Who was the first clothes-puller?

[Rubyretro]

This is utterly amazing !

Lechmere made a list of excellent points in favour of Cross as a very good suspect for JTR, but nobody is answering him seriously....Why ?

Maybe because they can't ?

I don't buy every point -specifically, that Mizen couldn't have known that Lechmere was the stepson of a Police Officer called Cross. We don't know anything about Mizen.

However, other points raised are pretty compelling -why Cross would accompany Paul to Hanbury Street, and a possible motive for Chapman's murder there, for one.

I repeat -concerning the TOD of Chapman, this is nota certainty, and as Trevor pointed out, the Police put her death at a time which makes the witness statements worthless.

Lynn cannot possibly say that Long "indeed" saw Annie with her killer. How could he know ?

I think that I will re-post Lechmere's argument again, so that it doesn't get drowned in silliness in this thread

[Rubyretro]

The Nicholls murder is the only ‘Whitechapel Murder’ where the first person that we know of who discovered the body did not immediately raise the alarm and return to the corpse. She was subsequently found again by PC Neil. Mizen clearly as not told there had been a murder as he continued ‘knocking up’. Paul says he did anyway and there definitely seems to have been delay in him arriving at the murder scene.
In the other cases where a civilian found the corpse the discoverer did not go on his merry way to work immediately afterwards with barely a backward glance.
This was the case with Martha Tabram, Annie Chapman, Liz Stride and Mary Kelly – but not Nicholls.

Nicholls was the only murder victim that was ‘tampered’ with by the discoverer. Cross and Paul played patter cake with her. This was at Cross’s instigation I would suggest - if you read the accounts from the inquest.
Incidentally we do not hear that either of them had blood on their hands after this process. Paul also tried to tug her dress down. One might presume that her dress may have had blood on it. But perhaps it didn’t. This should tell us that Cross may well not have had blood on his hands after the deed (if he did it). His fear that he may have blood on him may also explain why he went through the hand touching process with Paul.

Nicholls’s abdominal wounds were hidden by her dress being drawn back over them. This meant that they were not discovered until she was stripped in the morgue. Tabram, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were all displayed. This strongly implies that the murderer was disturbed and wished to buy time by masking the extent of her injuries.

Some people think that if Cross had done it he would have fled immediately upon hearing approaching footsteps (i.e. Paul’s approach).
However people respond differently to such situations.
This is a version of the ‘flight or flight response’ which is a reaction to stress. Cross approached Paul in a manner which unnerved Paul. This could easily fit the ‘fight’ response. Where Cross did not literally ‘fight’ but figuratively ‘fought‘ it out by bluffing it out – and initially failing to hide the stress on his face.
When he turned to approach Paul he wouldn’t have known that Paul wasn’t a policeman for example. He may have been compelled to literally fight it out.

As Fisherman points out, the next victim was killed on Hanbury Street about a hundred yards from where Robert Paul worked. Cross chose to accompany Paul past his place of work on the morning in question even though it is a significantly longer route to his workplace and even though he claimed to be late for work. Then a week or so later another murder takes place right by where Paul works. And might I add Paul is dragged out of bed in the middle of the night by the police and kept in for questioning.

By walking with Paul down Hanbury Street, Cross also avoided walking the direct route down Old Montague Street and Wentworth Street – past the Tabram murder scene of a few weeks before. And actually the Smith attack scene (although I doubt Cross was involved in that). That may be another reason Cross avoided walking off in that direction when he left Mizen.

We know exactly where Cross lived (Doveton Street). We know exactly where he worked (Pickfords adjacent to the old Broad Street station). It is simple to work out the most direct route to work and several alternatives. He was a carman – a delivery driver on a horse and cart. Carmen would have known the most direct route from A to B, just as professional drivers do now.

Also as Fisherman pointed out, Cross had a good seven minutes to kill after leaving home and passing the murder scene at Bucks Row.

Nichols, Tabram and Mackenzie where on his direct route to work. Chapman and Kelly on a longer route. Stride was near his mother’s house (who he almost certainly visited regularly as his daughter also lived there). The Pinchin Street Torso was near his mother’s house. Did I say she was a cat meat dealer?

Catherine Eddowes is explained by his desire to go out and get another victim after being disturbed and he followed his old route to work. He lived very near Berner Street up until mid June 1888.
The Apron was dropped on his direct route back home from Mitre Square to Doveton Street.

