Tweet
We have many threads where it’s initial intent is to point out why Cross should be considered a strong suspect, so this is my thread pointing out why I think the opposite; that he is one of the weakest suspects that we have. Some will disagree of course but this is how I see it. There’s nothing wrong with favouring a suspect or of elevating a group of suspects above others in terms of likelihood; ‘suspectology’ is ok in my opinion and everyone is ‘worth a look,’ but there’s an obvious potential issue and it’s illustrated perfectly with Cross in my opinion. It’s when everything is seen through the ‘Cross was the ripper’ goggles, resulting in every small aspect of the case being seen or shaped in some way so that it points to or hints at his guilt. It’s when a sense of balance is lost, as it has been in the case of Cross in some quarters. It’s when a suspect becomes like a favourite football team; one that requires defending at all cost; at the expense of reason. Yet when we dig away at the ‘case’ against him and then stand back to view what’s there we’re left with a sobering conclusion - that we have an ongoing movement complete with its own tv channel in favour of a suspect against whom there’s not a shred of evidence. Agreed though that there’s no real evidence against any suspect.
How could this possibly have happened? I’d suggest a combination of wish-thinking, massive over-confidence, evidential cherry-picking with an element of self-interest from some quarters thrown in - this is why we get “well at least we can prove that he was there,” repeated like a mantra. It’s a grasping at the lowest hanging fruit on the tree. In reality, the fact that he found the body in the circumstances that he did counts heavily against him as a suspect if we look, as Christer often does when it suits him, to crime history.
Very few suspects can be categorically eliminated with alibi evidence (and Cross isn’t one of them) and so with the overwhelming majority of suspects we can only talk in terms of how likely or unlikely a suspect we believe they are using our own individual assessments. My own opinion is that Cross is about as close to ‘certainly innocent’ as it’s possible to get. As I’m writing this I can almost hear the choruses of “but he was there!” Or “he was next to a freshly killed corpse!” So let’s start by looking for the usual signs that we look for in a suspect. The ripper tick-box exercise.
Violence - One question that gets asked of any suspect is whether there is any evidence or suggestion of them being violent. Of course we can’t eliminate someone just because we have no surviving evidence of violence as not all violence hits the records but it’s certainly a point which has to be acknowledged and logged.
> We have no evidence of Cross being a violent man.
Prostitutes - Like the violence point we can’t eliminate a suspect because we have no record of any connection to or any issues with prostitutes but we would certainly label it a plus point if a connection could be made therefore it has to be noted when it can’t.
> We have no evidence of Cross having any connection to or issue with prostitutes.
Women - A dislike of, or anger toward women might also be seen as a point in favour of any candidate as a brutal murderer of women although of course this could have been kept away from public gaze. Worth noting though.
> We have no evidence that Cross had any issue with women.
Insanity - This is a general term for a wide-ranging subject of course so I don’t intend to waste time with the different forms of mental illness. Put generally, serial killers clearly aren’t of sound mind though.
> We have no evidence of any mental health issues with Cross. He appeared to have lived a long and normal life.
Criminality - No need to dwell on this point.
> We have no evidence of criminality with Cross.
Medical/ Anatomical Knowledge - This has been debated and disputed over the years but it’s something which has to be at least considered and noted for any suspect.
> We have no evidence of medical/anatomical knowledge with Cross and no suggestion how he might have gained any.
Police Interest - This is another point which cannot be used as a point of elimination but it’s one that requires mentioning; just as we would have to mention a police interest if it existed.
> We have no evidence of the police ever being interested in Cross as a suspect.
Cessation Of The Murders
A controversial point due to the fact that we can’t know for absolute certain when the series ended. I’d suggest that most would suggest Kelly as the final murder but I fully accept that this may not have been the case. It’s a point that’s regularly considered though.
> Cross lived on long after the murders in what appeared (at least) to have been a normal life.
So….time for our first summing up. Most of the named suspects tick at least one of the above ‘boxes’ but it has to be noted that Charles Cross ticks none of them. Next…
Location of Nichols Murder - Maybe someone might disagree but don’t think that anyone seriously believes that Cross might have met Polly elsewhere and then brought her back to Bucks Row and a spot that he’d have passed 6 days a week at roughly that time? Let’s face it, an open street is hardly an ideal spot for a murder no matter how dark it was. And if he’d set out that night to find a victim would he really have been unable to find one until 20 minutes before he was due to clock on at work; could he really have struggled to find a prostitute until then? So the suggestion must be that he met her by chance in Bucks Row and killed her on the spur of the moment, leaving us with the question - how likely was that?
