Who was the first clothes-puller?

[Rubyretro]

Maybe there will be info turn up somewhere. If they had a sick baby for months, that had to be devastating for the family.

[/QUOTE]

Whenever people say to me "I wish that I had lived in the past, rather in todays world", I always think of child mortality (amongst other things) and I'm
very glad that I didn't.

I have also had people say to me " but it was different for them. They were religious, and they were used to babies not surviving infancy. they didn't feel it the same way we would".

In my local museum there are a number of roman gravestones (steles), some of which are for babies and infants. It is quite clear from the touching inscriptions that the parents felt exactly the same way that we would.

There is also a medieaval church near me that only has graves, hewn out of the rock, for babies. People came from afar to bury their infants there in the hope that they would be resurrected by St Pantaleon.

It is clear that infant mortality was always a painful and terrible event for parents across history.

So I think that the death of Cross's baby daughter may well have had a devastating effect on him.

[harry]

Exactly Fisherman,so why might the loss of a child have such an affect on Cross.

[Fisherman]

Well, Harry, I have two things to say on that matter:

1. It was not me that suggested it.

and...

2. People will react differently to different things. While one person may take an insult with a smile, another will get himself a shotgun and kill the insulter, his wife, his kids and his friends.

Fisherman

[curious]

Exactly Fisherman,so why might the loss of a child have such an affect on Cross.

Harry,
I was not suggesting that the loss of a child would cause someone to become a serial killer.

We were looking at stressors in C/L's life during 1888. He was a man born of aristocratic linage, stuck in what appears to be a deadend job for 20 years and with a houseful of children he is responsible for. Then, early in the year, his wife has another child. Since it lived just a year and something, there is a possibility that it was a sick child. Few things are more difficult than a sick child, but when there are 7 or 8 others running around . . .

I think many people might "crack" under that kind of strain.

On the other hand, I pointed out that with all his wife had to deal with, it might also explain why C/L gave the name of Cross to the policeman and appears to have tried to hide his finding of the body and inquest testimony.

The "sick baby" theory can be seen in favor of him cracking and hating the sex organs of females (all the stress and responsibility on him) OR of him trying to protect his wife . . .

Of course, the baby could have died in an accident. I'm not sure anyone knows.

Personally, that many children would drive me crazy, but others thrive on it.

Does that help, Harry?

[Lechmere]

The Harriet Busewell file is indeed very interesting.
However before we make absolute claims for who the police ‘will’ have necessarily or been exceptionally likely to have ‘checked out’, we should remember that the police in the Nichols case neglected to interview most of the residents in Bucks Row and were criticised at the inquest for this failure and failed in numerous other aspects such as leaving the body unattended at the morgue.
We also know quite specifically hat the Police were interested in Pizer, Isenschmidt, that they hauled in and questioned the here butchers from Winthrop Street and Robert Paul (for specific reasons). In contrast we have no information that they took any notice of Cross beyond the negative interest that was illustrated in Dew’s memoirs where he cannot even remember his name. Then we have the fact that his real name – Lechmere – is never revealed even in passing in the extant Police records. Known aliases are usually mentioned.
We know that from day 1 of the Nicholls murder that the police were looking for a foreigner – Leather Apron.
We also know that the police to this day regularly blunder and fail to follow up leads properly – the Yorkshire Ripper being a case in point.

The reason why Cross’s background – large family, the infant mortality at that specific moment, his biological father’s desertion, the possibly dominant mother, the death of his second step father, the younger policeman stepfather in his formative years, the semi illustrious family background – is that these are not reasons why someone becomes a psychopath and then a serial killer, but they are mental justifications to someone who s in that 5% of the population who are BORN with psychopathic tendencies. They rationalise their murderous behaviour around feelings of neglect and abuse. Normal well adjusted human beings take adversity in their stride.
That is why it is common for serial killers to have these features in their background. Not because these features make them serial killers as such. It is like recognising that many serial killers are ‘white van drivers’ or mini cab drivers. It is not because driving a white van turns you into a serial killer. It is because they often chose those professions as it makes the execution of their crime easier. Also they may end up in that career by chance as an existing potential serial killer and while driving about realise – ‘hey this gives me an opportunity’.

I am a little surprised that some posters are asking why the death of Cross’s child could potentially have an affect on what he did. Clearly it would have had the potential to affect his psychological outlook and in an unpredictable manner. That the death of one of his infant children occurred at that time is a factor that should be a factor that is taken into consideration.
If Cross was from a completely stable family background and there were no events around 1888-1891 which we know about which could potentially have had a psychological impact upon him then the case against him would be weaker.
It really is as simple as that.

[harry]

Curious,
I understand your post.I was merely stating that I do not think Cross would have been so affected by the death of a child,that it would have driven him to kill and mutilate a person.

[harry]

Lechmere,
Cross's behaviour that morning does not indicate a person who was mentally affected in any way.It is suggestive of a person w ho acted normally to an unexpected situation.There is absolutely no information he was in the company of Nicholls prior to her death,a must if he was to be her killer.An innocent man on his way to work,and nothing that has been put forward,shows otherwise.

[Rubyretro]

OK Harry -lets play a guessing game.

According to Lechmere, There is between 8 to 15 minutes unaccounted for between the time that Cross left home and the time that he 'found' Polly's body.

What plausible things do you think that he might have been doing during that time ?

