Tweet
Thanks, Abby, and I agree entirely with the "outsiders"/"insiders" distinction.
Hi Fisherman,
It’s always interesting to hear your views, but give me at least a chance to respond to your earlier posts before you argue with the points I make to others!
It was a very questionable decision to bring up Hutchinson, who, as you know from experience, has a cheeky little habit of taking over every thread in which his name in mentioned. I know of no George Hutchinson whose signature is considered by any document examiner to “match” those provided by the witness, but I know of one whose signature is considered to be a mismatch, according to a document examiner.
Hutchinson’s base was central to the ripper’s crimes, unlike Cross’, which was on the periphery east of the easternmost site, making the latter a “commuter” serial killer and thus “very rare” according to David Canter. Hutchinson would be a marauder-type, which is far more common. Hutchinson has more “geographical ties” to the murder locations courtesy of this central location. The northern end of George Yard is literally a stone’s throw away from the Victoria Home, which, I’d wager, is a lot closer than Cross’ relative was to Dutfields Yard. There are good reasons to conclude that Hutchinson fabricated his reason for monitoring a crime scene before that crime happened, which is a lot more “suspicious” than finding a body, which somebody had to do at some point. A “police corps, looking for a serialist” would view Hutchinson with considerably more suspicion than Cross.
But if you fancy a nice, long, thread-derailing repetitive argument about Hutchinson, please do “address” the above points and we can kiss goodbye to Cross talk, which would be a great pity. You won’t be doing Lechmere (the poster) a favour, and it certainly won’t aid your thread’s direction, but you brought it up.
Well, with the full and certain knowledge that there was an extremely violent individual on the loose in the neighbourhood, I’d rather have the company than venture off alone down the entire length of dark, notorious Old Montague Street. For what it’s worth, though, I believe the real killer used this very street as an escape route. It would have taken him right back into the heart of the murder district. There is nothing remotely strange about Paul’s and Cross’s decision to leave the corpse, especially if their intention was to alert a policeman who they knew could not be far away.
Not to work, though.
You’ll get no argument from me that serial killers often kill where they feel most comfortable and familiar, but I don’t know of many cases involving a serial killer who claims his victims when walking a “normally trodden path” to work, despite being due at that work place very shortly afterwards. The fact that Cross was on his way to work legitimises his presence at the crime scene and renders unsuspicious his discovery of the body. That doesn’t mean he couldn’t have done it, but it prevents the circumstance from being suspicious.
What I mean is that it was virtually inevitable that Cross, or someone very much like him, should have discovered the body. I simply wonder how something so inevitable can be considered so suspicious? If he left his home in Doveton Street “about” 3:30, as his testimony indicates, it would give a likely time of arrival at the murder scene of approximately six minutes later, which isn’t far off 3:40 at all, especially if the timings were approximate. Nothing really suspicious there.
Yes, but if Paul was insistent on propping her up anyway, what exactly was Cross going to do about it? If the latter was the killer, he could have “refused” to do anything Paul suggested with regard to the rearrangement of the body, but he could hardly have prevented Paul from taking whatever steps he considered appropriate.
Well then surely the thing to do would be to wait until this has been provided before we argue about it? You talk of supposed revelations that have appeared on “this thread” but nothing has been provided because we haven’t seen the evidence. You mention that others “appreciate” that a “breakthrough” has occurred, but if nothing’s broken through, what is there to appreciate? There can no breakthrough until the relevant evidence is provided, and if others are expressing sudden enthusiasm for Cross as a suspect without having seen any evidence, then yes, that is extremely inappropriate.
I think you’ll find you’re in the extreme minority of opinion on that one, but fair enough.
All the best,
Ben
Hi Fisherman,
It’s always interesting to hear your views, but give me at least a chance to respond to your earlier posts before you argue with the points I make to others!
It was a very questionable decision to bring up Hutchinson, who, as you know from experience, has a cheeky little habit of taking over every thread in which his name in mentioned. I know of no George Hutchinson whose signature is considered by any document examiner to “match” those provided by the witness, but I know of one whose signature is considered to be a mismatch, according to a document examiner.
Hutchinson’s base was central to the ripper’s crimes, unlike Cross’, which was on the periphery east of the easternmost site, making the latter a “commuter” serial killer and thus “very rare” according to David Canter. Hutchinson would be a marauder-type, which is far more common. Hutchinson has more “geographical ties” to the murder locations courtesy of this central location. The northern end of George Yard is literally a stone’s throw away from the Victoria Home, which, I’d wager, is a lot closer than Cross’ relative was to Dutfields Yard. There are good reasons to conclude that Hutchinson fabricated his reason for monitoring a crime scene before that crime happened, which is a lot more “suspicious” than finding a body, which somebody had to do at some point. A “police corps, looking for a serialist” would view Hutchinson with considerably more suspicion than Cross.
But if you fancy a nice, long, thread-derailing repetitive argument about Hutchinson, please do “address” the above points and we can kiss goodbye to Cross talk, which would be a great pity. You won’t be doing Lechmere (the poster) a favour, and it certainly won’t aid your thread’s direction, but you brought it up.
“The two had met Mizen down at Bakerīs Row, and from there, there was a choice of the quicker Old Montague Street or the slower Hanbury Street, and in spite of being late, Cross chose the slower alternative.”
“And we DO know that serialists are often people who kill along their normally trodden paths.”
You’ll get no argument from me that serial killers often kill where they feel most comfortable and familiar, but I don’t know of many cases involving a serial killer who claims his victims when walking a “normally trodden path” to work, despite being due at that work place very shortly afterwards. The fact that Cross was on his way to work legitimises his presence at the crime scene and renders unsuspicious his discovery of the body. That doesn’t mean he couldn’t have done it, but it prevents the circumstance from being suspicious.
“It stands to reason that Nicholsībody would not rot away undetected and disappear on the East End streets, but how does THAT prove that Lechmere did not kill her?”
“Likewise it applies that if he knew that her head was hanging on by the spine only, more or less, then this would all become obvious as they tried to lift her up.”
“As for the evidence material I know of, I have told you before that there is more than I have spoken of.”
“I really donīt think that any other suspect can match our carman. All the other cases are built on much less solid grounds, the way I see it, whereas Lechmere provides down to earth arguments.”
All the best,
Ben
Comment