We have no instance so far from crime history of a person who found a body in the street turning out to have been not only a killer but a serial killer. We have no instance so far from crime history of a serial killer killing and mutilating a woman in the street so close to the time that he was due to arrive at work (around 20 minutes later - with the possibility of a need to check himself over for blood staining and the certainty of some walking still to do). We also have no instance so far from crime history of a serial killer murdering and mutilating a woman in the street and then waiting (bloodied knife in pocket) for a complete stranger to arrive at the scene for a chat when he could have easily fled.
Charles Cross was where he would have been expected to have been at roughly the time that he would have been expected to have been there doing exactly what he did for 6 days a week, except that on the day in question he found a body. Name a serial killer who killed under those circumstances? I won’t hold my breath while you’re thinking about it.
> These few facts alone make Cross the unlikeliest of killers. The constant re-stating of the fact that he was provably there is simply a mark of the desperation of the case against him.
To Flee Or Not To Flee (The Scam that is The Mizen Scam) - A very obvious and very inconvenient question arises - why the hell didn’t a guilty Cross flee as soon as he’d heard Cross approach? The ‘brazen it out’ argument makes no sense in as an effort to justify remaining at the scene and would only be worth considering if a killer felt that he’d had little or no choice but to stay where he was. We have an empty, echoing street in the early hours with Paul clumping to work in boots. How stupid and careless would a killer have had to have been to have been caught in the act in an open street? Cross said that he heard and saw him around 40 yards away. To be honest, I wonder if it’s not more likely that he’d said that he heard him then saw him around 40 yards away (meaning that he heard him from further away) as we know that transcripts of statements aren’t verbatim but I stress that I’m not claiming that this must have been the case but these certainly weren’t circumstances where Paul could have ‘caught Cross in the act’ causing him to choose sticking around to try and bluff his way out of it. I’d even suggest that if Cross had been pretty much caught in the act he would likely still have fled or else used his knife on Paul. Being 40 yards away in a very dark area was a more than ample distance for Cross to have walked or even run away entirely safely. Paul alone might not even have gone over to the body (deciding not to get involved with someone that was probably a drunk) but if he had done and then checked the body Cross would have been what, 50, 60, 70 yards away in the dark by the time that Paul would have realised what was going on. And, as Cross couldn’t know that Paul wouldn’t see the blood, how likely would it have been for him to have chased after a dangerous man with a knife? Cross was free to escape to safety. But he didn’t….why? Because he’d done absolutely nothing wrong.
And how could Cross have been particularly confident about what Paul had seen as he’d approached? There was no cover apart from the lack of light. Wouldn’t he have been concerned that Paul might have seen him crouching over the body? Such stressful circumstances can often induce a level of paranoia leading to a person to assume the worst which in turn tends them to lean toward caution. Cross, testifying first at the inquest, said that he’d seen that it was a woman from the middle of the road and that was when he heard/saw Paul approaching. Paul confirmed that Cross was in the middle of the road. What if Paul had said “I saw him crouching over the body. He then walked to the middle of the road?” That’s what a guilty Cross would have had to have done, so how could he have been sure that Cross wouldn’t expose him as a liar? Because Cross knew that he hadn’t been near the body until Paul arrived.
And can anyone really believe that Cross thought, as Paul approached, “I know, I’ll let this guy turn up, then when we go for a Constable I’ll be able to speak to him alone (out of this blokes hearing) which means that I’ll be able to lie about her being drunk instead of dead so that he won’t detain us.” How can anyone believe that Cross would have put himself in such a position (with a bloodied knife in his pocket and, who knows, potentially some wet blood on him)? If guilty he’d have been better off suggesting to Paul that it would improve their chances of finding a Constable if they went in different directions. But he didn’t. He didn’t need to because he’d done nothing wrong.
But Christer does ‘suggest’ that Cross somehow managed to speak to Mizen out of Paul’s earshot despite the inconvenient evidence:
Mizen (Times) - “When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man,”
Mizen (Telegraph) - “..when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row,”
Paul (Times) - “Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen.”
Paul (Telegraph) - “The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman.”
Despite the wordplay that’s used to suggest a separation we have two choices…which is likelier?
I’d suggest that we’ve all faced tougher choices in life.
