Who was the first clothes-puller?

[Fisherman]

Robert:

"Fish, by walking off with Paul to find a policeman, Cross would have been taking a grave risk, if he was guilty. There was no reason that I can see why he should have done this (if he was guilty)."

I cannot see any risk at all in it, Robert. What was Paul supposed to do?

The best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

Okay

I don't feel that the Ripper -whoever he was- would just submit like that; He had a certain cool thinking and planning and he thought himself clever (my 'guess' !); He'd be likely to do what Cross did in the situation.

Hi, Rubyretro,

I don't seek to take issue with any of this.

The problem is that Cross would have acted just as he did, even as the innocent man he purported to be. I can't see that his actions on the day can be interpreted as evidence of guilt, when they are equally capable of innocent explanation.

Regards, Bridewell.

[DVV]

Actually, Mrs Long tried to frame Saul, not Paul.

[Robert]

Well, on the subject of control : if, as suggested, Cross wanted to frame Paul for the murder of Chapman, why not leave a note at the Chapman scene? No envelope, just a torn fragment of a piece of paper bearing the words "Dear Mr Paul" and a couple of other words?

[Rubyretro]

As paul approaches he tries to avoid lech. lech initiates the contact. Why if he is guilty? Realizing if he had been caught red handed and then seeing that person is going out of his way to avoid him, he could.... well, let paul go on his merry way. But he is going to flag him dowN?
"hey were you goin? Come over here and check out this women I just murdered". Dont think so.

[/

Off the top of my head, here's a piece of speculation Abby :

I have speculated this in the case of Hutch watching Lewis walking down the street, and 'what's good for the goose..' as someone pointed out.

It is reasonable to suppose that it was not the very first time that either Cross or Paul had walked down Buck's Row. It is reasonable to suppose that they both started work fairly similar times and walked in the same direction.

Suppose Cross -all his senses heightened- recognised, or believed erroneously that he recognised Paul's figure in the dark?

Even if he had never spoken to Paul in his life before the body was found, could he

a) guarantee that Paul wouldn't recognise him from other mornings , as he passed, and then give the Police his description?

b) would not recognise him on a subsequent morning and warn the Police?

I always think that murderers are 'control freaks' (desiring the ultimate control over life and death of their victims), and as such Cross wouldn't want to let Paul pass without taking control of the situation.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Ruby, well and good, but that's mere speculation, and still, the safest thing to do was to leave the scene before Paul could have a good look at him.
I too believe that the Ripper, if caught red-handed, would have probably tried to fight and escape, but Cross (if the killer) wasn't caught red-handed in Buck's Row, he had ample time to walk away.

Fisherman has Cross very worried about the knife. Then why did he wait for Paul ?

Agree.

As paul approaches he tries to avoid lech. lech initiates the contact. Why if he is guilty? Realizing if he had been caught red handed and then seeing that person is going out of his way to avoid him, he could.... well, let paul go on his merry way. But he is going to flag him dowN?
"hey were you goin? Come over here and check out this women I just murdered". Dont think so.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Hi Ruby, well and good, but that's mere speculation, and still, the safest thing to do was to leave the scene before Paul could have a good look at him.
I too believe that the Ripper, if caught red-handed, would have probably tried to fight and escape, but Cross (if the killer) wasn't caught red-handed in Buck's Row, he had ample time to walk away.

Fisherman has Cross very worried about the knife. Then why did he wait for Paul ?

[/

But I don't understand your reasoning either , David (hope you and your mutt are well, by the way !)

-(taking it backwards) Why would Cross think that Paul was able to frisk him ?
-If Paul had walked down Buck's Row and found a woman with her throat cut and seen a man running away, or merely walking briskly away from the body, wouldn't he have at least suspected that it was the culprit ?
-couldn't he have shouted for help ?
-given a description to the Police ?
-maybe he recognised the man from using the same streets to go to work, or he might in the future ?

