of the name is at least a fact, I'll concede that. And it is interesting. However, it's a bit of a leap to suggest that this implies Ripperhood for Cross. As I've already pointed out to you, a number of reasons, some quite inoccuous, could exist for that. The basic assumption on which the allegation of guilt is based - that nobody knew of the Cross connection in Lechmere's life and thus he must have been practicing nefarious deception - is impossible to know or prove.

As for your other 'fact' - that Cross was the only person at the scene until Paul turned up - I'm afraid that isn't a 'fact' at all; it's conjecture based on an assumption of guilt. It only works if Cross was the killer - otherwise, the killer has left the scene and Cross comes across Nichols on his way to work - just as he said. It is therefore useless as an indication of guilt.

So, what there appears to be of possible interest is:

The use of the name Cross
The murder of one of the victims near his mothers house.

And I thought it was also said somewhere on this thread that he may have had an acquaintance close to one of the murder scenes - perhaps we could hear more about that?

I'm after specifics, Fisherman, not vague woolly statements - which victim was killed near his mother's house? Did she live there at the time? Who was Lechmere's acquaintance? Is the connection proven? Where did he live at the time of the murders?

Surely if the case against Cross has any substance, and is not, say 90% hyperbole, these should be easy questions to answer?

[Sally]

Robert:

" I think there's an excellent chance that the police found out about Cross's other name. It doesn't seem to have bothered them though."

If they did, it didnīt end up in any source! But I do see what you mean; that the police would have checked the address and at Pickfordīs. Sounds reasonable to me - but I am not sure, I must say, not in the least. Maybe he did not slip through the net - maybe there WAS no net for a man who so clearly had done his duty as a citizen ...?

And so to bed!

Fisherman

Now, I find this hard to believe - on the one hand, we are asked to accept that the police would have been able to 'check out' all and sundry details of a lodging house dweller (for example) and would have done so rigorously; but on the other hand, none of them would have thought to check out a witness who was first on the scene at what was considered at the time to be the third brutal murder in the space of a few weeks?

Oh, Silly Coppers!

[Fisherman]

Cogidubnus:

"Pepys you ain't!"

Nope. But I sleep just the same! And I may perhaps do THAT better than old Samuel...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"The problem with any attempt to finger cross as the killer is that he simply isn't suspicious. "

There are two answers to that one, Ben. The first one is that giving another name than the one you normally go by to the police IS suspicious. We of course do not know if he used the name Cross at other occasions too back in 1888, but from what we can tell from surviving documents, he did not do so.

When it comes to his overall behaviour at the scene, you are correct, as far as I can tell. But not behaving in a suspicious manner was what kept Rader in the clear.

Iīve had Sally telling me that as long as I cant point to a story of psychosises and a history of problems with the police and such thing, I have no evidence. I find that a very strange suggestion, and I would warn very much against preconceived notions about the killer. If we work from the assumption that all killers must act suspiciously, then we will miss a number of them.

"He had a legitimate reason for being there: he was on his way to work."

Correct. But that does not mean that he becomes less suspicious when it comes to the practicalities of serial killing as we know it, because these killers very often strike on grounds that are well known to them, instead of doing the more logical thing: kill in places where nobody could rationally place them. Lots and lots of killers have killed along the routes their work took them, and in this respect, Cross fits the bill perfectly.

Also, three MORE of the victims can be placed either along his working route or along the way to his mother. And the only murder that was pepetrated when he probably was NOT working, took place very early on a Sunday morning a short stretch from his mothers place.

"a serial killer who is subject to high-profile police and public exposure, as Cross was, will usually abort further murderous activities for some time afterwards, if not abandon them completely. In this case, however, we know the Chapman murder happened just days later. "

But just like you said, apparently no suspicion at all attached to Cross. That left him relatively in the free.
Besides, if he felt compelled to kill, then there would have been little he could do about the police interest in the case. You take your chances, and we have heaps of examples of caught serial killers who killed when they could have stayed undetected by not killing.

An interesting, perhaps coincidental, factor in this business is that when the Nichols murder was fiollowed up, it was followed up by a murder perpetrated on the doorstep to Corbettīs court, more or less, where Robert Paul - not Charles Cross - worked.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Oh assumptions, assumptions..."

With respect, Sally, somebody who thinks that only a proven psychological status, combined with a police arrest record, can work as evidence for being Jack the Ripper, is the one who assumes things.

Like, for example, you.

"To say that three of the victims were killed on Lechmere's way to work is an estimation only, unless you know a) which route he took to work and b) that he always took the same route to work. "

We know where he lived, and we know where he worked. There were two logical main thoroughfares leading that way, and together they present the approximate territory through which he would have walked. Unless he took the way over Liverpool, that is.

