Who was the first clothes-puller?

[curious]

The thought I had was that maybe he'd "popped" them until payday...not an uncommon event in the East End...

Just a thought
Dave

Hi, Dave,

Never considered that possibility. Thanks

(I take it that "popped" means pawned? Then he just retrieves them when he needs them, perhaps? Is that what you're suggesting? also saves space at home which in that day and age did not have "closets" as we do today.)

curious

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"This is what I read.It was the body of a woman lying on her back,with her skirt around her waist.They adjusted them to afford her some dignity,before summoning a policeman,pc Mizen.'She looks to me to be either dead or drunk' says one,That clearly shows they did not leave before the police took charge,and that the only aid they offered was to adjust her skirts."

The skirt was pulled down to show only the legs, justaboutish. It was not up around her waist.
And they DID leave Nichols before the police took charge. In fact, when they left her, no PC was about at all. Paul, from the inquest:

"The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down. Before he did so he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint. The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman. Not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he first saw the woman."

Now, can we please accept that Cross/Lechmere and Paul left Nichols in Buck´s Row before the police took charge?

"If you want to avoid hostility,then don't make personnel remarks,but if you think it's a free world,you'll find it's free for all."

That was not what I was asking for, Harry. I asked you to provide substantiation for your rather unpleasant claim that I would have lied on at least two occasions.
I would very much like to lay down that I am not a liar, and therefore I urge you to present what you interpret as lies, so that we may conclude whether you are right or wrong. Surely such a request is very reasonable, seeing as it concerns my honesty?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Robert:

"Fish, I feel you're making too much of the dress. Your argument is that Cross heard no footsteps, therefore the murderer wasn't interrupted by Cross, therefore the dress was pulled down either by the murderer quite voluntarily (which would have been unlike him) or by Cross (which would have been suspicious and probably non-voluntarily). But Morris was astonished that he'd heard nothing in Mitre Sq. Perhaps Jack owned rubber soled shoes or wore slippers?"

Of course, Robert, you may be right - the alternative scenario to the one with Cross/Lechmere as the killer, must involve a man that slips away so silently that he was not detected by Cross.
And that would be perfectly possible to do, since it was very dark at the spot and the killer had only but some thirty, forty yards or so to cover before he could turn the corner at the school.

The obvious problems with this scenario is that he somehow avoided to be seen by any of the PC:s and watchmen about – and that I fail to see why he would take time to cover her at all, if he had already decided to make a run for it.

But yes, I MAY be making too much of the dress. But to be perfectly honest, Robert, it equally applies that you may be making too little of it.

And this is where the name thing comes in, for instance. If our carman had said to Mizen "My name is Lechmere", I would have been a bit happier about letting him off the hook. But he opted to call himself Cross instead.

It´s the collected weight that does it.

Similarly, if Cross had worked in the junction of Baker´s Row and Hanbury Street, I would also have been much easier to talk into letting the guy walk. But as it turns out, he has the bad luck of having his way to job strewn with gutted prostitutes. And to boot things, when he settles for a Saturday evening walk to his mothers and daughters house, what happens? Exactly - another one of those cut up women ends up there.

Once again, the collected weight, Robert!

The isolated elements must always be discussed in their proper context. Taken on their own, they may all seem easily explained. But if Charles Cross was not the Ripper, one must say that he had the bad luck of stirring up a lot of circumstantial evidence around his person!

The best,
Fisherman

[curious]

H
And they DID leave Nichols before the police took charge. In fact, when they left her, no PC was about at all.

It does seem callous that she was left. If they seriously thought her merely drunk, I believe it would be natural to go on their ways.

However, they had somewhat checked for life. Believing her to be dying but still going off is extremely callous. More so than we have record of with any of the others.

Would they have behaved any differently if the victim had been a different class of woman?

Fisherman, the dress pulling down and cake analogy is quite good, and food for thought.

Ben, like Fisherman, I noted that you argued the men walked together because they were afraid of a killer running around, when part of the argument for them leaving the body is that Cross and Paul believed her to be merely drunk or having a heart attack. Apparently, they never caught on that violence had been involved.

Therefore, the idea that Cross accompanied Paul while they discussed if they would be called to court and the inquest seems not to fit. If violence was not suspected and they would not have been discussing the upcoming inquest, what possible reason would Cross have to accompany Paul??? Cross was so worried about work and yet he made himself later. Why?

Perhaps that is why poor Annie followed so quickly. To have a body right in Paul's backyard . . . And I believe he was rousted out of bed and interviewed for that?

Very interesting . . .

