Evidence of innocence

[Geddy2112]

I was a docker many moons ago. I had to give evidence in court over an accident at work. I worked to lunch time then went to court in my work clothes. A working man will attend court in work clothes so he doesn't lose a day's pay. That does not indicate he was the Ripper

To me the issue that clears Cross is when he refused to touch the body. Surely he would have been anxious to touch the body and have an excuse for any blood on him.

For many years I was a union rep, representing teachers, T.A.s etc etc. I often turned up to court in my suit, which incidentally was my work clothes. (Crap, that does not actually prove a point does it..)

[Herlock Sholmes]

I was a docker many moons ago. I had to give evidence in court over an accident at work. I worked to lunch time then went to court in my work clothes. A working man will attend court in work clothes so he doesn't lose a day's pay. That does not indicate he was the Ripper

To me the issue that clears Cross is when he refused to touch the body. Surely he would have been anxious to touch the body and have an excuse for any blood on him.

Good to see an example from the modern era George. And the need not to lose a days work would have been far more important to an 19th century East Ender like Cross.

The point about the blood is also a good one. And how many of us, who have no medical training or who are a bit squeamish, wouldn’t have wanted to touch a body. I was recently reading about the Hanratty case where a horror had to be released from duty because he fainted every time someone mentioned blood.

These are non-suspicious incidents that everyone can see are non-suspicious but they are already woven into the narrative.

[Lewis C]

Advocates of Lechmere have to intentionally try to make him sound more suspicious than he ever was... That's why the general argument from any poster on any thread or forum who champions Lechmere as the killer usually consists of...

It was Lechmere! I can't believe you didn't know this. You obviously haven't researched this case, because if you had, you'd see that he was caught crouching over a freshly killed woman. He lied to the police. He gave a fake name at the inquest. And he lived and worked on the murder routes! No other suspect comes close!

Which, when actually broken down and properly analysed, is nothing short of absolute bollocks.

And don't get me wrong, I have to question anyone who is absolutely convinced of any person being the murderer. We'll simply never know for sure who it was, and that's okay. There's simply not enough evidence to be convinced of anyone's guilt.

I've tried to give the Lechmere crowd as much benefit of the doubt as I could, and the argument is simply just pretty weak. He's a bloke who found a body. Many blokes found many bodies, they're all interesting people in their own right, but are they what you'd call persons of interest as far as suspicion goes? Not in my opinion. There are far better suspects, but none of them can ever be placed at any of the crimes, and while Lechmere can be placed at the scene of ONE crime, there's absolutely zero evidence of him ever having committed any crime.

Hi Mike,

I would suggest that there is a better suspect than Lechmere that can be placed at the scene of a crime: George Hutchinson. I don't think that he's quite the best suspect overall, just the best of those that can be placed at the scene of a crime.

[Georgeb]

I suspect that showing up in work clothes was far more common than the Lechmere enthusiasts would have us believe, and as has been mentioned before, the ELO (in particular) often described shabbily dressed people. At least some of the Lechmere enthusiasts also appear to be under the impression that these were highly formal and austere occasions, when many Victorian inquests were held in pubs or even in music halls, which may well have lowered expectations in the minds of the witnesses.

Here's an account of an exasperated coroner in Dover in January 1894. If even jurymen showed up in their work aprons, one can only imagine how frequent it was for witnesses to do the same.




As for Wynne Baxter, he had probably given up or had grown used to it.

I was a docker many moons ago. I had to give evidence in court over an accident at work. I worked to lunch time then went to court in my work clothes. A working man will attend court in work clothes so he doesn't lose a day's pay. That does not indicate he was the Ripper

To me the issue that clears Cross is when he refused to touch the body. Surely he would have been anxious to touch the body and have an excuse for any blood on him.

[Geddy2112]

Advocates of Lechmere have to intentionally try to make him sound more suspicious than he ever was... That's why the general argument from any poster on any thread or forum who champions Lechmere as the killer usually consists of...

It was Lechmere! I can't believe you didn't know this. You obviously haven't researched this case, because if you had, you'd see that he was caught crouching over a freshly killed woman. He lied to the police. He gave a fake name at the inquest. And he lived and worked on the murder routes! No other suspect comes close!

Yes and the fibs have been going on for too long -
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...nal-Green.html

Cross was discovered crouching over the body by a witness Robert Paul. He told police he had been walking through Bucks Row on his way to Pickfords’ depot in Broad Street at around 3am when he found the body of Nichols.

Robert Paul never said that and he was not on his way to Pickfords' he worked somewhere else

Paul claimed he had seen Cross standing by the body of Nichols when he had arrived

Which of course contradicts the quote above but sorry, it should be middle of the road guv'nor...

And all the subsequent murders took place between his home in Doveton Street in Bethnal Green and his work at Broad Street at times when he would have been walking to work.

Nope... Chapman out of hours, Kelly not a work day, Berner St and Mitre square not on those routes... not a bad quote though for near 100% false.