He left home on time (2.20 or 2.30 for a 7 minute walk to the body), but he followed Paul because he said that he was also late
for the journey to work. It was 2.45 when he met Paul in Bucks Row.

Give us a list of possibilities.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"I was merely stating that I do not think Cross would have been so affected by the death of a child,that it would have driven him to kill and mutilate a person."

The suggestion was that it drove him to END his killing, Harry.


But Harry, you do not ground your own supposition on an extensive knowledge of Lechmereīs psychological status, do you? You donīt ground it on a comparison with how he reacted to other occurences in his life, do you?

You ground it on a very general picture of how you perceive that people would react to a thing like this, and on your own guesses/experiences of how you have reacted yourself to stress - and then you transfer it to Lechmere, unknowing if it will fit or not.

We cannot do this, Harry. None of us can offer a guess as to how he would have reacted to different developments, since we do not know anything about the psychological disposition of the man. We can only say that most of the people who suffer personal losses, do not quit a serial killing carreer as a result of it. Indeed, most of them never even embark upon such a carreer in the fist place!

But thatīs just statistics. Somebody DID kill and eviscerate women back in the East end of 1888 , and that someone stopped for SOME reason. The rest is guesswork as it stands. Nothing else.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Hi Ruby

According to Lechmere, There is between 8 to 15 minutes unaccounted for between the time that Cross left home and the time that he 'found' Polly's body.

There isn`t any lost time.

Cross:On Friday morning I left home at half past three. I went down Parson street, crossed Brady street, and through Buck's row

It was 2.45 when he met Paul in Bucks Row.

Robert Paul was at least five mins out with his reckoning of the time.
At 3.45 PC Neil was standing by the body waving his lantern at PC Thain, who was at the end of the street.

Whilst PC Neil was finding the body at 3.45, Cross and Paul would have just parted company with PC Mizen.

[harry]

Ok Fisherman,so why did Cross begin killing.Still has to be some reason.Nearly everyone in the east end had problems,and 20 years in the same business might have been drudgery,and caused resentment,but it was pretty common at that time to be in that position.Again, hardly a valid reason to turn him into a killer.
As Jon Guy points out,the time taken to have reached the murder site is accounted for.What isn't is the twenty five minutes after PC Neil passed by.Any number of persons could have preceeded Cross,and if you suggest that is conjecture.I can only point out that,in the main, Lechmere's theory is conjecture based on the possibilities of things happening.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"Ok Fisherman,so why did Cross begin killing.Still has to be some reason.Nearly everyone in the east end had problems,and 20 years in the same business might have been drudgery,and caused resentment,but it was pretty common at that time to be in that position.Again, hardly a valid reason to turn him into a killer."

Are you truly expecting me to have the answer? Wow, thatīs some confidence! Iīm sorry to say I donīt have it. I only know that something turned somebody into a serial killer - and Cross can be the guy.

"As Jon Guy points out,the time taken to have reached the murder site is accounted for."

If he left home at 3.30, there is still time missing.

If he left home at 3.20, there is ten minutes more missing.

And - wait for it - IF he was a killer, then why would he not adjust his times afterwards? How many witnesses do we have to him leaving home at 3.20? Why could he not have done so at 3.10 or 3.00 - and lied about it?

I think we are dealing with a clever killer here, Harry. And clever killers are not very trustworthy people, as you may appreciate.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Hi Fisherman

If he left home at 3.30, there is still time missing.

If he left home at 3.20, there is ten minutes more missing.

He left home at 3.30am, and as can be seen there is no time missing.
How he is missing time if he left home at 3.30?

[Lechmere]

If you take all the witnesses – including Mizen and Llewellyn – you will see that the person who was out in his timing (2.45) was almost certainly Neil. Also in some reports he is said to have left at 2.20. There is a discrepancy which we will never get to the bottom of.

The rationale for Cross starting was his moving from the immediate area where his mother lived to a street that meant his walk to work traversed the murder area. This happened in June 1888. There are plausible start and end triggers for Cross.

Harry
Yes someone could have proceeded Cross. However Cross aid he saw no one at all until Paul came along. Mizen says he saw no one. Neil says he saw no one. None of the nightwatchmen or late night butchers saw anyone.
The body had been very freshly slain – as indicated by the possible twitching, murmur felt by Paul and the warmth found on parts of the body (living people often have cold hands by the way), and Llewellyn’s estimate of time of death. If it was not Cross then he must have just missed the culprit. Then there is the issue of the dress being semi pulled back down and the body not ‘left on display’.

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

"He left home at 3.30am ..."

But how do we KNOW this, Jon. Who is the source? How can we check it? Is it not true that IF he was the killer, it would make sense to start out at, say, 3.15, and then tell the inquest that you started out at 3.30?

"How he is missing time if he left home at 3.30?"

Michael Connor estimated the route from 22 Doveton street to Browns Stable Yards as taking five minutes to walk. Five minutes after 3.30, the time is 3.35. That leaves ten minutes to account for, and even if Paul was the odd minut off, there is time unaccounted for anyway.

If Lechmere left home at 3.30, he would have passed Browns Stable yards at 3.35. He certainly would not have been in Buckīs Row at 3.40-3.45!

Moreover, some sources have Lechmere stasting 3.30, others have him saying 3.20. And then we have me, saying that we may be loooking at a quite different time, since Lechmere, if he was the killer, would be completely free to give whatever time he felt would benefit his cause.

The best,
Fisherman