If you are unable to walk these routes and make the timings then check a map.

We know that the police examined the three horse butchers from Winthrop Street. We know they questioned Paul. We know they fixated on Pizer and then Isenschmidt. Dew in his memoirs forgot Cross’s name. He was a nobody. He slipped in and out of the case.
Cross simply did not conform to the police’s stereotype

of who might be a criminal – hence their lack of interest in him.

We have numerous records for Cross’s life. He was very punctilious about this. He is on every electoral register from 1890 until his death despite five address changes. We have his children’s school records. We have his own christening – which took place after his mother had remarried Cross. He is always listed as Lechmere.
He is only listed as Cross in the 1861 census when he was 12 – and the head of household was called Cross. His stepfather Cross, the policeman, died in (from memory) 1869. No serving policeman would have known this long dead policeman in 1888.

Why would the police have found out Cross’s real name? It was only found out when the census records were put on line. It is easier to find out who is who now than it was in 1888!

We know that Cross’s wife was illiterate as she signed her name several times on different certificates with a mark. If she could not even write her name then we can judge that she could not read either. Her father could not write his name either.

At the time Nichols was killed there was no murder scare. The Tabram and Smith murders had not attracted much attention. The newspapers first got going after Nichols. That also explains why Mizen took little interest in Paul and Cross.

As for Paul being as good a suspect as Cross...
Paul was closely questioned – we know that. Cross does not seem to have been.
Paul did not have a close relative near Berner Street (that we know of).
Paul wanted to be a celebrity – he went to the papers twice. Cross clearly wanted to stay anonymous.
Paul did not give a different surname to Mizen.
Paul was not found over the body. There were no hiding places down Bucks Row for him to jump out of.
Paul did not walk a longer route to work after claiming to be late.

It must have taken him alot of time and thought to write, so maybe it would be polite to try answering it seriously ?

[Fisherman]

Robert:

" So if he was the killer and blood on his hands was spotted (and surely there must have been the odd smear at least?)"

You see,Robert - you THINK there must have been, but still you ask the question.

I am very much on the same train station - I canīt tell. Chapman, yes, we know he must have reached in and grabbed the innards. But Nichols? He had cut her throat, and there was no jet of blood on the pavement. Why would he need to get blood on his hands there? He had cut her open, but it was later accepted that the blood from that cutting seeped down into the abdominal cavity. Must he have gotten bloodied there? Would any blood splash out of the abdomen or from the cut?

Also, at the murder site, it was very dark. Paul did not see the blood oozing from her neck, so why would he see a smear on Crossīhands ...?
Mizen, thatīs another thing. He had a lamp. But did he use it? Probably not, at least he did not search the carmen or inspect them.

Therefore, the problem, I think, would have lain more in Crossīnerves - would he do what he did if he suspected that he had blood on his hands? And that boils down to the psychology of the man - and we canīt assess that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Pedantry.

There was a clear link made at the time between the murder of Nichols and the deaths of Tabram and Smith"

Iīm afraid you have not understood the terror as such if you call this pedantry, Sally. The real scare took itīs beginning after Chapman, and thatīs all there is to it.

"I'd agree that it is noteworthy, but I have yet to see any indication that it's any more than that."

And that is something that applies to ALL suspects. None of them can be proven guilty - but Cross ticks a number of "practical" boxes, that otheres donīt.

"What 'strange concoction of evidence'? I'm just asking for some hard facts"

No, Sally. You asked me to provide evidence of psychosises and other psychological issues, police records and such - things that we have no idea whether they would apply to the Ripper or not.

As for hard facts - what suspect has true hard facts to show?

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

To clarify, Cross's mother didn't live in pinchin street in 1888. She was living just the other side of the railway. Literally five minutes walk from berner street and rather less to the arch in pinchin street where the torso was left.
I have no way of knowing if he also did the torso murder but given his proximity it must be a possibility. His second step father died soon after. Maybe his mother and step father were away or something and he had access to their house and his mothers cat meat equipment. I only mention it as a possibility.

[Lechmere]

I think mizen was younger than charles cross - Thomas cross the policeman died when Charles cross was (I think) 17. That is why mizen cannot have known Thomas cross.
I haven't got my files with me so I am going from memory.

