Who was the first clothes-puller?

[Robert]

Relax Fish, keep your hair on. I don't say that you want Cross to be the Ripper or that you are trying to fiddle the case against him. I wouldn't blame you if you did want him to be the Ripper, because it's natural to want the case solved. But I am not suggesting that you are trying to frame Cross.

When I was investigating Thomas Cutbush, of course I wanted, as it were, to find evidence that he had worked at Kearley & Tonge. But that doesn't mean that I was fiddling the case against him, and I reported anything I found that didn't fit, e.g. that he was not the nephew of Supt Cutbush.

One has a theory and tries it out, and pushes it as far as one can. Nothing unethical in that.

In my opinion, suspect-based Ripperology has had an undeservedly bad "press" of late.

[Lechmere]

The Cross late for work excuse for leaving the body doesn't really fit with the 'dawdle along chatting with Paul on a longer route' excsue. In my opinion.
Nor was he actually late of he left at half past as he said. And if he left at half past he shoud never have encountered Paul - whoch is probably why he hadn't met Paul before - allied to the factv that he had only moved into the area a couple of moths before.

On the topic of whether Cross may equal BS man, Pipe Man, Blotchy, Sailor man, Wide-awake man etc - he could be all of them (well, not BS and Pipe) or none of them or some of them. It doesn't matter at all for the CRoss theory.
My personal inkling is that the Ripper - Cross or otherwise - was none of them. I think the Ripper would abort any attack if spotted.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

A minor point.

How did the cops identify Cross in order to summon him to the inquest?

Regards,

Simon

[Robert]

Simon, see posts 118 and 120. Fish reckons that Mizen took the details.

[Fisherman]

Robert:

"Relax Fish, keep your hair on. I don't say that you want Cross to be the Ripper or that you are trying to fiddle the case against him. I wouldn't blame you if you did want him to be the Ripper, because it's natural to want the case solved. But I am not suggesting that you are trying to frame Cross.

When I was investigating Thomas Cutbush, of course I wanted, as it were, to find evidence that he had worked at Kearley & Tonge. But that doesn't mean that I was fiddling the case against him, and I reported anything I found that didn't fit, e.g. that he was not the nephew of Supt Cutbush.

One has a theory and tries it out, and pushes it as far as one can. Nothing unethical in that.

In my opinion, suspect-based Ripperology has had an undeservedly bad "press" of late."

Well, that was good to hear, Robert - for a minute there, you had me suspecting I had broken some commandment that nobody had told me about.

On we go, then!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Robert:

" Fish reckons that Mizen took the details."

I do - but that is grounded solely on the fact that we know of nobody else that was in position to take down the details! However, there is some little substantiation in the inquest records:

" Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying."

It seems therefore that Mizen knew that the man who approached him was a carman, and since Cross/Lechmere did not have his cart with him, the reasonable thing to assume is that Mizen simply asked. And if he asked about the occupation, he would have asked about the name too, I´d say.

Or could it be that a carman was easily recognisable?

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Notebooks

Regulations state that a PC must note anything unusual in his notebook, obtaining details and taking time at nearest convinience.

I'd agree, it would most likely to have been Mizen who took the mens names and addresses.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Thanks for that, Monty - when it comes to the rules and regulations of the police, I´m often at a loss, so it´s good to have you chiming in!

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

No worries Fish,

Mizen takes notes, the seriousness of the situation hits home, Mizen or another Bobby is sent to Cross's home, an expansive statement taken (including occupation), request to attend inquest issued, Cross attends and verifies what was made in the statement and answers any queries.

That's pretty much the most likely sequence.

Monty

[DVV]

I don't know what kind of notes Mizen could have taken, but I don't understand a single word of his inquest testimony.

[Lechmere]

It is my guess that cross presented himself to a police station to make his statement. Paul didn't and was raided at a later date. Cross appeared at the inquest on Monday with the murder taking place on Friday.

[Cogidubnus]

Mizen

I don't know what kind of notes Mizen could have taken, but I don't understand a single word of his inquest testimony.

Assuming the Telegraph is accurate, then he doesn't exactly shine...

Dave

[Sally]

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

Ah. And there I was thinking this was a serious discussion.

Well in that case, anybody can be a suspect.

How utterly ridiculous.

[Bridewell]

Hmmm

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.

Cadosch claimed that he heard something fall against the fence where the body was later found. I guess your 'witness who found the body but didn't come forward' explanation is one possibility, but perhaps rather improbable.

