Who was the first clothes-puller?

[Lechmere]

I'm wondering whether Sally has me on ignore as I answered several of the points she has raised and seems to think that I have avoided this thread.
I will endeavour to go through the many points raised here later - I'm at work at the moment and am only able to use my I phone!

[Fisherman]

Sally:

" 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."

The name Jack the Ripper surfaced in September, so there could be no Ripper scare before that. And the name as such came about as a result of the fact that he ripper his victims open. Before Nichols, there was no ripping involved, and consequently there would have been no Ripper scare either.
People may have been afraid to get killed before too - that happens every now and then - but the Ripper scare was not really in full flight until after Chapman. It was then that it became obvious that a ripping maniac was on the loose and ready to claim more victims.
This is not erroneous at all, Sally. Check things out and you will see that it is instead accepted facts.

" 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."

No, a serial killers reason to go off on a killing spree lies not in what he or she have been named. But people who give a name to an official source - the police - but another name in all other official sources we have at hand, are also people who do a suspicious thing. End of story.

"no amount of rhetorical shimmy-shamming will make a jot of difference"

Come on, Sally. We both know that you are the one who have thrown forward a very strange concotion of what you think must amount to evidence. And it is all easily sorted in under what Sam Flynn used to call psychobabble. Thatīs not only rhethorically questinable, it is factually VERY deep and murky waters.

"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. "

You donīt say..? Tell you what, Sally; pssst ... I already KNEW that. You see, I am not saying that the Ripper has been found. I am very used to evaluating source material, and I KNOW that what we have on Cross is not enough by any stretch to close the case.

Surprised? Did you think that I WAS absolutely certain?

But you see, Cross was a very viable suspect even before, and now we can for instance add that he had a reason to frequent Berner Street, and that is - no matter how little you think of it - a major breakthrough in his overall viability. This is how things like these work: if we can tie a person to a murder spot, then we have made great progress.

Of course, maybe he never went to see his mother - we canīt tell. But we can tell that most people do, and that it would have taken him right past or very close to the Berner Street murder scene every time he did so.

Once again, Sally: imagine a five person murder spree, where the police gains knowledge that a person who they have dealt with, has used a false name, passes right by or very near four out of five murder places either on his way to work or to visit his mother, and has been seen at one of the murder sites at the exact time the victim died.

It is what is referred to as classical policing to pinpoint things like these. And it is nothing short of amazing that we can do so with Cross, 124 years after the murders.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

"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."

Good point, Jon. Maybe he was certain that there was no blood on them? Maybe he had not only stashed his knife and covered Pollyīs body, but also wiped his hands as Paul came closer?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

passes right by or very near four out of five murder places either on his way to work or to visit his mother,

Hi Christer

I didn`t think Cross went near Hanbury St. I know Paul worked around the corner from 29 Hanbury St but Cross left him that morning somewhere near Old Montague St.

[curious]

Monty:

"Why didn't Cross flee Bucks Row?"

If he was innocent, why would he flee?

If he was not, I think you can appreciate that there may have been potentially many reasons. Do you wish for me to outline some of them?

I could do it the other way around. Letīs take a look at the Chapman murder. If Cadosh heard the murder being perpetrated, it stands to reason that the killer must have heard Cadosh too, opening his backyard door and walking to the loo. And there were holes inbetween the planks of the fence, plus the fence was a low one.

So why did the killer not flee the Hanbury Street backyard?

We are dealing with a killer that was truly audacious, if by reason of lacking wits or of coldbloodedness, we canīt say. But we CAN say that he was a risktaker.

I have outlined a suggestion above, working from the assumption that Cross may have been coldblooded when meeting Paul. If this was so, then he made good his escape in the least fussy manner imaginable.

The best,
Fisherman

The basis of the Cross-as-Ripper theory appears to me to be that he struck on his way to work.

Does that not make Annie Chapman's 5:30 time of death completely out?

Since I personally think Chapman was long dead by 5:30, Cross would work for me, but can he possibly work for the Cadosh ear witness?

Isn't the currently believed timing on Chapman all wrong for Cross as the Ripper?

[Robert]

Re Jon's point, I think it was suggested earlier in this thread that Cross took a clue for his next strike from Paul's workplace. Well, if he was striking on his way to work, the Paul suggestion isn't needed.

I don't feel comfortable with street geography, so when someone says "on his route to work" I tend to have a vague image of an area there a number of roads will get you to the same place in more or less the same time. Has it been proved that the Nichols, Chapman and Kelly murders are actually on the single most direct route from Cross's home to his workplace?

[curious]

Re Jon's point, I think it was suggested earlier in this thread that Cross took a clue for his next strike from Paul's workplace. Well, if he was striking on his way to work, the Paul suggestion isn't needed.

I don't feel comfortable with street geography, so when someone says "on his route to work" I tend to have a vague image of an area there a number of roads will get you to the same place in more or less the same time. Has it been proved that the Nichols, Chapman and Kelly murders are actually on the single most direct route from Cross's home to his workplace?

Robert,
I'm with you about not knowing enough about the geography of the area to deal competently with routes to work and such.

