Evidence of innocence

[Herlock Sholmes]

Please let me know if anyone finds one factor that even hints at Cross’s possible guilt. I’d have thought that at least one thing would have been found by now but I suppose that we should be patient as Cross supporters continue to pull increasingly bizarre and desperate tosh our of their top hats. And of course I mean genuine factors as opposed to inventions or speculated waffle about aprons or his Auntie Mabel’s third husband.

[Geddy2112]

John Davis, who found Chapman's body, was also a carman.

Do you think the carmen had a sweep going to see who could be the most murderous bastard?

[Geddy2112]

Please let me know if anyone finds one factor that even hints at Cross’s possible guilt. I’d have thought that at least one thing would have been found by now but I suppose that we should be patient as Cross supporters continue to pull increasingly bizarre and desperate tosh our of their top hats. And of course I mean genuine factors as opposed to inventions or speculated waffle about aprons or his Auntie Mabel’s third husband.

I've been asking Christer, Ed and Bob Mills for months now for one single FACT pointing to Cross being guilty and not once has one been forthcoming that. So that leaves me, since of course the former are two excellent researchers that none are available.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I've been asking Christer, Ed and Bob Mills for months now for one single FACT pointing to Cross being guilty and not once has one been forthcoming that. So that leaves me, since of course the former are two excellent researchers that none are available.

There is nothing. It’s why we keep getting the ‘found next to a freshly killed…..’ blah, blah. The sack is empty. They’ve surely run out of inventions by now.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And I wish someone would tell me why anyone would think that Cross wearing his apron to the inquest is incriminating? Why is it mentioned?

[Geddy2112]

And I wish someone would tell me why anyone would think that Cross wearing his apron to the inquest is incriminating? Why is it mentioned?

Or that he took it off to kill Polly. Or that he knocked over a kid some years previous, that means he's a serial killer of course.

There is nothing at all in anyway shape or form that is suspicious about how Cross conducted himself that morning, at the inquest or for the rest of his life as far as we know.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The whole Cross fiasco is something that should be used as a lesson to others in various disciplines to illustrate how easy it is to create a ‘case’ against virtually anyone and as we go back further in time the easier it becomes. You could do it for pretty much anyone involved, however tangentially, in the case but most of us don’t do that because we prefer an honest, open approach to looking at the case. It’s the only way. We can, and do still disagree (sometimes heatedly) but we all have to recognised that no matter how much knowledge and experience we’ve acquired over the years there is still a massive amount that we don’t know.

We have to be able to take a step back and to avoid the pitfall of treating a suspect like a favourite football team to be defended at all costs which is what we see in the case of this feeble suspect. The whole ‘case’ against him is riddled with manipulation and editing and dodgy language uses and a series of supposed links proposed by the YT channel that would make Alex Jones blush with shame and beg forgiveness. How can anyone stoop to this just to ‘solve’ a 135 year old murder case?

Anyone that says that Charles Cross was Jack the Ripper isn’t just mistaken. They are deliberately and knowingly trying to falsify history. And for what? Ripperology has already had enough kicks over the years. We got lumped in with those that opened the JtR museum. We got lumped in with the stupid idea of changing the name of the Ten Bells to the Jack the Ripper. We got slated by followers of St. Haille of Rubenhold as a bunch of sexists and misogynists. We’ve had the diary. We’ve had Russell Edwards (‘solver’ of the case) claiming to have found Keith Edwards on Saddleworth Moor. Now we have a group of almost religious believers in the guilt of this transparently innocent man riding their bandwagon over the internet picking up gullible converts on the way with their misinformation.

People wonder why I’m such a pessimist.

[Scott Nelson]

OK, so can we have an end to it already?

[Newbie]

Links have already been provided showing that the science supports Lechmere. You ignoring the facts doesn't make them go away.



This is not evidence of Lechmere's guilt. It merely shows that Paul didn't think it was important enough to mention and neither the Coroner nor the Jury thought it was important enough to ask about.



These are speculation on your part, not evidence of Lechmere's guilt.



This has been repeatedly debunked long before you joined Casebook. You have been given links to multiple threads covering this.



This has been repeatedly debunked. Many examples have been given to you that people did not consider an inquest am important social event and showed up in every day, or even horribly shabby clothing.

You also badly misrepresent Charles Lechmere's status. He was a carman who grew up in tone of the worst parts of London. His father was a bootmaker who negligently got a police officer killed, went bankrupt, deserted the family to shack up with a teenager, and likely was an alcoholic. Maria Roulson was the daughter of an illiterate servant whose legacy to her and her sisters was probably long gone in the 40 years since her father's death. Her second and third marriages were to a police constable and a shoemaker. In between she was a struggling single mom, working prestigious jobs like bonnet maker, dress maker, horse flesh dealer, and corn chandler. Money was tight enough that even when married, she continued to work and was still working at age 77, a year before her death.



Evidence has been provided that there was no oral history of the Lechmere family. All this shows is that you are assuming a deliberate omission for nefarious reasons.



It proves Lechmere gave his home address in open court even though he had the right to not state his address publicly. This is not evidence against Lechmere.



You omit that Robert Paul's testimony supported Lechmere and contradicted Mizen.

Your points are just another rehash of repeatedly debunked Lechmerian claims.

You know, one thing I do not like are posters not bothering to read and contemplate what someone wrote;
Instead, they reflexively launch a barrage of missiles to overwhelm the oppositon,
without effectively responding to anything in the post.

I went through your first group of responses to the list fiver and admired how artfully you failed to address anything.
My list stands: nine things you have to swallow to believe Charley Cross was being truthful.

That a few people showed up in shabby clothing is not the point:
everyone could have showed up in rags, for all I care;
the only important thing is that good old Charley Cross showed up in his work clothes.

The science of sound masking? You refer me to papers that don't exist and principles that do not apply here.
You want to believe what you want to believe is fine .... don't dignify it with the notion that there is rigorous scientific argumentation behind it.

Even something as simple as using averages to project rate of speed is controversial here .... hilarious.
It establishes tendencies that we would expect, but don't appear to be met by Lechmere's very own testimony.
Again, not one thing, or two, or three things ....

but 9 little oddities that strongly suggest Lechmere arrived at the body before he suggested,
and that he had something to hide from the family.

Did I say it proved that he was Jack the Ripper, I expressly said no to that.
But occupying the increasingly shaky ground that he steadily marched some 40 yards ahead of Paul doesn't cut it anymore.

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.

[Newbie]

In what way does the attire that Cross wore at the inquest reflect on him. Does it hint at guilt? Does it make him suspicious? I’d love to know.

- 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

[Fiver]

- 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.

* What he wore at the inquest does not even imply that he was was Ripper. It only shows how weak the case against Lechmere.
* Charles Lechmere publicly stated his home address at the inquest. You ignoring the fact doesn't make it go away.
* Using his stepfather's surname of Cross was unusual, but it had been done in 1861 and 1876. He clearly wasn't trying to hide his identity as he gave his home and work addresses, his first and middle names, and his shift start time.
* There was no oral history about Charles Allen Lechmere.
* The wife's illiteracy doesn't even imply that her husband tried to hide anything from her, let alone that he was the Ripper.

You're just repeating the same repeatedly debunked Lechmerian mix of speculation, irrelevancy, and outright falsehood.

[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.'

[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.

[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.

[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?