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

"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? "

I canīt say that he was or was not, Bridewell. I CAN say that he did not tally with what the police seemed to be looking for - a deviant in some manner. And I can tell that we have no source telling us that the name was checked out, for example, leaving him as Cross for more than a hundred years. I also can tell that no suspicion seemed to attach to him at any stage.

More than that, I canīt tell.

"He reported finding the body. What reason is there to believe that he was lying. "

Not much, when it comes to hard facts. What I find intriguing here is the nameswop, the pulled down clothes on Nichols and the complete absence of any other man reported in the area by the PC:s and night watchmen that were in place.

"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!"

A good thing, then, that I donīt come even close to doing so. What I do is to point to the circumstances and say that Cross makes a very viable candidate who has a lot more going for him in terms of geographical correlation with the murder spots than any other suspect we know of. Plus we have a number of odd things, like the nameswop and the pulled down dress.

If you have read my earlier posts, you will know that I would not say that Cross MUST be the Ripper. Of course he must not. But since we have had candidates like Hutchinson, Druitt, Kelly, Chapman, Kosminsky etc suggested to us, and since these guys top many Ripperologists lists, I think we may need to recognize that here is a man who we can tie to the murder spots in a very useful way, who was alone with one of the victims at the approximate time she died and who gave a name to the police that he gave to no other official servants that we know of.

If we cut away the dead meat of a need for a psychological diagnosis and the rucksack of having to have been mentioned by any of the contemporary policemen, he is by far and away the best suspect we have. There can be no doubt about that to my mind. And if there is, I would like to see not the questions that can be raised against the suggestion, but instead which suspect that would be better in this respect.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"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."

Okay, Ben, I see what you are saying. But keep in mind that the cops who let Dahmer pick up his victim from their custody, were equally impressed by the non-suspiciusness that he emitted.
Also, keep in mind that what we have is a few documents and paper articles that cannot possibly show us how Cross came over. We are left with guesswork in this respect. Did he sweat? Did he stutter? I, for one, havenīt got a clue.
Or was he very self-confident, the way many serialists have been, talking to the police?

"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."

You are. Of course.

I am not promoting Stride as a definite Ripper victim. I am saying that IF Cross was the killer, then there is a very logical and compelling reason for including her. Crossīmother lived very near the murder spot.

Does this come across as in any way strange to you? To point out that a suspect had his mother living near a murder spot, and accept that this increases the possibility that Stride was a true Ripper victim, IF Cross was our man?

Otherwise, the exact same things apply to Stride as before. They donīt change because of Cross. Her death held elements that spoke very much of being a domestic deed, and that applies in exactly the same manner as before.

If this is too subtle for you, I will gladly elaborate on it, Ben. Just ask away, if there is any little detail you donīt understand or need to have further clarified. But I hope that I have been clear enough?

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Ruby,
The points for Paul being as good a suspect as Cross have been answerered.No one has said that Paul jumped out on anyone.The darkness of the streets and the ability to use that darkness has been stressed on many occasions,in all of the murders.Neither Cross nor Paul come across as good suspects,just w orkmen on their way to work.One may use imagination and possibilities to explain almost anything,and that is all that can be said of Cross. What about motive,opportunity and intent,and let's take the last.Doe s anyone believe let alone have proof,that Cross left home with the intent to murder,and if not why and where did the intent enter his mind,and why on that particular day?Lechmere never mentioned that.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"I am not yet entirely convinced by Lechmere/Cross, but I agree that the argument for him as JTR is very strong."

You donīt need to be entirely convinced, Ruby - you will be treated as if you were anyway!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"The points for Paul being as good a suspect as Cross have been answerered."

So, Harry, since we know that Paul worked at Corbettīs court, this is what you are suggesting, I take it?

Paul kills Nichols. He pulls her dress down to conceal the deed. He then scuttles away eastward on Buckīs Row, and hides in a doorway some sixty yards away from the murder scene. He wouldnīt have heard the aproaching Cross, since if he had done his scuttle, than Cross would have heard Paul too, and quite possibly even seen him.
Therefore, Paul does this before Cross enters the scene. He aborts his efforts to procure an organ from Nichols, and goes into hiding by walking AWAY from the address he is aiming for in Corbettīs court. Then he waits.
Now, Cross emerges, walks down Buckīs Row, and finds Nichols.
Paul does not know if Cross has seen that she has had her throat cut, but he nevertheless jumps out of his hiding place - undetected by Cross on his way down Buckīs Row - and proceeds westward on the street, catching up with Cross. And then the show is on.