Mr Stow said: "We think it Charles Cross, the first person who found that first body. He was seen crouching over Polly Nichols and he was trying to cover up some of the wounds."

Nope...

[Fiver]

I've tried to give the Lechmere crowd as much benefit of the doubt as I could, and the argument is simply just pretty weak. He's a bloke who found a body. Many blokes found many bodies, they're all interesting people in their own right, but are they what you'd call persons of interest as far as suspicion goes? Not in my opinion. There are far better suspects, but none of them can ever be placed at any of the crimes, and while Lechmere can be placed at the scene of ONE crime, there's absolutely zero evidence of him ever having committed any crime.

Agreed. Finding the body makes him a better suspect than many, but there wasn't just one body. Based on the testimony of three witnesses, Chapman was killed after Lechmere started work. Killing Stride and Eddowes would have meant staying up 23+ hours or getting up 3+ hours early on his only day off.

[rjpalmer]

If wearing a work apron to an inquest were bad form, or deemed as rude or disrespectful Wynne Baxter would have said so and made some scathing, sarcastic comment. The newspapers would also have taken delight at repeating that and throwing a comment of tehir own in.

The press mentioning what he was wearing without commenting on it being inappropriate shows that it was NOT inappropriate. Pretedning to "read between the lines" by suggesting that mentioning it WAS commenting on it being inappropriate is feeble.

I suspect that showing up in work clothes was far more common than the Lechmere enthusiasts would have us believe, and as has been mentioned before, the ELO (in particular) often described shabbily dressed people. At least some of the Lechmere enthusiasts also appear to be under the impression that these were highly formal and austere occasions, when many Victorian inquests were held in pubs or even in music halls, which may well have lowered expectations in the minds of the witnesses.

Here's an account of an exasperated coroner in Dover in January 1894. If even jurymen showed up in their work aprons, one can only imagine how frequent it was for witnesses to do the same.




As for Wynne Baxter, he had probably given up or had grown used to it.

[Mike J. G.]

Advocates of Lechmere have to intentionally try to make him sound more suspicious than he ever was... That's why the general argument from any poster on any thread or forum who champions Lechmere as the killer usually consists of...

It was Lechmere! I can't believe you didn't know this. You obviously haven't researched this case, because if you had, you'd see that he was caught crouching over a freshly killed woman. He lied to the police. He gave a fake name at the inquest. And he lived and worked on the murder routes! No other suspect comes close!

Which, when actually broken down and properly analysed, is nothing short of absolute bollocks.

And don't get me wrong, I have to question anyone who is absolutely convinced of any person being the murderer. We'll simply never know for sure who it was, and that's okay. There's simply not enough evidence to be convinced of anyone's guilt.

I've tried to give the Lechmere crowd as much benefit of the doubt as I could, and the argument is simply just pretty weak. He's a bloke who found a body. Many blokes found many bodies, they're all interesting people in their own right, but are they what you'd call persons of interest as far as suspicion goes? Not in my opinion. There are far better suspects, but none of them can ever be placed at any of the crimes, and while Lechmere can be placed at the scene of ONE crime, there's absolutely zero evidence of him ever having committed any crime.

[A P Tomlinson]

The issues of the address and the apron are simply clutching at straws in order to try and make as long a list of "things" they can in the hope that someone says, "OK... that one WAS odd" at which point they can claim victory, and that conceding any point means you have conceded that he was The Ripper.

If giving ones name was a part of the inquest process and he "refused to give his name" Wynne Baxter would have demanded it, and further refusals would have led to him being sanctioned.

If wearing a work apron to an inquest were bad form, or deemed as rude or disrespectful Wynne Baxter would have said so and made some scathing, sarcastic comment. The newspapers would also have taken delight at repeating that and throwing a comment of tehir own in.

The press mentioning what he was wearing without commenting on it being inappropriate shows that it was NOT inappropriate. Pretedning to "read between the lines" by suggesting that mentioning it WAS commenting on it being inappropriate is feeble.

[Geddy2112]

I suspect Charles Allen did wear his best digs for weighty social events, like weddings. What does that have to do with him being a witness at an inquest?

Even if he walked in bollock naked I'm still not sure how it would point to him being a serial killer. The depths some stoop is astounding.

[Fiver]

you'd figure a weighty social event would require his best digs - but okay.

I suspect Charles Allen did wear his best digs for weighty social events, like weddings. What does that have to do with him being a witness at an inquest?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I've read this three times now and still can't see how you answered Herlock's question. How did wearing his work clothes at the inquest imply he was Jack The Ripper? One simple sentence should suffice I think.

Or I can answer it for you if you like.. 'It does not.'

What we can see though Geddy is backtracking. He knows that it’s a non-point. How many more can they invent?

[Herlock Sholmes]

- comes to court dressed in a sack apron when he wouldn't be able to go out on his route that day,
and Paul expressly tells Lloyd's weekly that he lost days of work
- No home address provided at the inquest
- fails to use the name he most undoubtedly went by among his new neighbors
- no history of him discovering Polly Nichols body in family oral history.
- his wife was illiterate and would get her information on newspaper stories from other people.


by itself, its just a shoulder shrug ..... you'd figure a weighty social event would require his best digs - but okay.
Maybe he had no social aspirations ... an Alfie Doolittle type character.

