Who was the first clothes-puller?

[curious]

Cheers Bridewell. Many will disagree ;-)

Many will disagree ;-)

no matter what is said or discovered.

But it was an extremely interesting observation that when considered with the clothing being arranged to cover the wounds is very suggestive that Cross might be the culprit.

[Sally]

Indeed

Hello Sally. Not to mention that Fleming was said to have ill used MJK on account of Barnett.

Cheers.
LC

Indeed Lynn

It certainly is interesting that a close companion of Mary's should have 'gone mad'. eh?

[Fisherman]

Bolo:

"Cutting open dead rabbits after they got skinned is not an exceptionally bloody affair but I never managed to get away with at least a bit of blood spatter on my hands, arms and clothes"

Skinned, Bolo? Nichols was not skinned, but if she had been, I think it would be unavoidableto get bloodied.

" his knife has to be dragged through areas of different density which may result in the knife getting stuck momentarily and then jump forward as soon as more force gets applied. This almost inevitably leads to a bit of blood spattering"

"May" result in the knife geting stuck. Then again, it may not.

I may sound harsh, but we can´t be sure of that blood, can we. Moreover, it was pitch dark! How would Paul see the blood? How would Mizen? He did not examine Cross´hands.

"If I try to picture myself in Cross' shoes who just killed and mutilated Polly, I would have chosen the easy way out and simply ran away."

Me too, Bolo. But I don´t think we compare to the kind of man Cross would have been if he was the killer. His behaviour points to a very cool anc calculating man, or, to put it otherwise: a full-blood psychopath. That is, if he DID do what I think he did as he heard Paul approaching.

"Instead, Cross and Paul went down Baker's Row/Hanbury Street to inform a PC about a possibly dead woman lying in Buck's Row, parted and calmly went to their respective place of work. This would have been a highly dangerous gamble if Cross really was the man"

Yes, it would. But psychopaths do not mind these games - they even enjoyt them in cases. And it also applies that if this is what Cross did, then he also ensured that he chose the only way out where he could calmly walk away, even being able to attend the inquest later without anybody suspecting him. This IN SPITE of having been alone with the murdered woman at the exact time she was thought to have died.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

It's a very interesting point regarding Paul thinking he might have felt a 'movement' - although he clearly wasn't sure himself.

According to our account of Paul's witness testimony (The Times, 18th September) Paul reported as follows:

'Her (Nichols) clothes were raised almost up to her stomach. Witness felt her hands and face, and they were cold. He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not'

And:

'While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement'

So it appears that when Paul arrived on the scene, Nichols clothes were raised, he and Cross subsequently pulling them down for decency - he couldn't hear her breathing and her hands were cold - so perhaps she had been dead for a little while.

If he did feel a heartbeat that would of course be another matter - but since the signs from his initial checks were that Nichols was dead, we must treat the former with caution, I think.

[Sally]

For the last and final time, Fish.

I am not prepared to discuss Hutchinson on this thread. Your repeated insistence that I do so is off topic and is disrupting the discussion with regard to Cross.

If you want to discuss Cross sensibly on this thread, fine. If you want to discuss Hutchinson on an appropriate thread, fine. Otherwise, I have nothing further to add.

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

"T'was I who raised the issue of the knife. I concede the point that most working men would probably have carried one. I apologise for being a little slow on the uptake about the "blood-stained pocket" gag too."

No problems, Bridewell!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"I am not prepared to discuss Hutchinson on this thread."

Not any more, you mean. You have done so before, with no qualms. And actually, it is not a discussion solely about Hutchinson I am after - it is a COMPARISON between him and Cross, and such a comparison can´t be split in two half posts, can it? It applies to BOTH men, and can therefore be discussed on this thread OR a Hutch thread.

So I ask you again: Does you demands for evidence lead you to conclude that Hutchinson is a crackpot suggestion in the same manner and for the same reasons that you condemn Cross´candidacy?

