Who was the first clothes-puller?

[Rubyretro]

Cross could have split up to go where exactly ? And why drop the knife if he wanted to use it again ?

[lynn cates]

planning

Hello Christer. Thanks. I suppose that would work, given the police never came back to see him. But IF they had, surely his suspicion would be compounded?

It seems that, given the views I see in this thread, Paul's appearance was not anticipated. So I wonder if his Cross substitution were planned or spontaneous?

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

Fish, this may sound like a piece of banter but I mean it seriously : in my opinion to suggest that it was likely that by giving a different name, Cross could hide his involvement in the case from his illiterate wife, is to sadly underestimate the shrewdness of women and the sheer investigative proficiency of the female grapevine.

[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). Paul had not apparently seen any blood, and there was no reason why he should have suspected Cross of wrongdoing. Cross could easily have suggested that they split up, to increase their chances of fnding a PC. Paul would doubtless have agreed, especially given the psychlogical dominance Cross is supposed to have had over him (not convinced of that but there you go). Once on his own, Cross could have ditched the knife, and if he could make himself sufficiently presentable, might even have spoken to a policeman. Or he could have just carried on to work and doubtless never have been discovered.

You and Lechmere, on the other hand, have Cross stopping Paul, chatting to him, going with him to a policeman, and after that, even carrying on walking with him. It's as if Cross has a sentimental attachment to his bloodstains and gory knife. It's as though he's putting off the moment when he has to be parted from them!

[Rubyretro]

.

"Mockery"? Not much point in mocking someone if they have no idea that you're doing it. I think you're at risk of undermining a decent proposition if you start adulterating it with sheer guesswork.

Regards, Bridewell.[/QUOTE]

I disagree on both counts:
-there is some self satisfaction in mocking someone, even if they have no idea that you're doing it. It's a valve for letting off steam. The fact that the person that you are mocking is actually dead at the time would make no difference to the need for letting off steam if you had deep resentments.

-The basic facts of the case have been gone over myriad times. Even when new facts are discovered, as in this case, it is obliged that there be some speculation as to motives and psychology of the suspect. The thing is whether the 'guesswork' is convincing when measured against our own personal experiences of how people function.

Fisherman and Lechmere are pretty good at being convincing.

The only warning signals that I feel about the 'guesswork' is that Fisherman and Lechmere might have made good criminal lawyers, both. And we have to take a step back to avoid being steamrollered by their fervour.

But even in a "sitting on the fence" position, I would agree with quite a number of their assessments. Not 'all'.