[DVV]

I don't feel that the Ripper -whoever he was- would just submit like that; He had a certain cool thinking and planning and he thought himself clever (my 'guess' !); He'd be likely to do what Cross did in the situation.

Hi Ruby, well and good, but that's mere speculation, and still, the safest thing to do was to leave the scene before Paul could have a good look at him.
I too believe that the Ripper, if caught red-handed, would have probably tried to fight and escape, but Cross (if the killer) wasn't caught red-handed in Buck's Row, he had ample time to walk away.

Fisherman has Cross very worried about the knife. Then why did he wait for Paul ?

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]QUOTE=Abby Normal;213730]Hi Ruby
Dont get my reasoning? the killer would have fled when he heard someone approaching, not stick around. whats not to get?[/QUOTEI 'got' what you wanted to say Abby.

You just can't state that the killer "would of fled".

I explained to you why I wouldn't have fled (I think), and therefore the killer might not have either.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

I like your "Cross could have split up" BTW. Maybe Cross could have gone to dispose of the evidence while sending Lechmere to meet the policeman.[/QUOTE[/

Robert, you have just nailed the case. Evidently it was Lechmere and Cross working together wot dun it.

This should even satisfy those who believe that there wasn't one killer at large .

[DVV]

I can see some merit in it, but not enough to form a compelling argument. That doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong, just that I don't find as much strength in it as you do.

Hi Bridewell. My overall impression exactly.

[Abby Normal]

Sorry Abby -I don't get your reasoning here.

The Ripper "high tailed" it after the other murders because he hadn't any witnesses and could high tail it.

IfCross were the murderer, then he had just been caught in a compromising position standing over a body of a woman that he had just killed.
So what is the reaction when he saw Paul ? Lechmere used the phrase 'Fight or Flight'.

None of us can really know what we'd do in that situation, but coldly thinking I feel that I'd use 'Fight'; Either he could talk Paul into thinking that he was innocent, or neutralise him. It would give him some control over the stuation.

Scarpering would be admitting guilt, surely ? He would have to submit himself to the consequences of the unknown future ?

Hi Ruby
Dont get my reasoning? the killer would have fled when he heard someone approaching, not stick around. whats not to get?

[Rubyretro]

Sorry Abby -I don't get your reasoning here.

The Ripper "high tailed" it after the other murders because he hadn't any witnesses and could high tail it.

IfCross were the murderer, then he had just been caught in a compromising position standing over a body of a woman that he had just killed.
So what is the reaction when he saw Paul ? Lechmere used the phrase 'Fight or Flight'.

None of us can really know what we'd do in that situation, but coldly thinking I feel that I'd use 'Fight'; Either I could talk Paul into thinking that I was innocent, or neutralise him. It would give me some control over the stuation (imagining that I'm Cross).

Scarpering would be admitting guilt, surely ? Cross would have to submit himself to the consequences of the unknown future ? Scary.

I don't feel that the Ripper -whoever he was- would just submit like that; He had a certain cool thinking and planning and he thought himself clever (my 'guess' !); He'd be likely to do what Cross did in the situation.

[Abby Normal]

Let'sgo through the potentialy questionable parts of Cross's actions with the alterative explanations. I will try not to leave any out...

1. He leave home at 2.20 or 2.30 and arrives over Polly's body at 2.45. It is a six or perhaps seven minute walk and he was allegedly late for work.
How can we account for this discrepancy?
Did he in fact use the extra time to meet (presumably on Whitechapel Road) and kill Polly?
Or was he dawdling, having a few fags along the way. Or did he actualy leave later than he thought?

