Who was the first clothes-puller?

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"I think Fisherman was joking about the bloodstained pocket by the way."

Well spotted, Lechmere!

The rest of you: come on ...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

"Which of these is the "one single fact that points to his having had a violent nature; sexual problems; hatred of women - or prostitutes, even - anything whatever that makes Cross a more viable suspect"? which Sally asked you for?"

What evidence do we have for Rader being of a violent nature, but for his killings? Was Bundy known to be violent to people? Tjikatilo? Gein? Was Ridgway involved in violent incidents, when not killing?

About Ridgway, what were his sexual problems? What were Bundyīs?

A hatred for women, how was that evinced in these menīs behaviour when they NOT killed?

Asking for things like these, and somehow believing that it would constitute evidence for Cross being the killer if we had it on record that he had once said "I dislike prostitutes. I really do" is nothing short of ludicrous.

Henry Tomkins, the slaughterer, witnessed at the inquest. He said he really did not like the women that frequented the streets at night (prostitutes, that is).
Letīs nail him for the murder, shall we? After all, we do have evidence that he was PRECISELY the type that would kill prostitutes, donīt we?

Anybody who thinks along these lines should make a beeline for the drawing board. Anyone who thinks that disliking prostitutes is a better pointer to being a murderer than it is to stand alone over the freshly killed body of a woman needs to do some serious rethinking. And I mean serious!

I also await with great anticipation the presentation of a suspect - any suspect - that can be firmer tied to the Nicholls deed, or, for that matter, any other of the Ripper deeds. I fear it will be a very long wait, though...

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Spin

Spin it however you like, Fisherman.

Without additional evidence that Cross was not a fine upstanding citizen as to all intents and purposes he appears to have been; all you have is an interpretation of known facts predicated on an assumption of guilt.

As every one of those facts can equally be argued on the presumption of innocence, it comes down to personal viewpoint and no more than that.

As you can see for yourself, several people have reservations about Cross as a strong suspect on present evidence. If Cross is as strong a suspect as you suggest, ask yourself why that is?

I look forward to the day when Lechmere's excellent research skills unlock that piece of evidence that condemns Cross once and for all.

Until then....

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Spin it however you like, Fisherman. "

This is really nice, is it not? I am "spinning" things, whereas you probably donīt, right?

It is the other way around, of course. I have provided lots of examples of serial killers who did NOT adjust to the picture you are trying to sell in, Sally. How is that "spinning"?

"Without additional evidence that Cross was not a fine upstanding citizen as to all intents and purposes he appears to have been; all you have is an interpretation of known facts predicated on an assumption of guilt."

And how would it differ from Rader, Gacy, Ridgway etc, who were ALL upstanding citizens on the surface of things? How would it differ from the very upright and honest George Hutchinson? What do you have on HIM that would in any way allow you to choose him as a suspect, if firm evidence of not being a good and upright citizen is what it takes?

Donīt bother to anser, Sally, Iīll do it for you: You have nothing.

"As you can see for yourself, several people have reservations about Cross"

Name me ONE suspect of whom it cannot be said that several people have reservations? Thatīs the quality of your argument, Sally.

"
I look forward to the day when Lechmere's excellent research skills unlock that piece of evidence that condemns Cross once and for all."

Iīm glad to hear that, Sally. If you can find it in your heart to stretch that longing to entail other researchers too, there may be a surprise in store for you. But all good things to those who wait, eh, Sally?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

What is this obsession with Hutchinson? What has this thread to do with Hutchinson? I mean, you brought it up (again) so presumably you know - but I'm afraid I'm baffled. This is a thread to discuss Cross - you know, Cross, your new favourite suspect? Why derail your own thread with Hutchinson? If you want to talk about him, let's do it elsewhere?

Iīm glad to hear that, Sally. If you can find it in your heart to stretch that longing to entail other researchers too, there may be a surprise in store for you. But all good things to those who wait, eh, Sally?

Great. Can't wait. You never know, I might just have a surprise of my own.

As you say, all good things come to those who wait...

[Rubyretro]

However, what he calls "facts" are actually mere speculations over facts that do not incriminate Cross-Lechmere.

Hi David,

They were actually 'facts' in the list given, and not speculation.

Whether they incriminate Cross, is a different matter.

[Lechmere]

Sally - the point is that advocates of other suspects – such as Hutchinson or say Fleming – have been vocal in calling for firm evidence against Cross when there is none available for their preferred culprit. This smacks of hypocrisy or at least double standards.
Perhaps you don’t favour Hutchinson as the culprit and I have misjudged you or you have changed your views.
We are dealing with a long cold case here and realistically anyone who proposes a potential culprit is basing their case largely on conjecture. By looking at the facts as known and building a case around them. Firm evidence will be lacking.
The knife carrying issue is a case in point. What potential suspect can be shown to have been carrying a knife on any one of the murder nights? I suspect that is what motivated Fisherman to make his joke about the bloodstained pocket – but then that is just conjecture on my part.

Lynn – OK I will rephrase this to be more neutral:
“It is a fact that Polly's dress had been pulled down indicating that the murderer had been disturbed.”
To
“It is a fact that Polly’s dress had not been left up, so displaying her abdominal wounds, and this might be taken to indicate that the murderer had been disturbed.”