What I do find of interest is:

1. Cross was alone with the body. He heard Paul's approach. However, no one heard retreating footsteps -- is my memory right? She was thought to be still alive and there were no sounds of a retreating killer. But there was a man alone with the body.

2. Using a different name. Of course, since stepdad was a policeman, I suppose he might try to latch onto that and hope the officer remembered. But why? Why not simply introduce himself by his real name and mention dear old stepdad? So, it appears that possibly he did not want his real name associated with the investigation. Understandable, of course, but still the name swap is strange in the circumstances.

3. Wearing his work clothes to the inquest. Very strange considering Victorian times. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about traditions, but I believe "right" and "wrong" ways of doing things were more strictly observed. And dressing for the occasion was more strictly followed than in our very causal society where people wear blue jeans to everything. If he had had a second pair of clothing, would he not have worn his Sunday best (using US terms) to the somber court? Was not respect more strictly observed during that era? Why would he wear his work clothes to such an important event?

Wearing his work clothes seems to me to indicate that he was perhaps hiding his testimony from his wife. The name change could signal the same thing. If it made the papers, no one who knew him would realize he was the one involved.

However, both could simply be him trying to protect his wife. She could have been fragile.

But perhaps she was sharp and would put together the times he was out, or other little tidbits that all add up in a person's suspicions.

4. His proximity to so many of the murder scenes is very interesting. Of course, thousands of men probably did the same thing. However, Cross-Lechmere was the only one we know of alone with a freshly murdered woman.

But doesn't Annie Chapman's generally accepted time of death have to be re-considered?

Where I have a problem is the blood that undoubtedly would have been on his hands had he just killed Nichols and stepped out away from the body when he heard Paul approaching. I can imagine him wiping his hands as he moved away and hiding the knife and rag at the same time. But I'm not convinced a dry cloth would wipe enough blood away. Then there was the organ storage in later events. To me, these point away from Cross-Lechmere.

Perhaps he was able to bluff his way through while he stood with bloody hands and a knife and bloody cloth in his pockets. . .

Much room for thought.

[Robert]

Hi Curious

Yes, I think the blood question has been too easily glossed over. It would have been different if he had said to Paul "I went over to look at this woman, touched her, and got blood on my hands. Quick, let's find a policeman, she's been attacked." But instead, Cross said nothing about an attack or a murder. So if he was the killer and blood on his hands was spotted (and surely there must have been the odd smear at least?), he'd have had to say "Good grief, what's this on my hands? Never noticed that. It must be from the woman..." It's not terribly convincing.

Re the clothes at the inquest, turning up like that seems almost calculated to draw attention to himself - weird thing for a murderer to do.

[Bridewell]

Where's The Hard Evidence?

the demands of HARD evidence, the kind of evidence that any police force would be very thankful to find out about.

And back in 1888, four out of five victims were found along the streets where Cross/Lechmere walked to job or to visit his mother.

We also have the nameswop.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

I agree that Cross is a long way from being the worst candidate to be JtR, but I haven't seen any hard evidence presented as yet. It's all circumstantial. It's entirely correct to suggest that a person who finds a body would be subject to some scrutiny. Why do you think he wasn't?


And back in 1888, four out of five victims were found along the streets where Cross/Lechmere walked to job or to visit his mother.

This is true of any number of people who worked early shifts in Spitalfields and lived in Bethnal Green, surely? Why does it implicate Cross? He reported finding the body. What reason is there to believe that he was lying. Yes, if he was the Ripper he would lie, but where is the evidence that he was lying? The argument can't be presented backwards, by assuming that he was the Ripper and then arguing that, therefore he lied about finding the body. It's a circular argument. In effect:

Cross could have been the killer and therefore told lies about finding the body.
Because he lied about finding the body, he must have been the Ripper!

We also have the nameswop.

which is evidence of what exactly?

I've seen no hard evidence in what is posted so far, just speculation based on the circumstance of Cross finding the body.

Man finds body. Man waylays first person he can and reports what he has found. What is suspicious about that? It's exactly what I would have done. How about you?

If he was the Ripper, it would be far less risky to just shout to Paul,

"This woman's in a bad way, mate. Can you go and find a policeman?"

He could then have melted away, unidentified, once Paul had left the scene. I don't see anything remotely suspicious in what Cross did. The suspicion is based on what is being speculated that he might have done, which isn't evidence, however much you may wish it were otherwise.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Sally]

I'm wondering whether Sally has me on ignore as I answered several of the points she has raised and seems to think that I have avoided this thread.
I will endeavour to go through the many points raised here later - I'm at work at the moment and am only able to use my I phone!

Not really Lech - I don't put people on ignore - nobody's that important to me.

I know that you and Fish have said in effect 'it was like this' but not how you know that to be the case.

So, sorry, but it's not enough to say e.g. 'Cross might have had an acquiantance near a murder scene' (paraphrase). That isn't evidence, is it, it's just your say so.

If it makes it easier to understand, where does your information come from, what is your methodology, where are your facts?

Maybe if either your or Fish could answer a straight question without endless avoidance or prevarication I'd be more inclined to take the thing seriously.

I hope to find that you have something interesting.

