Who was the first clothes-puller?

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere,

Yes Ben, as Fraulein Retro says - Paul was interrogated as a suspect because he didn't report to the police to be a witness at the inquest and because the Chapman murder happened a hundred yards fgrom his workplace.

But when the police found out that Paul was the second person to discover Nichols' body, do you contend that they still didn't contemplate the possibility that the first person to discover the body could also work as a suspect? If so, I'm afraid I must continue to find the suggestion implausible. The idea of any serial killer claiming another victim less than a week after receiving heavy police and press exposure as a witness seems most unlikely, based on what we know of other offenders.

It's no use arguing that a psychopathic murderer just might..." since that could wheeled out to defend all manner of implausible suggestions, and it wouldn't make the arguments in question any more plausible. If people wish to speculate about the ripper's likely behaviour if he was X or Y suspect, it has to be done on the basis of historical precedent. This has nothing to do with my own "sensitivities".

I don't, incidentally, see any sense in implicating Paul in the Hanbury Street murder after it had emerged at the inquest that he'd arrived at the scene of the crime to find Cross already there. This would only attract suspicion to Cross himself.

As Robert points out, Cross's behaviour makes perfect sense if he was the innocent witness he appeared to be. "Buffing it out" would have ensured very early police exposure just when getting into his ripping stride, and could have been avoided either by departing hastily or by dispatching Paul at the scene. He and and Paul left the scene with the full intention of alerting a policeman, who they knew must be nearby. People have described this behaviour as "callous", which it certainly isn't.

Although thinking about it, Hutchinsoin wouldn't have been able to get into the Victoria home at that time of night unless he had one of those special passes and would have had to wander the streets again all night

No, I'm afraid that's still not the case. If Hutchinson had a daily or weekly pass, he could have entered the building at any time of the day or night. If he didn't have one, it made no sense for him to walk 13 miles in the small hours to a lodging house that would deny him entry.

If you're prepared to accept that the police "blundered" by failing to consider Cross suspicious, then it would be hopelessly inconsistent for you to reason that the police "must" have investigated Hutchinson as a suspect because otherwise it would constitute a "blunder" on the part of the police. Nor can you realistically argue that because Cross appeared less suspicious than Hutchinson, that makes the former more suspicious. If not being suspicious is the latest new asset that any viable ripper candidate must have, just think how the list or ripper suspects would burgeon overnight! Hutchinson is a legitimately suspicious individual, whereas Cross has only the means and opportunity in his favour. If the police didn't check out Cross, they certainly didn't check out Hutchinson.

It is also time to accept that all sorts of criminals insert themselves in crimes - not just serial killers. It is a fary common occurance and the police would ahve been aware of it in 1888.

No, it's not "time to accept" that. It's time to dismiss it as wrong. There was no precedent in 1888 for murderers to insert themselves into their own police investigations. Some people seem ill-equipped to entertain the idea even today.

However as minimalistic as it is - I have highlighted numerous holes in it that were not properly examined at the time or at the inquest.

Not really. Nothing that would remotely qualify as suspicious, which, as Dan pointed out, is is sharp contrast to Hutchinson. The fact that his statement is more plausible than Hutchinson's logically means that he should be considered less suspicious than Hutchinson. Perhaps that explains why, generally speaking, he is?

3. Yes Cross had somewhere to go. But there were numerous fountains and troughs on his way.

But he still had his knife on him, and we know that his intention was to seek out a policeman after discovering the body. Would be really have done this if knew there was every chance of Mizen requesting a stop-check on the two men? Doesn't seem hugely likely to me. And what good would fountains and troughs have done when he had freshly extracted organs secreted about his person? Did he keep these in his pockets during the working day?

"The only viable time available to a potential serial killer who was in a position similar to Cross's would have been on his way to work."

But since this was woefully insufficient and drastically increased the killer's chances of being captured, the better assumption has to be that, since the killer wasn't caught, he probably wasn't "in a position similar to Cross".

All the best,
Ben

[lynn cates]

OK

Hello Dave. Well, if you insist.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Jon -
The 'unknown man' walking down Bucks Row clearly looked like just another man on his way to work.

RubyR
On the contrary, there is nothing known about him therefore nothing 'clear' at all.

His voice must have sounded like that of any other workman too (i.e. not cultured like a 'Gentleman').

Based on....?

Mizen would have mentioned it if the man who he saw passing was out of the ordinary, and Mulcher would surely have commented on the fact.

Ordinary, being what exactly?

'old man' was probably a very common expression.

Ah, so you agree with one point I already made...

We must not forget, "Old man" as a term of endearment was very common.

So we are making ground then?

This stranger is just one of those sideline issues for which there is no solution, if only Mulshaw had given more detail.

Regards, Jon S.

[harry]

Fisherman,
Is it only three times you have asked?keep counting.Every action taken by Cross speaks of innocence.Show one,just one,element of guilt that has not and cannot be countered by a show of innocence,then it might be worthwhile considering that a remote possibility exists that Cross was involved in killing Nicholls.Just one remember.

[Sally]

Try as you might Sally, Thomas Cross was born in 1835.
By the way Charles Allen Lechmere's maternal grandfather was called Thomas Roulson. Another Thomas.

Calm down Lech, just saying. I'm not 'trying' anything - it's not my dog in the race is it, I don't need to.