> The Mizen Scam is the most desperate scam of all. We can eliminate it with confidence.
The Alleged Gap - No point is claimed as a stronger point against Cross than the alleged time gap. If proven this couldn’t fail to make anyone suspicious about Cross’ actions that morning. Scobie reckoned that Cross had a case to answer because he was presented with exactly that…a proven gap. The problem is of course that he was dealing with inaccurate information that created such a gap in the first place; not the ‘possibility’ of a gap but an actual, proven-by-the-evidence gap. A point based on sleight-of-hand. It was known by all at the time of the documentary that the majority of newspapers said that Cross left home at about 3.30, but the about was omitted when pointing out this vital ‘gap’ to the documentary audience. This omission makes a fundamental difference to any inferences that were being made. Could this have been accidental omission? I’ll leave it to others to form their own opinions (but how can it have been given what was common knowledge and given the level of research that had been done?) It shows how a case can be shaped and formed where there is a will and an incentive to do so. Just one word left out and the spotlight homes in on an innocent man.
We have no way of knowing what time he left the house but he’d said ‘about 3.30.’ So he was undoubtedly estimating; this is inescapable. Those that believe Cross guilty of course try to narrow this down to as close to 3.30 as possible in their pursuit of a ‘gap’ but this is impossible to do; it’s an exercise in absolute futility. And yes, we have to accept that if we allow for some possible leeway after 3.30 then we have to allow for leeway before 3.30. A very few minutes before, exactly 3.30 or a very few minutes after 3.30 are all equally possible and cannot be separated in terms of likelihood. So in general terms we are likely to be not far off if we estimate that Cross left his house sometime between 3.25 and 3.35. But yes, Cross could have left the house at 2.30 for all that we know but that would make his guilt even less likely of course.
Equally we have no way of knowing exactly what time Cross discovered the body but we can get reasonably close. Baxter said:
“The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data”
The important point here is the phrase “so many independent data.” Christer points to Robert Paul and Dr. Llewelyn in his effort to drag the discovery time to as close to 3.45 as possible so as to widen the imaginary gap. So that’s two. Hardly “so many independent data” territory is it? The rest of us though cite five. Perfectly in line with his “so many independent data.” The only times that Baxter had to work with were those of PC’s Neil, Thain and Mizen who all quoted 3.45 at the inquest - therefore, and very obviously, Cross discovered the body before those three became involved. So, before 3.45, but not long before. But how long is ‘not long?’ It’s relative of course. In life fifteen minutes can be ‘not long’ though clearly we can’t suggest 15 minutes here. Around 4 or 5 is likely.
So how could Baxter estimate the discovery time working back from the three Constable’s? Only from Robert Paul who said that no more than four minutes elapsed between his meeting with Cross and their meeting with Mizen. So this takes us back to around 3.41. Cross stated that he heard Paul approaching just as he saw that the bundle was actually a woman. Therefore Baxter can only have been suggesting that the body was discovered at around 3.40-3.41. We also have Abberline saying that the body was discovered at 3.40. Baxter’s “so many independent data..” doesn’t fit two people so he was clearly using more. It does fit five though. There can be no doubt about what Baxter meant. He knew what he meant; Abberline knew what he meant and we know what he meant.
So Cross left his house any time between 3.25 and 3.35 and he found the body at around 3.40-3.41.
> Therefore, categorically, we cannot assume or suggest a mysterious gap of time. It’s a deliberate construct to suggest suspicion. An invention and nothing more and something which could be suggested for most people that discover a body while they are alone. Is it possible that Cross arrived a few minutes before Paul giving him enough time physically to kill? Absolutely. Can this be indicated by evidence? Absolutely not. The majority of people that find bodies had ‘time’ to have committed the murder. The problem is of course that they never turn out to have done so.
A point also worth mentioning in my opinion is this - if someone suggests that Cross did indeed leave the house earlier then this would bring up another difficult question requiring an answer. What had he been doing? The murder and mutilation can only have taken 2 minutes or so and Nichols would hardly have required cajoling into business as she was desperate for cash. As he clearly wouldn’t have picked up Nichols elsewhere and brought her to Bucks Row he must have met her there. He surely wouldn’t have stood in Bucks Row at that time of the morning on the off-chance of a prostitute showing up (and we know that Neill passed at 3.15 of course) so he met her by chance. Even if, for example, he’d arrived in Bucks Row at 3.30, bumped into Nichols and killed her, why was he still there at around 3.40 when Robert Paul showed up? He’d have been long gone and possibly have performed far more extensive mutilations. So he arrives too late and he hadn't enough time before Paul shows up..if he arrives too early we need to ask why he was still there when Paul arrived. Everything shouts ‘innocent’ at that location.