Bridewell
‘Which of these is the "one single fact that points to his having had a violent nature; sexual problems; hatred of women - or prostitutes, even - anything whatever that makes Cross a more viable suspect"? which Sally asked you for?’
Sally may have asked for these things but I am under no obligation to provide them.
I do not think it is at all necessarily the case that the culprit whether he be Cross or anyone else had an obviously violent nature, had hatred for women or had sexual problems. I think this is old fashioned thinking when dealing with serial killers – to pigeon hole them in this way.
Many serial killers kill vulnerable victims – ones they can find and overpower easily. In many instances it is about power. It is often the response to their own sense of inadequacies or lack of power or control – when they wish to control and that wish cannot be fulfilled in their normal life. That is why prostitutes are often the victims. They are women who are alone at night and who go off with men on their own at night. They are seldom murdered because they are prostitutes or even because they are women per se. Men can more easily overpower a woman – or a child.
Such a person – who would be a psychopath, would pass unnoticed by most people in the normal course of their lives.
Obviously there are many varieties of serial killer.

Jon Guy
I also think that Polly was picked up on Whitechapel Road. Cross could easily have had time to do this and also kill her.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"The knife carrying issue is a case in point. What potential suspect can be shown to have been carrying a knife on any one of the murder nights? I suspect that is what motivated Fisherman to make his joke about the bloodstained pocket – but then that is just conjecture on my part."

Not any more, it ainīt.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

The one thing, in my opinion, that I believe sticks out amongst the evidence as a possible indicator of Cross`s guilt of murder, and I apologise if it`s already been mentioned, is that Paul stated that he thought he felt a heart beat.

Now, I`m no Doctor but Nichols throat was cut so savagely that she would have died instantly. Yes? Her heart would have stopped immediately as the major vessels were severed. If Paul, did detect a final heart beat (which i doubt but we cannot ignore his statement) then Cross surely must be the killer?

[Fisherman]

Sally!

What Lechmere writes, "the point is that advocates of other suspects – such as Hutchinson or say Fleming – have been vocal in calling for firm evidence against Cross when there is none available for their preferred culprit. This smacks of hypocrisy or at least double standards", is of course what lies behind my discussing Hutchinson. You speak of an "obsession" with Hutchinson on my behalf, and ask me what he has to do with this thread, and thereīs your answer for you.

You have voiced a firm belief that Hutchinson is a good bid for the killerīs role, I believe, and since you have instead judged the Cross bid in sequence, and I quote you directly, "a bit thin", "mental leapfrog" and a bid for the bin of "crackpot theories", I think that Hutchinson belongs to this thread very much.
Since he is seemingly your favourite for the Ripper title, one would expect you to subject him to the exact same scrutiny as Cross. And in consequence with this, I take it that you very much agree that Hutchinson is a bid that belongs to the crackpot theories, since we have no firm evidence at all on him, since he was AS FAR AS WE KNOW an upright citizen, since we have no evidence that he ever carried a knife and since we cannot show any sign of sexual deviances, violent behviour, any psychosis or such things. We donīt even have him mocking old ladies feeding birds on record.

Can I take it that your stance on Hutchinson is that he too is only useful for crackpot theorists as long as these "shortcomings" attach to him? Just like Cross, that is?

This, you see, Sally, is how and why George Hutchinson belongs to this thread. And to be honest, I am not the one who brought him to the thread. You did, by laying down evidence demands for Cross that are quite unreasonable.
The best way to show you why? You know that by now, Sally!

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

better

Hello Lechmere. Fine emendation. Now you're talking.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

"The one thing, in my opinion, that I believe sticks out amongst the evidence as a possible indicator of Cross`s guilt of murder, and I apologise if it`s already been mentioned, is that Paul stated that he thought he felt a heart beat.

Now, I`m no Doctor but Nichols throat was cut so savagely that she would have died instantly. Yes? Her heart would have stopped immediately as the major vessels were severed. If Paul, did detect a final heart beat (which i doubt but we cannot ignore his statement) then Cross surely must be the killer?"

I think, Jon, that some movement can be about for some time after having had your throat cut. It could have been some stirring, it could have been some air that left her lungs etcetera. And if Cross had arrived half a minute before Paul, then alas, maybe it would not make a watertight case for Cross anyway. Iīm no doctor either, but thatīs my best guess.

Also, Paul seems to me to be an exciteable fellow, he was spooked by Cross, and he seems to want to paint himself out as having the leading roile, though he did not have so. This too has to enter the equation. All in all, Iīd say that the stirring, if it was there, would be an indicator pointing to Cross, but no absolute proof.

Again, if Cross falls, he falls as a consequence of the collected weight of the evidence. And the little bit about the stirring surely is much more in favour of convicting Cross than it is against such a thing.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

in a heart beat

Hello Jon. If she died of syncope, it could have taken a bit of time. Sufficient blood must be drained off.

And, as you allow, it may or may not have been a heart beat he felt.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

And there you go, Jon! Thanks, Lynn!

Fisherman

[lynn cates]

investigate

Hello Christer. Entirely welcome. And DO keep investigating this chap.

Cheers.
LC