Have I got it correct here, Harry? Is this what you suspect or suggest?

Then why did he hide in the first place, only to show when Cross came along? And why did he walk the wrong way, looking for a hiding place? He could have rounded the corner at the school if he wanted to, it was close enough, and kept watch from there.

Iīm afraid I canīt take this all so very seriously, Harry. But then again, it was perhaps never a very serious suggestion, was it?

The best,
Fisherman

[curious]

This is utterly amazing !

Lechmere made a list of excellent points in favour of Cross as a very good suspect for JTR, but nobody is answering him seriously....Why ?

Maybe because they can't ?

I don't buy every point -specifically, that Mizen couldn't have known that Lechmere was the stepson of a Police Officer called Cross. We don't know anything about Mizen.

However, other points raised are pretty compelling -why Cross would accompany Paul to Hanbury Street, and a possible motive for Chapman's murder there, for one.

I repeat -concerning the TOD of Chapman, this is nota certainty, and as Trevor pointed out, the Police put her death at a time which makes the witness statements worthless.

Lynn cannot possibly say that Long "indeed" saw Annie with her killer. How could he know ?

I think that I will re-post Lechmere's argument again, so that it doesn't get drowned in silliness in this thread

Ruby,
It is ever thus. People with their minds made up are worthless when it comes to assessing new information that goes in a direction different from what they believe -- and it is not just on these boards.

They are so blinded by their own beliefs that even if the sun were shining brightly, they would be able to see nothing.

They simply can not see it and no amount of re-posting will make them see.

Is Cross the killer? I don't know. Are some of the points interesting and Cross's pattern of behavior suggestive? Definitely.

Those blinded to anything new will never see, but in my opinion the should not be so nasty and derisive to those whose eyes are still open to look at possibilities. However, I have been guilty of less than nice behavior a time or two, so I understand.

But Ruby, re-posting won't help.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE=Lechmere;213080]I think mizen was younger than charles cross - Thomas cross the policeman died when Charles cross was (I think) 17. That is why mizen cannot have known Thomas cross.
I haven't got my files with me so I am going from memory.[/QUOTE]

The thing is, according to your own research, Lechmere used the name Cross
when he was a Policeman's stepson. He didn't use it again (officially, and that we know of) until giving it to another Policeman. That might be coincidence, but it raises a question mark for me. Policeman/Policeman ?

It would be perfectly logical for Lechmere to use the name 'Cross' to Mizen, if he was known to Mizen as Cross, or if he was known to be the Stepson of Policeman Cross, and if he simply wanted to put himself on the side of the Police by reminding them that he was the Stepson of one of them, and so
above suspicion.

What do you know concretely about Mizen ?

OK, he was younger -how much younger ?

Yes, the Eastend of London was a vast place, but all these vast places actually can be broken down into 'quarters' (I'm thinking 'Quartier' in French), and they are like villages within cities.

How do you know that the Mizen Family didn't come from the same streets as the Cross Family ?

Or that Policeman Mizen's Father wasn't serving with Policeman Cross at the same time, and they knew each other's families ?

Lechmere had a right to use the name Cross. He might not have used it on official papers in the intervening years between his Stepfather's death and Polly's death, but he might have had a prosaic reason for using it then.

So whilst I think that the sheer quantity of your points in favour of Cross (I likened it to getting those black pegs in a 'Mastermind' game earlier) is pretty convincing, I wouldn't take as suspicious the fact that Lechmere gave his name as Cross to Mizen without having more information.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE=curious;213091]Ruby,

It is ever thus. People with their minds made up are worthless when it comes to assessing new information that goes in a direction different from what they believe

Totally agree with you Curious ! Thankyou.

I think that intelligent people should be able to reassess things according to
new information; It's called having an open mind.

It's only complete dimwits that would say ' Fountain, I will never drink of your water'.

ps Curious, reposting will help. I might even do it again.

[Robert]

Fish, you say that IF Cross was the Ripper, then that's a plus factor for having Stride as one of the series. But you've also been saying that Cross's mother's proximity to the Stride site, is a plus factor for Cross being the Ripper. Aren't you chasing your own tail a bit here?