I think that it’s also worth noting that Trevor said that he had a phone call with Scobie in which he said that he wouldn’t have arrived at the conclusion that he did if he’d been made aware of the full facts.
So let’s sum up so far.
We have a man on his way to work. He’s at a spot where we would have expected him to have been at a time when we would have expected him to have been there. Nothing remotely suspicious. There’s nothing in his background or in anything that we know of him that even raises an eyebrow in terms of criminality or violence or insanity or in issues with women (let alone prostitutes). He refuses the opportunity of fleeing to involve a complete stranger which he knows will result in the involvement of the police - not the act of a guilty man. We have the fact that crime history so far yields no serial killers killing on their way to work; or of ‘discovering’ bodies and foregoing the chance of escape to hang around for a chat with a passerby which either makes Cross seemingly unique in crime history or else the unlikeliest of suspects.
The ‘gap’ is an invention that cannot be sustained by evidence and yet it keeps getting repeated as if it’s some kind of proven point against him when it’s nothing of the kind. A perfect illustration of the desperation of the case against Cross
So how can this obvious witness be transformed into a suspect? And not just a suspect but one that some go so far as to think obviously guilty? How did we get from ‘innocent witness’ to ‘hang him?’ I find it nothing short of staggering how we have arrived at this point. Well we’ve already dismissed the obvious attempt to create a gap - this alone should dismiss Cross from any suspicion but nothing is that simple when we have a bandwagon rolling. The next thing of course is the ‘name thing.’
The Name Thing - Did Cross use a false name instead of his birth name Lechmere? The short and only answer is of course no. He used his step-fathers name. Researchers like David Barrat have dealt with this in serious detail and yet it keeps getting mentioned as if it’s a sign of evil intent. It’s the turd that just won’t flush away. Calling himself Fred Smith of Bethnal Green would have been suspicious behaviour. Charles Cross? No. The only question has to be - would a guilty man have gained any advantage in regard to this murder from calling himself Charles Allen Cross of 22 Doveton Street instead of Charles Allen Lechmere of 22 Doveton Street? This is about as clear a no brainer as can be. It’s amazing that it still gets promoted as a point in favour of guilt. I’m afraid that, like the ‘gap’ its entirely indicative of the desperation of the attempt to fit up this clearly innocent man.
Freshly Killed - Then of course we get the phrase ‘freshly killed’ as if that screams guilt when it does nothing of the sort. The killer simply fled the scene just before Cross arrived and it was entirely possible that he’d heard Cross approaching and fled (just as a killer would do - unlike Cross) Christer regularly uses the phrase ‘phantom killer’ to describe this other man in a vain attempt at ridiculing to dismiss, but does a killer become less likely to have existed because we can’t put a name to him? Is that how investigation works? Does Cross become likelier just because he was there and we can name him despite the complete lack of evidence of his guilt. Our check on crime history tells us how vanishingly unlikely it is that Cross was as a killer. The fact that Nichols was freshly killed means nothing more than she hadn’t been dead for long. Killed by a killer who did what killers do…he fled the scene. If Cross hadn’t noticed the body and passed by and Paul had found her would that have made Paul the likeliest killer? I’d suggest everyone read David Barrat on the medical evidence. Absolutely nothing about the medical evidence makes Cross likelier than the actual killer who murdered Polly a very few minutes (or even seconds) before he turned up. At least our ‘Phantom Killer’ acted like a killer would act; unlike Cross who acted like an entirely innocent witness.
So let’s sum up again shall we?. A man doing what he normally did and acting perfectly normally. He finds a recently murdered woman so we can deduce that the killer had left the scene very recently. He gave his stepfathers surname but his own forenames and his correct address and so was doing nothing suspicious and was certainly not trying to gain any criminal advantage from this so it’s a non-issue. Zero suspicion. So how can the case against Cross be manufactured? We enter nitpicking territory again of course.
The Prop - Christer asks this question in an attempt to pile suspicion onto Cross:
“..why he did not help prop her up.”
But…
Cross (Telegraph):
“Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her.”
Cross (Times):
“He wanted witness to assist in shifting her, but he would not do so.”