If the murder had already taken place, then whatever (or whoever) fell must have either landed on Chapman or come close to doing so. If the murder had not already taken place, and this was not the sound of her body falling, it would mean that whatever did fall was moved away and replaced almost immediately by Chapman's body - which seems absurd.

I think the conventional interpretation is the most likely to be correct

Regards, Bridewell

[Ben]

Dealing with Lechmere’s observations then: there is nothing unusual or suspicious about the fact that Nichols' body was tampered with by those who found her. The “Whitechapel murders” were not yet in full swing in terms of public knowledge that an individual was killing off prostitutes as part of a series, and Cross naturally investigated the body in the darkness to check for any signs of life. His first impression that she had been outraged and “gone off in a soon” seems perfectly plausible to me. I don’t know about anyone else.

It shouldn’t be considered remotely unusual that Cross didn’t check for abdominal injuries on Nichols’ supine form in the dark. Neil didn’t either. The two carmen were uncertain that Nichols was dead, but did not simply head on their “merry way to work”. Their immediate priority was to alert a constable, and they knew from extensive experience of walking that route that they were likely to find one before reaching work, courtesy of the beat system, which can hardly have escaped their attention. Given the severity of the incident, it is not surprising that the two carmen stuck together when seeking out a constable. It meant they were in a position to support each other’s accounts and so create a convincing impression to any policeman they encountered. This would more than account for both Cross’s accompaniment of Paul and his longer route to work.

We know that some of the later victims were also found by members of the public, rather than policeman, but in those cases, there was no question that the victim concerned was both dead and savagely mutilated. Hardly surprising then that John Davies’ reaction upon seeing the butchered remains of Annie Chapman (in much lighter conditions and with intestines over her shoulder) was to raise the alarm immediately. If it is to be considered suspicious that Cross failed to do this in darker conditions and with no certainty that the woman was dead, the same suspicions must logically be levelled at Robert Paul, as Harry points out.

His presence at the crime scene is legitimized by the fact that he was walking en-route to work. Serial killers rarely, if ever, commit mutilation murders when walking to work for the simple reason that they are due at that place of work shortly afterwards, and for most serial killers, the immediate post-crime phase involves cleaning up whatever needs to be cleaned up and stashing away (or disposing of) potentially incriminating evidence. Thus, in my opinion, the fact that he was on the way to work is not only unsuspicious; it’s a point that militates against his suggested culpability.

Equally unsuspicious is Cross’s other name of Lechmere. Serial killers will often use aliases, but we’re not talking about an alias here. Lechmere and Cross were the actual surnames of his father and stepfather respectively.

Those who champion Cross as a suspect tend to overlook the fact that someone was bound to find Nichols’ body eventually, and the chances of that discoverer being a policeman or someone on their way to work were always going to be very high indeed. So I have to ask: what is so “suspicious” about the inevitability of someone like Cross finding the body? What is so suspicious about something that was likely to happen...actually happening? And how might the circumstance of a man on his way to work finding Nicholls body have played out any less “suspiciously” than what occurred in reality with Cross? Means, opportunity and “could haves” are not the same as having any good reason to treat Cross with suspicion.

I may have misunderstood you, Lechmere - in which case, please accept my apologies in advance - but you seem to be suggesting that Robert Paul, as the second person to discover the body, was interrogated by the police as a suspect, but Charles Cross, as the first person to discover the body, was never once considered in the capacity of a suspect. I’m afraid that strikes me as unlikely to the point of being impossible to accept.

I would be very interested to hear of any additional biographical details or “connections” that might link Cross to the areas around other crime scenes, but I would respectfully submit that it would be best to provide the evidence and accompanying sources before anyone uses these to argue in favour of him being Jack the Ripper. Somewhat disturbingly, a few of the contributors to this thread seem inappropriately enthusiastic about Cross’s supposed good ripper candidature before they’ve even seen any evidence at all, and I’ll bet some of them know nothing of Michael Connor’s article to boot, but since your own standards are no doubt more exacting, you’ll recognise the need to provide your research before the long-winded arguing starts.

Don’t get be wrong; I don’t mean to dismiss Cross as a possible suspect. The idea is not totally unreasonable and represents a step, to my mind, in the right general direction. If someone were to tell me that the killer was either Tumblety, Druitt or Cross, I'd be amazed, but I would pick the last mentioned with little hesitation. You can do a lot worse than Cross as suspects go, but you can certainly do better.

All the best,
Ben