[Sally]

The name Jack the Ripper surfaced in September, so there could be no Ripper scare before that. And the name as such came about as a result of the fact that he ripper his victims open. Before Nichols, there was no ripping involved, and consequently there would have been no Ripper scare either.

Pedantry.

There was a clear link made at the time between the murder of Nichols and the deaths of Tabram and Smith; whether the perpetrator was yet called 'Jack the Ripper' is neither here nor there. Rightly or wrongly, and whether it suits your arguments or not, a single killer of women was already thought to be on the streets of Whitechapel when Nichols was murdered.

So yes, it is erroneous.

No, a serial killers reason to go off on a killing spree lies not in what he or she have been named. But people who give a name to an official source - the police - but another name in all other official sources we have at hand, are also people who do a suspicious thing. End of story.

Righto.

I'd agree that it is noteworthy, but I have yet to see any indication that it's any more than that. There exists the assumption - I'm saying this again since you seem to have ignored it twice already - that the police didn't know that Cross was also calling himself Lechmere. There exists the assumption that neither his wife nor anybody else knew that he had ever been called Cross. There exists the assumption of guilt already, when none of this is known.

There also exists the assumption that Cross was not checked out by the police; because they wouldn't have checked out a man with a family and a job.

Come on, Sally. We both know that you are the one who have thrown forward a very strange concotion of what you think must amount to evidence. And it is all easily sorted in under what Sam Flynn used to call psychobabble. Thatīs not only rhethorically questinable, it is factually VERY deep and murky waters.

What? What 'strange concoction of evidence'? I'm just asking for some hard facts - and so far you don't seem to have many, if any, that makes Cross a compelling suspect.

I asked you to elaborate on specifics because, Fish, generalised, circumstantial evidence will not advance Cross as a suspect. Several of the details that you cite as 'evidence' could apply to countless people - so in 'pinpointing' Cross they are of no use whatever by themselves. If there are specific pieces of evidence which only apply to Cross, then you might have something.

Otherwise, it's going to be a case of 90% hyperbole, I fear.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I can only echo what others have observed here. I really don't consider the use of a different name suspicious in isolation, and a sensible explanation of the type recently suggested by Robert would more than account for it. I agree that not behaving suspiciously would be a successful strategy for any serial killer to adopt, but we can't really use "not being suspicious" as leading criterion in favour of someone being the killer, and it would be supreme folly to consider such an individual over candidates whose behaviour actually was suspicious. By that, I don't mean evidence of criminal history or mental instability, but behaviour that might reasonably be called suspicious in relation to the murders. I just don't feel Cross qualifies on that score.

But that does not mean that he becomes less suspicious when it comes to the practicalities of serial killing as we know it

But he's not suspicious at all, in my opinion. If he was seen at a crime scene and provided a bad reason for being there, that would make him suspicious, but Cross's reason was not just plausible; it was provably correct. I'm not sure how many serial killers claim their victims when walking to work. I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I may be missing some. Certainly the prostitute killers we know about all ventured out for that specific purpose. Given the very different times of deaths for the victims, I'm disinclined to think that killing en route to work was central to the "MO" of this particular prostitute killer.

I would be very interested to hear about the Berner Street connection, but I tend to agree with Sally that it would be best to wait until whoever conducted the research chooses to publish their findings. Was this the special, undisclosed "something" you hinted cryptically at on another thread that made you change your mind about Stride as a possible ripper victim? I'm only asking, not accusing. It would be an impressive feat of flexibility if so. To think that after years and years of arguing against Stride's inclusion, it takes Cross maybe going to Berner Street to revise that whole outlook. But please correct me if I'm jumping to conclusions.

It is very unusual for a serial killer to resume murderous activity so soon after receiving heavy attention from the police. It doesn't matter if that attention did not arrive in the form of suspicion levelled against him. He would still have been in the limelight, a major witness in the recent murder, giving evidence at the inquest etc. I very much doubt he'd have committed another murder less than a week later.

All the best,
Ben

[Robert]

Well, one thing's for sure : he wouldn't have been able to be discovered "finding" a second victim. As Lady Bracknell might have said : "To find one corpse might be considered a misfortune. To find two, looks like homicide."

[Rubyretro]

=curious;212857]The basis of the Cross-as-Ripper theory appears to me to be that he struck on his way to work.

Does that not make Annie Chapman's 5:30 time of death completely out?

Since I personally think Chapman was long dead by 5:30, Cross would work for me, but can he possibly work for the Cadosh ear witness?

Isn't the currently believed timing on Chapman all wrong for Cross as the Ripper

I also believe that Chapman was long dead by 5.30.

Cadosch didn't see Annie and the Ripper, he only heard something fall against
the fence, and we assume that it must have been Annie's body. Maybe it wasn't.

I wonder if, for example, someone couldn't have discovered the body, fallen heavily against the fence in shock, and decided not to come forward to the Police and be involved in the case ?

If something like that were true, then Cadosch's timing has nothing to do with
the TOD.

[Sally]

Well, one thing's for sure : he wouldn't have been able to be discovered "finding" a second victim. As Lady Bracknell might have said : "To find one corpse might be considered a misfortune. To find two, looks like homicide."