So one version has Paul refusing and one appears to have Cross refusing. Which is correct? Who knows?
> So why is it assumed the Cross must have been the one refusing? Because it’s convenient to do so it seems. And how is a refusal to handle a possible corpse indicative of guilt? How many of us would baulk at handling a corpse? I’d suggest quite a few. Or maybe they didn’t fancy the idea of a drunken woman suddenly waking up after being manhandled and screaming that they had attacked her? This is yet another complete non-issue.
So what else do we see used against poor old Cross?
Covering The Injuries - Christer gives us:
“..why the victim had her wounds covered”
Did she?
Paul (Telegraph):
“The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down.”
Paul (Times):
“Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach.”
> Answer…the clothes were raised almost to her stomach so the killer had made zero effort to cover the wounds unless Paul was ‘in on it’s too. Again… why does the opposite keep getting repeated against Cross? I can imagine Joseph Goebbels nodding with admiration at some of this stuff.
Another summing up…
Absolutely zero suspicious here. How does Cross get labelled a suspect from the above? How is the bandwagon still rolling along when it’s wheels have all fallen off and rolled into a ditch? What else can there be?
Geographical Hokum - Christer: “to why he had geographical links to the murder sites.”
Far too many words have been wasted on this silliness in my opinion. He didn’t. He was a local like thousands of other local men. This geographical ‘link’ is just the worst kind of desperation. Completely irrelevant. Since when did serial killers kill at locations with a familial connection? We might as well say “Cross has 5 letters, like the 5 victims.” He was a local man. So what?
David Orsam has made a very interesting comparison between Charles Cross and Terry Hawkshaw who was, at one time, the Yorkshire force’s main Yorkshire Ripper suspect. These guys really thought that this was there man.
He associate with prostitutes by driving them around in his taxi.
He even allowed them to use his taxi for business. It has been suggested that he might even have watched them.
He had been seen at the Mecca Ballroom on the night that Maureen Long had been attacked.
Maureen Long had been picked up in a white car (Hawkshaw had a white car)
Taxi receipts placed him close to red light districts on nights when murders occurred.
Police could also place him in Leeds and Bradford on the nights that women were murdered there.
Hawkshaw was obviously a far stronger suspect that Cross is and yet he was innocent - he was only eliminated when it was discovered that he had a solid alibi for one of the murders.
> Geographical stuff adds nothing to the alleged case against Cross.
Then of course we have this.
The Mizen/ Cross/ Paul Conversation - Christer says: “Lechmere said "You are WANTED in Bucks Row", as per Mizen. Not "needed". And that suggests that he was told that somebody wanted him in Bucks Row. Which is in line with the claim about the PC. Are we to suspect that when Mizen arrived in Bucks Row, he came to the conclusion that the carman must have used "wanted" and that he must have spoken of a policeman? Is that how the human memory works? You are told "You are needed in Bucks Row", you go there and when you see a PC in place, you reason "Ah, he must have said that I was WANTED in Bucks Row, not that I was needed there, and he must have mentioned the policeman too, although I did not pick up on it at the time"?
Is that in any way realistic? Personally, I don't think so.”
I’m afraid that it’s entirely realistic if we accept a standard use of the English language and, as we’ve all heard, there’s nothing wrong with Christer’s English.
So what actually happened? By far the likeliest explanation for me is the obvious and the simplest (as is usually the case in the real world). Cross told Mizen that he was wanted in Bucks Row. What he actually meant was that his presence was required in Bucks Row…a Constable was required in Bucks Row. This is a perfectly normal, everyday usage of the English language. Surely no one can dispute this? Mizen either assumed that they meant that a Constable wanted him in Bucks Row or he somehow misheard what Cross had said; especially if he was indeed more interested in his knocking up duties as claimed by Paul. So when he was called into Bucks Row by PC Neill he assumed that this was the officer that the two men were talking about. A totally understandable mistake. And because of this he had no need to mention Cross or Paul to Neill because he assumed that Neill already knew about them. There’s nothing unusual or suspicious about this kind of misunderstanding.
So Neill became the ‘finder’ of the body but when the police saw Paul’s Lloyd’s Weekly story Neill and Mizen had questions to answer as their superiors would have wanted to know why there had been no mention of the two men that actually found the body. Neill had no way of knowing of their existence and so was in the clear but Mizen had assumed that Neill had seen them because he’d misinterpreted or misheard what Cross had said. When reporting to his superiors Neill was assumed to have been the finder and that he’d summoned Mizen to the scene so Mizen’s role became unimportant that no one questioned him in detail to elicit a mention of Cross and Paul.