My problems with Cross are

1. On the way to work seems improbable

2. The long and apparent crime-free life he led.

[Robert]

Hi Fish

Well I confess that you have an advantage over me here, because the maze of east end streets and the equally intricate mechanics of Victorian ladies' clothing befuddle someone like myself who could only ever do two layers of Rubik's cube.

Re the 'leaving on display' agument, yes Jack did do this but if you look at the sketch of Eddowes (http://photos.casebook.org/displayim...album=35&pos=7) it seems hard to see how he could have done much to cover her up! Also with Kelly, he left her on display but he shut the door behind him - presumably just in case anyone happened along before he got fully away.

Re the name thing, if Cross started work when very young (say, 14, 15 or 16), which seems quite possible, he may have still been living at home and may have felt that he'd better call himself Cross - especially if he was asked for his address and next of kin in the event of an accident. Once the police were involved, with possible visits to his workplace in the offing, he would have stuck to "Cross." Just a suggestion.

I take your point about the cumulative questions.

[Fisherman]

Curious:

"My problems with Cross are

1. On the way to work seems improbable

2. The long and apparent crime-free life he led."

Before I answer this, Curious, I´d like to thank you for your kind words!

Now, to begin with: On the way to work! Yes, it seems a drawback to the theory - but we don´t even know that he did arrive at work on the killing days. We know that Gary Ridgway picked up people on his road to work, and killed them. He stayed away from job them days.
Who´s to say that Cross/Lechmere did not do the same?
Who´s to say that he did not have access to whatever details he needed to have access to at job? He had worked at Pickfords for two decades, and would have known his way about thoroughly.

The long and apparent crime-free life he led?

Dennis Rader, Curious, once again! He was arrested THIRTY-ONE YEARS after his first strike! And all throughout that time he was known as a pedantic, law-abiding family man, enjoying parties with his neighbours and engaging in society in what seemed a very productive and responsible manner.

Much as this kind of life is not what we expect of the average serialist - if there was ever such an animal! - it ALSO provides the perfect cover. And people with perfect covers are people who will not get caught, even if the whole Met chases them. Let´s not forget that!

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

civility

Hello Christer.

"All in all, I would prefer if too much hostility can be avoided on the threads. It disrupts and obscures the real aim of the boards."

Hear, hear. We are here to study and that entails an exchange of ideas. Civility is ALWAYS appreciated.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Robert:

"Re the 'leaving on display' agument, yes Jack did do this but if you look at the sketch of Eddowes (http://photos.casebook.org/displayim...album=35&pos=7) it seems hard to see how he could have done much to cover her up! Also with Kelly, he left her on display but he shut the door behind him - presumably just in case anyone happened along before he got fully away."

I saw that sketch back in November, in real life, so to speak, in London. And yes, it can be argued that the victims lay the way they would have if he had just finished with them and left them lying. And I said so earlier in a post on the thread.
But Kelly swears against such a disinterest in posing the victims, with her "pillow" of innards and her hand in the abdominal cavity, clearly put there by her killer.

As for the closed door, it works very well together with my suggestion of the clothes-pulling in Nichols´ case. At least I think so! In Miller´s court, the killer would still have been inside the cake-room until he had made it out on Dorset street and beyond, and therefore he may have reasoned that it was best to put a bowl over the cake so that he could cover this distance undetected. It would tally precisely with the efforts in Buck´s Row, I think.

Then again, it could be argued that he ought to have covered Chapman and Eddowes too, for securing his escape.

Also, there is a further snag - maybe Kelly´s door closed itself? Many doors do, depending on gravity and how they are hung on the hinges. Do we know that this would not occur in Miller´s Court? I can´t remember having seen any comment about it. Have you?

"Re the name thing, if Cross started work when very young (say, 14, 15 or 16), which seems quite possible, he may have still been living at home and may have felt that he'd better call himself Cross - especially if he was asked for his address and next of kin in the event of an accident. Once the police were involved, with possible visits to his workplace in the offing, he would have stuck to "Cross." Just a suggestion."

The possibility is certainly there, Robert. But then why sign himself Lechmere on every official document? It does not pan out in my view. If I had a past as a stepchild to a man called Cross, but had been born Lechmere myself, I can accept that I would perhaps have been subjected to being called "the Cross kid" by all and sundry. No big deal. But as long as I signed all my papers Lechmere, I would suggest that would point to me not regarding myself as "Cross" but instead as "Lechmere". And in consequence with this, I think it would be odd if I had stated "Cross" when asked by the police for my name! It would not have corresponded to who I regarded myself as.

Thing is, we are all trying very hard to come up with natural causes for anomalies attaching to Cross, taking them one by one in isolation, and I really think that ... wait ...