2. When he was walking up Bucks Row to find Polly about 150 yards up, why wasn't he aware that Paul was clomping along behind him nfor most of the way. Why did he only suss out that Paul was 40 yards behind him when he stoppede to look at Polly (supposedly thinking she was a tarpaulin)? After all PC Neil saw PC Thane the full 150 yards distant.
Was it because he was actually busy killing Polly and only noticed Paul when he was maybe 80 yards way and he quickly threw the dress down as best he could, wiped his hands and the knife and concealed it and reversed into the middle of the road as Paul approached?
Or was he minding his own business, lost in his own thoughts (on this dangerous thoroughfare frequented by thugs) until he noticed the tarpaulin like object on the opposite pavement?

3. Did he approach Paul with a terrible aspect to his face because that was the kind of guy he was, or was it because he had just murdered someone. Did this initial contact establish a pecking order between the two -

4. Did he tap Paul on the shoulder, as Paul pirouetted around him, just to attract his attention or as part of a show of dominance?
Would he - had he been the murderer - have been worried about leaving a trace of blood - would he have already wiped his hands? Or was he already thinking that he would get Paul to touch the body and so possibly independently get blood trasfers.
Or was he just a tactile individual.

5. Why did he egg Paul on to touch the body? Why did he touch the body himself? Why didn't he try and talk to th body if they were not sure that she had swooned or not?
Was it as he was a tactile kinda guy (see above)?
Is touching up the prostrate body of a woman normal behaviour in the Victorian period? Did it happen in any of the other Whitechapel murders?
Was it to insinuate Paul into the murder, to make sure that both possibly had good reason to have blood on them?
He almost seems to have ordered Paul to touch her - was this also an act to show dominance?

6. Why did he refuse to help Paul prop her up?
Was it because he suddenly developed an aversion to touching her - in case she woke up and cried 'rape'?
Or was it because he knew he had sliced her throat and that if she was moved this would become immediatley apparent.

7. Why did they leave Polly lying in the street either dead or possibly freshly raped and unconscious without alerting immediate neighbours or nightwatchmen?
Was it because they were late for work and assumed they would bump into a policeman somewhere along the way?
Or was itt because Cross was anxious to be as far from the crime scene as possible before anyone took too close a look at Polly?

8. When they met PC Mizen, did Cross call himself Cross instead of Lechmere as he had a fondness for the Cross name, particularly when addressing another policeman despite the fact that his first stepfather had died 19 years before?
Or did he call himself Cross to some people anyway - even though every single record we have (and there are a great many) state that his name was Lechmere... apart from a census return when he was only 11?
Or did he chose a plausible deniable name that would create distance between himself and the crime?
The name was given to Mizen with about three minutes of them leaving the body, when according to him he didn't actually know whether she was dead or not and if she was dead then it was presumably from some sort of swoon as there were no visible injuries.And at that moment the press had not made anything about any spate of attacks so he had no reason to suppose that any such press scare would arise.

9. Did he walk down Hanbury Street with Paul despite it being a longer route and despite him claiming to be late for work, just because he wanted a bit of company to talk about what they had just seen or possibly because he was worried now about being attacked in turn by the perspon who had possibly attacked Polly...
Or did he want to bend Paul's ear about what he had seen.Did he want to see where Paul worked so he could implicate him further in a future crime (Annie Chapman) for which Paul was raided and questioned. Did he also want to avoid walking straight off down Old Montague Street and passed the Tabram murder scene? Was he worried that this might cause Mizen to twig?

10. Did he turn up at the inquest in his work clothes because he thought he might be able to get to work or perhaps he only had one set of clothes?
In whoich case why was he also wearing his apron?
He left a decent sum in his will in 1920 and saved enough money while being a carman to open a grocer shop in about 1901. So I think we can assume he had more than one set of clothes. He was a member of the prosperous working class not a pauper.
We know that Paul had to pay for a replacement to do his work for two days due to his inquest appearance. Paul knew this in advance. Is it credible that Cross did not know in advance that he wouldn't be able to go to work? Did he actually turn up in his work clothes enecause he wanted his illiterate wife to think that he had gone to work?