Mizen then, realising what had happened and knowing that Paul had accused him of being more interested in his knocking up duties than he was of a woman lying in the street, decides to cover his own backside to avoid looking an idiot in front of his superiors or to the coroner. So in his statement he insisted that Cross had specifically mentioned seeing a Constable in Bucks Row; giving Mizen the excuse for not mentioning the two men to Neill.
I realise that ‘sounds true’ counts for little or nothing but still.. Cross’s response has always had the ring of truth in it for me:
“A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?
Witness: No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row.”
Either the above is correct or Cross pointlessly lied with Robert Paul standing there right next to him. Do we really need Hercule Poirot to work this one out? Obviously those accusing Cross take the more convoluted, anti-reason route. Those taking a more reasoned approach can see through this.
> But this is suggested as an example of guilty behaviour. If it was then Paul was in on it too. And just think..if Cross had scarpered like any genuine killer would have done he’d have had no need for this silly wordplay. This is another mystery where none exists.
Were Cross and Paul Callous?
I think that we have to consider that in different times people often thought and acted in a way that might seem heartless or even strange to us today. Go back a few hundred years (or less) and we can read of all manner of brutality and cruelty that was considered the norm. We know that life was tough for people like Cross and Paul and they would have been totally aware of how fragile their existence was; of how they might only have been one or two strokes of bad luck away from abject poverty or the Workhouse. They would both have lived under the fear of unemployment and it’s consequences. No claims, no workers rights, no industrial tribunals. You p*** off your boss on a bad day and that could be it; no job…no money…no eat. So I don’t think that we should judge Cross and Paul too harshly. I don’t think many in their position would have acted much differently.
Work And Chapman
Although some dispute this we have three witnesses in the Chapman case telling us that she was killed at some time near to 5.30. If true (and I’m certainly not alone in saying that those three witnesses trump a Victorian Doctor’s ToD estimation using unreliable methods) then she was killed at around 90 minutes
after Cross would have started work. This meant that he’d have been out and about on a Pickford’s cart making deliveries to customers.
How likely would it have been that, while making his quota of deliveries before returning to the yard to load up again, he’d have been looking for a victim? Surely he’d have been under some time pressure? Would he have left a Pickford’s cart standing around near a murder scene for some passer-by or local to mention to the police? And in such an area of extreme poverty and where many didn’t know where their next meal was coming from is it remotely likely that he’d have left a cart full of meat unattended for any length of time. If anything was stolen how could he explain that to his bosses?
> The Chapman murder is strong evidence against Cross as the killer. It’s why Christer, despite saying that it wouldn’t count against Cross, argues so forcefully that Dr Phillips ToD should be accepted.
So..a final summon up.
We have a man who, as a person, doesn’t stand out in any way as being the type of person that might have been a serial killer or even just a killer. This absence doesn’t make him innocent of course as killers are often seen as Mr Respectable before their guilt is revealed, but the fact still has to be noted. We have some suspects who were violent; some with an issue with women; some who consorted with prostitutes; some who had mental health issues; some who were criminals; some who had medical/anatomical knowledge; some who were suspected by the police. We have none of this with Cross. He appears to have been Mr Normal. Married for years; worked for the same company for years; provided well for his wife and family etc and lived on long after the murders ceased.
The day of the murder….
On the 31st of August he was clearly on his way to work, and where he’d have been expected to have been, when he found a recently killed woman. How recent? We have no exact figures to go on but we’re talking about a very few minutes. If it can be suggested that perhaps Cross stopped what he was doing after hearing Paul approach then it’s equally possible that someone else did the same…except for the fact that this unnamed killer actually acted as a guilty man would have done by fleeing the scene. Either that or the killer fled before Cross arrived as he’d done all that he’d intended to do (being his first murder)? Or perhaps he’d heard some other noise (a voice, a slamming door etc) which spooked him into fleeing (perhaps less confident than he later became)? The fact that he Cross easily have fled but chose instead to wait for a complete stranger to arrive is a clear and obvious sign of an innocent man doing what an innocent man would have done under those circumstances. They covered her modesty by lowering her skirts then went together to look for a Constable on their continued way to work. This has been considered a bit heartless by some but we have to remember the times. They found a Constable who was knocking up and told him about the woman lying in Bucks Row and there is no evidence that Cross could have told some pointless lie without Paul hearing. And if we even consider the possibility of a lie it’s still doesn’t imply guilt…only a desire not to be detained and so arrive at work late (Cross could still have been visually identified by Mizen and Paul if required) It’s therefore a question as to how closely Mizen took note of exactly what was said or what he might have ‘thought’ had been said. The exact wording of their conversation cannot be confirmed but this shouldn’t be assumed as being suspicious. Not a single thing, when looked at dispassionately, gives us even the slightest cause for suspicion.