"Timing is little more than very broad and generalised circumstantial evidence - the same could be said to apply to many thousands of men going to work in Whitechapel every morning."

But interestingly, only one of them is known to have been alone with Nichols that morning, at the exact time of her murder, more or less. Therefore, Sally, we may safely deduct that he stood an infinitely better chance of being Nicholsīkiller than all the rest.
You need to be wary of these things.

"As for your other 'fact' - that Cross was the only person at the scene until Paul turned up - I'm afraid that isn't a 'fact' at all; it's conjecture based on an assumption of guilt. It only works if Cross was the killer - otherwise, the killer has left the scene and Cross comes across Nichols on his way to work - just as he said. It is therefore useless as an indication of guilt. "

From the moment Cross arrived at the murder scene, up to the point Paul arrived, Cross WAS the only person there, but for Nichols. That, Iīm afraid, is not conjecture. Of course, Z Z Top may have dropped in and waited alongside Cross for the odd minute, something that he omitted to mention later, but the more credible thing is that he WAS alone with Nichols for an unknown period of time. And that is not an indication of guilt, something I did not say either - but it IS a crystal clear indication of opportunity.

"I'm after specifics, Fisherman, not vague woolly statements"

...which, presumably, is why you are looking for a man with reoccuring psychosises and some very odd psychological issues - all very tangible and hard evidence for being the Ripper. "Wooly statements", was it...?

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Cross kills, notes a person approaching from one direction and rather than flee the other, approaches that person, engages them, takes them to the murder scene and goes of with them to find a policeman.

Then, on top of that, gives his contact details and attends inquest.

This as opposed to the far simpler act of fleeing the scene.

Monty

Fair enough, imo.
Plus, I wonder how a married man of 40, known to the police since 31 Aug, can make a first-class suspect.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Now, I find this hard to believe - on the one hand, we are asked to accept that the police would have been able to 'check out' all and sundry details of a lodging house dweller (for example) and would have done so rigorously; but on the other hand, none of them would have thought to check out a witness who was first on the scene at what was considered at the time to be the third brutal murder in the space of a few weeks? "

The impact of the Nichols case and the Kelly case differed quite a lot, actually. There was no Ripper scare as Nichols was killed, whereas the community was panic-stricken when Kelly was killed. Of course, the police would have been interested in solving the Nichols case too, but the heat would not have been on in the same degree then, whichever way we look upon it.

It can also be said that the quickly following Chapman case may have swallowed up much of the resources that could otherwise have been used to follow up on possible Nichols leads.

No matter how we look upon it, the fact remains that no source exists that tells us that Cross was followed up on to some or any extent, and nowhere along the line was his nameswop remarked upon in a manner that has echoed back to us. We are therefore left with uncertainty in this regard.
Maybe the police checked it and maybe they did not. Maybe he told the police that he used the name Cross in spite of being christianed Lechmere, since he had had a stepfather named Cross. Maybe they accepted this, after having had the thing documented to them.

Maybe he was known as Charles Cross at Pickfordīs, Sally. The thing is we canīt know this. But IF he was, then it still remains that he signed all the official documents that have been found, relating to him, "Lechmere". And Iīm sure that we can come up with many interesting theories why this was so, but the fact of the matter is that most people who repeatedly signed themselves Lechmere at every occasion we can find, were also people who arguably called themselves Lechmere.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David:

" I wonder how a married man of 40, known to the police since 31 Aug, can make a first-class suspect."

And if the police reasoned along the same lines, then that would have been all he could ask for if he was the killer.

Dennis Rader, David, think about him for a while, when it comes to age and marriage.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Fish,

just quickly, as I don't have time for a lengthy reply right now,

A. I don't think it's true to claim that there was 'no Ripper scare' at this time exactly. I realise your case would be bolstered by such, but to deny that the death of Nichols was tied in with the two earlier murders of Smith and Tabram at that time is simply erroneous.

B. However the name thing might be your star witness, I wouldn't go putting too many eggs in that basket myself - as you say, we don't know that he wasn't referred to as Cross in his life - and it's probably impossible to prove one way or another. Besides which, many reasons for using the name Cross are plausible - nothing there that indicates a serial murderer in itself.

Its all well and good, but flimsy on its own.

This is why I say there must be considerably more than that to make Cross a serious suspect. Sorry, but no amount of rhetorical shimmy-shamming will make a jot of difference to that position.

So, if further evidence is to be presented, let's see it. Otherwise, what is this but hyperbole?

Its nothing personal, Fish - but it would be very difficult to present a strong case for a new suspect at this stage after the event. It is possible, as I think some researchers have demonstrated; but not easy to do. Purely circumstantial evidence isn't sufficient.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Christer

I`ve always felt that Cross`s action of placing his hand on Paul`s shoulder when he approached as something Nichols murderer would not have done due to the blood on his hands, however little their might have been.