A simple yes or no will do. But of course, no answer at all will tell me a lot too.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

"Now that's evidence!"

Sorry, Bridewell. It is not. It is only evidence if it was there, and we do not know this. Maybe it was some air leaving the lungs - this can occur quite some time after death, depending on movement of the victim, I believe. Blood could have clogged the airways out of the cut neck, and then it may have opened up as Paul felt her chest, offering some pressure. And the heart will not stop beating immediately because the neck is cut; it is the heart that pumps out the blood afterwards.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

moving up

Hello Sally. Yes, it's enough to make whoever that person was to move near the top of the list.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

psychopath

Hello Christer. But if Cross were psychopathic, surely there would have been a later indication?

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

Sally:

"I am not prepared to discuss Hutchinson on this thread."

Not any more, you mean. You have done so before, with no qualms. And actually, it is not a discussion solely about Hutchinson I am after - it is a COMPARISON between him and Cross, and such a comparison can´t be split in two half posts, can it? It applies to BOTH men, and can therefore be discussed on this thread OR a Hutch thread.

So I ask you again: Does you demands for evidence lead you to conclude that Hutchinson is a crackpot suggestion in the same manner and for the same reasons that you condemn Cross´candidacy?

A simple yes or no will do. But of course, no answer at all will tell me a lot too.

The best,
Fisherman

Ok Fish - where, on this thread, have I discussed Hutchinson? Perhaps you would like to point that out? Otherwise, I'll take that as a baseless allegation.

If you want a comparison between the two men, start a thread to discuss it.

I'm sure you'd get some takers.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Where, on this thread, have I discussed Hutchinson? Perhaps you would like to point that out?"

Post 496, for example. And there are others.

"If you want a comparison between the two men, start a thread to discuss it."

For reasons outlined, there is no need for any other thread than this. And Why devote a whole thread to the "yes" or "no" that is all it takes to rid yourself of the subject?
You have called Cross a crackpot theory, and you have stated that nothing but evidence could change that view.

You don´t HAVE evidence in the Hutchinson case.

Deductions, Sally? Let´s get it overwith! You can just say that Hutchinson is NOT a crackpot theory - and then explain why.

It should be interesting!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Lynn:

" But if Cross were psychopathic, surely there would have been a later indication?"

And...?

Psychopaths exist all around us, Lynn, in varying degrees. One of the main features of such a person is an indifference to other peoples´sufferings. And many of them get wed and stay wed til their dying day.

If Cross was our man and if he had psychopathic traits, it could have manifested itself in many ways. We cannot conclude that he must have gone on killing or beating people up publically, or some such thing.
Actually, I could accept that he was NOT a psychopath too - but if not, he was a very quick thinker, a huge risktaker and an opportunist, indifferent to the sufferings of Nichols. And to me, that strongly suggest a psychopath.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

"Where, on this thread, have I discussed Hutchinson? Perhaps you would like to point that out?"

Post 496, for example. And there are others.

No Fish. See, that was a reference to Hutchinson in response to a post by another poster - it was not a discussion. Yes, sure I have referred to Hutchinson - in passing - and in context. In every case it has been in response to remarks made by yourself, or in the latter case, Lechmere. You brought him up and you continue to bring him up, when I have said repeatedly now that I see no place for him here.

Now, please listen carefully. I have no interest in discussing Hutchinson at this present time. None.

You seem to be quite interested in him, however, so why don't you go and discuss him? For me - no thanks.

Now, if we're all done here?

Perhaps we can get back to the topic in hand. Which is Cross.

[lynn cates]

signs

Hello Christer.

"If Cross was our man and if he had psychopathic traits, it could have manifested itself in many ways. We cannot conclude that he must have gone on killing or beating people up publically, or some such thing."

Of course, I would not conclude he must be violent, kill again etc. But I would expect signs of the pathology.

Cheers.
LC