The only real mystery is how has Cross not only become a suspect but how has it come to the situation when some actually believe it case closed? How can such a level of confidence have been attained based on so little? I think that it perfectly illustrates the downside of suspectology. The ‘defend at all cost’ ethos. It becomes a game where ‘my suspect is better than your suspect.’ A competition where every point, however tangential, ‘points’ somehow to guilt. Not all who see Cross as a decent suspect are obsessives of course….its possible to simply have made different judgment calls. For example, I know of one poster on here who feels that Cross is a decent suspect and that person is a fair-minded, reasonable person that I respect (we just disagree on Cross) But some take it way too far in getting carried away.
I’ll make a suggestion and some won’t like it - if there had never been any suggestion of there being a ‘gap’ then no one would have given Charles Cross a second thought as a suspect. It’s been a case of - invent a gap and then build on it. Some will disagree and some will agree but over the last few weeks I’ve tried to reconsider the case against Cross. To try and start from scratch and to see if I’ve been too harsh in my previous judgment but the only thing that stood out to me was one question - why is Charles Cross considered a suspect? For me he doesn’t even get into the starting blocks. Worth a look initially certainly- we’ve looked in depth now - Cross found a body and that’s all for me. Maybe more evidence will be uncovered that incriminates him? If that happens then I’ll re-assess my position but until such a time Cross, for me, will stay on the list of the poorest suspects.
How could this possibly have happened? I’d suggest a combination of wish-thinking, massive over-confidence, evidential cherry-picking with an element of self-interest from some quarters thrown in - this is why we get “well at least we can prove that he was there,” repeated like a mantra. It’s a grasping at the lowest hanging fruit on the tree. In reality, the fact that he found the body in the circumstances that he did counts heavily against him as a suspect if we look, as Christer often does when it suits him, to crime history.
Very few suspects can be categorically eliminated with alibi evidence (and Cross isn’t one of them) and so with the overwhelming majority of suspects we can only talk in terms of how likely or unlikely a suspect we believe they are using our own individual assessments. My own opinion is that Cross is about as close to ‘certainly innocent’ as it’s possible to get. As I’m writing this I can almost hear the choruses of “but he was there!” Or “he was next to a freshly killed corpse!” So let’s start by looking for the usual signs that we look for in a suspect. The ripper tick-box exercise.
Violence - One question that gets asked of any suspect is whether there is any evidence or suggestion of them being violent. Of course we can’t eliminate someone just because we have no surviving evidence of violence as not all violence hits the records but it’s certainly a point which has to be acknowledged and logged.
> We have no evidence of Cross being a violent man.
Prostitutes - Like the violence point we can’t eliminate a suspect because we have no record of any connection to or any issues with prostitutes but we would certainly label it a plus point if a connection could be made therefore it has to be noted when it can’t.
> We have no evidence of Cross having any connection to or issue with prostitutes.
Women - A dislike of, or anger toward women might also be seen as a point in favour of any candidate as a brutal murderer of women although of course this could have been kept away from public gaze. Worth noting though.
> We have no evidence that Cross had any issue with women.
Insanity - This is a general term for a wide-ranging subject of course so I don’t intend to waste time with the different forms of mental illness. Put generally, serial killers clearly aren’t of sound mind though.
> We have no evidence of any mental health issues with Cross. He appeared to have lived a long and normal life.
Criminality - No need to dwell on this point.
> We have no evidence of criminality with Cross.
Medical/ Anatomical Knowledge - This has been debated and disputed over the years but it’s something which has to be at least considered and noted for any suspect.
> We have no evidence of medical/anatomical knowledge with Cross and no suggestion how he might have gained any.
Police Interest - This is another point which cannot be used as a point of elimination but it’s one that requires mentioning; just as we would have to mention a police interest if it existed.
> We have no evidence of the police ever being interested in Cross as a suspect.