You'll concede then, that Thomas Cross is listed as being 36 in the 1861 census? You say that he was born in 1835 - ok, but could you post your sources please, with your reasons for believing that you have the correct Thomas Cross? It is, after all, a common enough name. What evidence do you have that the Thomas Cross you have identified is the right one? Should be easy enough to prove, if you're right.

And so, now we have 3 Thomases. Well, all that does is muddy the waters even further. The possibility remains, however, that Cross named his first son Thomas, who died in the Bethnal Green Tube Disaster in 1943, Thomas after Thomas Cross.

You don't have any evidence at all that he resented his stepfather(s) do you? That's fine, conjecture is fine; as long as it's quite clear from your post that you are using conjecture to bolster your theory.

I have no problem with the basic premise of the Cross theory, Lech; nor with a speculative approach to explain that premise. Where I do have an issue is with misleading remarks - pure speculation dressed up as fact.

This is why, from the very outset on this thread, I have repeatedly asked for evidence

I am not the only one to have noted that it hasn't yet been forthcoming. All I see is that you are interpreting some of the known events of Cross's life on the assumption of his guilt.

[DVV]

David:

" But he was not. It was dark. He could just walk.
If Cross-the-Ripper had had no time to leave, Paul would have caught him red-handed, or at least, would have had a "good look" at the Ripper at work."

Thatīs surmising, David. And "walk" would not have been a choice at any rate; it was staying or running. And the pulled down dress is an almighty pointer to how Cross/Lechmere may have reasoned; "Damn it, where did HE come from ...? Do I run ...? No, too risky, letīs play it cool, he hasnīt seen me yet ..."

The salient point, David, is that much as you would like to know, you simply donīt.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish.
So let's talk of your OWN salient points :

1) Paul was the one who suggested that he would go alone and send a constable, implying that Cross, in the meantime, would wait at the spot.

2) Cross decided to come along, instead of waiting near to the body, but was much worried about the bloody knife he had in the pocket.

These are the points you have made, Fish, but if Cross was much worried about the knife, why not letting Paul go ? That would have given him a unique and unhoped-for opportunity to get rid of it.

Looks like our friend Harry is right.

[Lechmere]

I rather think Sally that I have been at pains to emphasise that it is based on interpretation as indeed all ripper suspectogy is without exception.

[Lechmere]

Ben - you seem to have missed the point. I think numerous aspects relating to cross are highly suspicious - I have listed them. However they would not have seemed so suspicious to the police at the time for reasons I have also stated. This is in contrast to Hutchinson who was suspicious by the police's reckoning at the time and his involvement came at the very height of the scare when police resources devoted to the case were at their height and every lead was being followed up.

Harry - I know you favour Hutchinson. Do you apply the same evidential test in that case?

[Fisherman]

David:

"1) Paul was the one who suggested that he would go alone and send a constable, implying that Cross, in the meantime, would wait at the spot.

2) Cross decided to come along, instead of waiting near to the body, but was much worried about the bloody knife he had in the pocket.

These are the points you have made, Fish, but if Cross was much worried about the knife, why not letting Paul go ? That would have given him a unique and unhoped-for opportunity to get rid of it."

In a mini-universe like the one you are speaking of, you may have a point, David. It all seems logical and sound thinking on your behalf.

But Cross/Lechmere made other considerations than just the one about the knife, if I am correct. And in scheming this, he made VERY good use of Paul! And you know what? You are going to have to take my word for it, since I am not yet ready to tell you exactly what it was Cross did - and how he did it. Let me just tell you that I consider it a complete masterpiece of adjusting to the problems that surfaced after he had killed Nichols!

Iīm sorry to frustrate you in this manner, David, but there you are.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Masterpiece, my friend ?
You've got the doctor Moriarty, at last.

[DVV]

To be honest, I agree JtR achieved a masterpiece.
But that was Fleming, one Monday evening.

[Fisherman]

David:

"Masterpiece, my friend ?
You've got the doctor Moriarty, at last."

Haha! - yes, I see the connotations. Problem is, if Iīm correct, the man we are dealing with would have Moriarty conned ...

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Lechmere,
This is not a Hutchinson thread,so I'll be brief and leave it at that.Hutchinson did not find a body.

[Lechmere]

Harry - nor was Hutchinson found virtually over a body.

[Bridewell]

Practical Policing

Imagine a society in which an axe murderer is on the loose. Further imagine that the police one day stops a man in the street, only to find out that he is hiding an axe underneath his coat.

Such a thing would seem incriminating, right?

But letīs consider the alternative explanations, all totally harmless, to his carrying an axe with him:

Maybe he had for the longest time nurtured a wish to become a lumberjack.
An axe can be a very practical tool to have in many situations.
It could have been a gift.
Maybe he suffered from scholiosis, and carried the axe as a counterweight to his disformation.
He could have been afraid of the axman on the loose, and so decided to arm himself.

The nameswop is what I am speaking of here, the Cross/Lechmere thing. It has attracted a plethora of more or less useful "natural" explanations. That, I suppose, is as it should be.
But in the end, it still remains that our carman was christianed Lechmere, married as Lechmere, signed all official documents as Lechmere - but told the police, on leaving a murder spot after having been alone with the victim, that his name was Cross.

Finding a hidden axe on a person when there is an axman on the loose, is a very useful pointer to guilt. Just saying ...

The best,
Fisherman

In this scenario, you'd arrest him first and ask questions later. No police officer would take any of the suggested innocent alternatives at face value.

Regards, Bridewell.