11. Was it just a coincidence that Stride was murdered earlier than the others on a Saturday night/Sunday moring near where his mother lived with one of his daughters (147 Cable Street - just on the other side of the railway arches where the Pinchin Street torso was found)?

12. Was it a coincidence that the apron was found on a direct route back from Mitre Square to his house?

13. Was it a coincidence that the murders started soon after he moved to Doveton Street away from his mother's neighbourhood, in mid June 1888?:

14. Is it just happenstance that bhis background fits that of many psychopathic serial killers? When he was 9, his mother (aged 32) remarried an authority figure (policeman) aged just 23. This was bigamous as his real father was still alive and living in Northamptonshire where he started a new family. After his step father's premature death in 1869, his mother then remarries someone else, this time eleven years here senior (called Joseph Forsdike).Jospeph Forsdike died in December 1889 (so concluding the sequence). His mother must have been a remarkable woman to have married three times - most people in the East End used to just shack up with subsquent partners even if they adpted their names.
Also Charles Allen Lechmere was the grandson of Charles Fox Lechmere - a member of the landed gentry from Herefordshire. The East End Lechmere's rapidly descended from the ranks of the well off squirachy to struggling East End members of the working class with extreme rapidity. The lechmjere's controlled two prosperous villages in Herefordshire and their main base was in Worcestershire. Fownhope in Herefordshire is to nthis day full of Lechmere reminders - the graveyard and church is full of impressive meorials to Charles Allen Lechmere's close relatives - his grandfather, his rich cousins and so forth. The Lechmere crest is a pelican ''vulning' - that is cutting its breast to draw blood to suckle and revive it's dead young. Or so the story goes.
Be that as it may, psychopaths often justify their acts by a sense of lost entitlement.

Hi Lech

3. Did he approach Paul with a terrible aspect to his face because that was the kind of guy he was, or was it because he had just murdered someone. Did this initial contact establish a pecking order between the two -

4. Did he tap Paul on the shoulder, as Paul pirouetted around him, just to attract his attention or as part of a show of dominance?
Would he - had he been the murderer - have been worried about leaving a trace of blood - would he have already wiped his hands? Or was he already thinking that he would get Paul to touch the body and so possibly independently get blood trasfers.
Or was he just a tactile individual.

5. Why did he egg Paul on to touch the body? Why did he touch the body himself? Why didn't he try and talk to th body if they were not sure that she had swooned or not?
Was it as he was a tactile kinda guy (see above)?
Is touching up the prostrate body of a woman normal behaviour in the Victorian period? Did it happen in any of the other Whitechapel murders?
Was it to insinuate Paul into the murder, to make sure that both possibly had good reason to have blood on them?
He almost seems to have ordered Paul to touch her - was this also an act to show dominance?

6. Why did he refuse to help Paul prop her up?
Was it because he suddenly developed an aversion to touching her - in case she woke up and cried 'rape'?
Or was it because he knew he had sliced her throat and that if she was moved this would become immediatley apparent.

7. Why did they leave Polly lying in the street either dead or possibly freshly raped and unconscious without alerting immediate neighbours or nightwatchmen?
Was it because they were late for work and assumed they would bump into a policeman somewhere along the way?
Or was itt because Cross was anxious to be as far from the crime scene as possible before anyone took too close a look at Polly?


All these points above just really emphasize that had Lech just killed Polly he would have done none of these things-On the moment he heard someone approaching the killer would have high tailed it out of there, just like the Ripper always did. Not stick around and do the above, at which any time he could have been nailed.

[Robert]

Hi Ruby

Go where? Anywhere away from Paul. Fish and Lechmere are arguing that Cross was guilty, that he had incriminating evidence on him, and that he wanted to leave Buck's Row as quickly as possible in order to erase, ditch, hide or otherwise dispose of this evidence. I'm saying that in that case, he would above all have wanted to be on his own.

I like your "Cross could have split up" BTW. Maybe Cross could have gone to dispose of the evidence while sending Lechmere to meet the policeman.