"I take your point about the cumulative questions."

Ah - that´s it - that was what I was aiming at, Robert!

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

1. On the way to work seems improbable

2. The long and apparent crime-free life he led.

Hi, Curious !

1. It's not improbable that Cross would attack a woman on the way to work, if the perfect opportunity seemed to present itself then. He didn't have organs to hide.

2. Well obviously any criminal that is never caught has a 'crime free' record.
It must have been alot more difficult to catch criminals back then.
Didn't Lechmere say that he had been living in a different part of the country
as well ? And he used two different names !

[Rubyretro]

That´s true, Ruby! But if we once again take a look at Gary Ridgway, we know that he kept on killing in spite of having enjoyed much attention from the police. We also know - although this behaviour is only documented from more recent times - that some serialists actually enjoy battling it out with the police, boldly reassured that they are more clever themselves.

Fish,

You've been studying Ridgeway alot recently !

You're explanation here is the one which I've always given for Hutch putting himself under the Police spotlight and talking to the Press. I know that it's true.

But Cross wasn't playing with the Police. He was obliged to come to their attention after an unplanned meeting with Paul. It's not quite the same thing.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"You've been studying Ridgeway alot recently !"

No. But I have been studying him very thoroughly a good deal of years ago!

"You're explanation here is the one which I've always given for Hutch putting himself under the Police spotlight and talking to the Press. I know that it's true.
But Cross wasn't playing with the Police. He was obliged to come to their attention after an unplanned meeting with Paul. It's not quite the same thing."

That means that he did not seek the communication with the police himself, of course. But he may well have enjoyed it just the same! I also think that if he was the killer, then he would perhaps have manipulated Robert Paul to a fair extent, perhaps thus pointing to an interest in playing games with people in the context of his murders.

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Hi Fish

I can't recall any mention of Kelly's door swinging to by itself.

The thing is, if Cross had given his name as "Cross" to Pickford's, then even though he subsequently called himself "Lechmere" in censuses etc, it would have been odd if he'd gone along to Pickford's and said "Oh, by the way, I now want to be known as 'Lechmere.' " It might even have aroused suspicion, Fish! Cross presumably didn't want to do anything that might endanger his job - so he stuck to "Cross" as far as Pickford's were concerned. When talking to Mizen, Cross would have known that if he'd given his name as "Lechmere" and the police went round to his workplace only to be told that there was no Charles Lechmere working there but there was a Charles Cross, questions might be asked. Much simpler to just give Mizen the name of "Cross."

I think if he was the murderer, and didn't turn up for work that day, he'd have been the object of strong police interest if they found out about it.

Re Sept 30th, if, as the theory goes, Cross kills on his way to work in order not to arouse the suspicions of his wife by staying out late, then how would he explain getting home on Sept 30th at around 3 AM? He can explain his going - to visit his mother - but what about his coming back so late?

[Rubyretro]

I remember in his book Bob Hinton gave an account of how Jack might have escaped from the scene, but my JTR books are packed away at present and probably will be for some time.

Robert -Bob has an excellent theory, it's a shame that I can't copy it all out.

Basically, whilst Neil was examining Polly's body, a crowd gathered (mainly slaughtermen), and he took the names of all the people in the vicinity.
However, he saw an unknown man pass by and continue down the street.

further down, the unknown man passed a nightwatchman called Mulcher who testified at the inquest that the unknown man turned to him and said "..Watchman, old man, I believe somebody is murdered down the street".

Bob's questions were a) how did that man know that the woman was murdered and not just injured

(I could argue here, that it was pretty bloody obvious, given the knot of people talking loudly)

and b) it's amazing that he was so incurious not to step over for even a second for a look.

(He could have been very late for work)

Bob wonders why, if the man couldn't care less about the murder, did he stop the nightwatchman ?

Bob speculates that the unknown man was the killer, that he saw Cross coming and stepped into the shadows to hide, and sneaked out when they'd gone. But then he heard Neil discovering the body and calling out for Thain, and not wishing to run into Police reinforcements, he turned around walked
back calmly past Neil, keeping his face hidden by staying on the opposite side of the road.

However, not being able to avoid the nightwatchman, and there being a commotion around Polly's body, he felt obliged to say something about it.

[Robert]

Thanks Ruby. The "old man" thing is interesting - didn't Packer say that the man buying grapes called him "old man"? I seem to remember "old man" cropping up somewhere else too. Probably just a coincidence.

[Abby Normal]

Whoever killed Annie -even it were Hutch- most probably did it on their way to work.

and maybe he had her womb during lunch break. ; )