So, if you want to say he came from work and was going to head back,
and couldn't spare the time to walk home and change, nor cared how he looked;

that he did give his address (because that one paper mentioned it);

that the name he commonly used was Charlie Cross (even at home),
despite David Orsam's list of people who would always used their birth name when representing themselves in a legal context,
after having long ago adopted their stepfathers surname;

that no one in the family seemed to know of his involvement in being the first to find the first victim of Jack the Ripper
as a big so what;

that his wife's illiteracy is of no importance within this context .... okay!

To me, everything taken together clearly indicates he sure as hell was acting suspiciously: hiding something from his family is the best explanation.


The proposed alternative explanations are far fetched: each alone plausible, but collectively highly unlikely

The clothing that he wore at the inquest were entirely irrelevant and have been desperately latched onto by Cross obsessive because that’s what they are compelled to do due to the fact that there’s nothing suspicious about him. So they invent stuff. How many bog-standard, everyday possibilities have to be sidestepped here. Perhaps he was told to be at the inquest by 10.00 so his boss suggested that he work from 4 until 9, getting in 5 hours work before going to the inquest? Perhaps his boss said you can come in after the inquest has finished because I can find work for you? As Geddy has pointed out, you have put no objection against his wearing of an apron and now you are clearly trying to backtrack by that shoulder-shrugging nonsense. Why don’t you just admit that the whole apron nonsense was example number 500 of the bilge that has been written about Cross.

That his address was known is a fact. Do you really think that Cross would be the only person refuse to give his name at the inquest? Why would he do that? It’s another non-issue from conspiracy corner.

Orsam’s research was a slam dunk. End of.

That it wasn’t handed down that Cross attended an inquest!? Nicholas Winton didn’t bother telling his family that he’d saved the lives of 669 Jewish children during the war. But I see that the Cross supporters like to cherry pick. They are happy tell everyone about how Cross came from a good quality family but they think it an indication of guilt that these people might not have wanted it mentioned that Charles had found a body. Or maybe he didn’t want the family knowing that he was only a carman. Maybe he’d told them he was the boss? Apart from that it’s very easy for things to fade from family memory. Not everyone talks to family.

No….his wife’s illiteracy is of less than no importance.

Nothing suspicious whatsoever. Not a joy. All that we get is a tissue of fantasies. Cross isn’t worthy of being called a suspect. He found a body..nothing more.

[Fiver]

You know, one thing I do not like are posters not bothering to read and contemplate what someone wrote;

Your points are rehashed Lechmerian claims that have been repeatedly debunked. Yet you blame their lack of reception on the people showing the flaws in the Lechmerian claums,

And now you say I'm a bad guy for suggesting that his step dad probably drank himself to death at a young age.
Up to this point, it was wondered how a serial killer could evolve from his upbringing: its quite germaine to this case.

And yes, John Allen Lechmere too was most probably a drunk;
either Ma Lechmere drove both of them to it, or she was a very unfortunate women.

You ignored that alcoholism does not cause most of the symptoms Thomas Cross had. You ignore that most causes of the third symptom are not alcoholism. Which says more about you than it does about Thomas Cross.

Then you make a backhand swipe at an abandoned single mother. That also says more about you than it does about Maria Lechmere.

[Geddy2112]

- comes to court dressed in a sack apron when he wouldn't be able to go out on his route that day,
and Paul expressly tells Lloyd's weekly that he lost days of work
- No home address provided at the inquest
- fails to use the name he most undoubtedly went by among his new neighbors
- no history of him discovering Polly Nichols body in family oral history.
- his wife was illiterate and would get her information on newspaper stories from other people.


by itself, its just a shoulder shrug ..... you'd figure a weighty social event would require his best digs - but okay.
Maybe he had no social aspirations ... an Alfie Doolittle type character.

So, if you want to say he came from work and was going to head back,
and couldn't spare the time to walk home and change, nor cared how he looked;

that he did give his address (because that one paper mentioned it);

that the name he commonly used was Charlie Cross (even at home),
despite David Orsam's list of people who would always used their birth name when representing themselves in a legal context,
after having long ago adopted their stepfathers surname;

that no one in the family seemed to know of his involvement in being the first to find the first victim of Jack the Ripper
as a big so what;

that his wife's illiteracy is of no importance within this context .... okay!

To me, everything taken together clearly indicates he sure as hell was acting suspiciously: hiding something from his family is the best explanation.


The proposed alternative explanations are far fetched: each alone plausible, but collectively highly unlikely

I've read this three times now and still can't see how you answered Herlock's question. How did wearing his work clothes at the inquest imply he was Jack The Ripper? One simple sentence should suffice I think.

Or I can answer it for you if you like.. 'It does not.'