Cessation Of The Murders
A controversial point due to the fact that we can’t know for absolute certain when the series ended. I’d suggest that most would suggest Kelly as the final murder but I fully accept that this may not have been the case. It’s a point that’s regularly considered though.
> Cross lived on long after the murders in what appeared (at least) to have been a normal life.
So….time for our first summing up. Most of the named suspects tick at least one of the above ‘boxes’ but it has to be noted that Charles Cross ticks none of them. Next…
Location of Nichols Murder - Maybe someone might disagree but don’t think that anyone seriously believes that Cross might have met Polly elsewhere and then brought her back to Bucks Row and a spot that he’d have passed 6 days a week at roughly that time? Let’s face it, an open street is hardly an ideal spot for a murder no matter how dark it was. And if he’d set out that night to find a victim would he really have been unable to find one until 20 minutes before he was due to clock on at work; could he really have struggled to find a prostitute until then? So the suggestion must be that he met her by chance in Bucks Row and killed her on the spur of the moment, leaving us with the question - how likely was that?
We have no instance so far from crime history of a person who found a body in the street turning out to have been not only a killer but a serial killer. We have no instance so far from crime history of a serial killer killing and mutilating a woman in the street so close to the time that he was due to arrive at work (around 20 minutes later - with the possibility of a need to check himself over for blood staining and the certainty of some walking still to do). We also have no instance so far from crime history of a serial killer murdering and mutilating a woman in the street and then waiting (bloodied knife in pocket) for a complete stranger to arrive at the scene for a chat when he could have easily fled.
Charles Cross was where he would have been expected to have been at roughly the time that he would have been expected to have been there doing exactly what he did for 6 days a week, except that on the day in question he found a body. Name a serial killer who killed under those circumstances? I won’t hold my breath while you’re thinking about it.
> These few facts alone make Cross the unlikeliest of killers. The constant re-stating of the fact that he was provably there is simply a mark of the desperation of the case against him.
To Flee Or Not To Flee (The Scam that is The Mizen Scam) - A very obvious and very inconvenient question arises - why the hell didn’t a guilty Cross flee as soon as he’d heard Cross approach? The ‘brazen it out’ argument makes no sense in as an effort to justify remaining at the scene and would only be worth considering if a killer felt that he’d had little or no choice but to stay where he was. We have an empty, echoing street in the early hours with Paul clumping to work in boots. How stupid and careless would a killer have had to have been to have been caught in the act in an open street? Cross said that he heard and saw him around 40 yards away. To be honest, I wonder if it’s not more likely that he’d said that he heard him then saw him around 40 yards away (meaning that he heard him from further away) as we know that transcripts of statements aren’t verbatim but I stress that I’m not claiming that this must have been the case but these certainly weren’t circumstances where Paul could have ‘caught Cross in the act’ causing him to choose sticking around to try and bluff his way out of it. I’d even suggest that if Cross had been pretty much caught in the act he would likely still have fled or else used his knife on Paul. Being 40 yards away in a very dark area was a more than ample distance for Cross to have walked or even run away entirely safely. Paul alone might not even have gone over to the body (deciding not to get involved with someone that was probably a drunk) but if he had done and then checked the body Cross would have been what, 50, 60, 70 yards away in the dark by the time that Paul would have realised what was going on. And, as Cross couldn’t know that Paul wouldn’t see the blood, how likely would it have been for him to have chased after a dangerous man with a knife? Cross was free to escape to safety. But he didn’t….why? Because he’d done absolutely nothing wrong.
And how could Cross have been particularly confident about what Paul had seen as he’d approached? There was no cover apart from the lack of light. Wouldn’t he have been concerned that Paul might have seen him crouching over the body? Such stressful circumstances can often induce a level of paranoia leading to a person to assume the worst which in turn tends them to lean toward caution. Cross, testifying first at the inquest, said that he’d seen that it was a woman from the middle of the road and that was when he heard/saw Paul approaching. Paul confirmed that Cross was in the middle of the road. What if Paul had said “I saw him crouching over the body. He then walked to the middle of the road?” That’s what a guilty Cross would have had to have done, so how could he have been sure that Cross wouldn’t expose him as a liar? Because Cross knew that he hadn’t been near the body until Paul arrived.
And can anyone really believe that Cross thought, as Paul approached, “I know, I’ll let this guy turn up, then when we go for a Constable I’ll be able to speak to him alone (out of this blokes hearing) which means that I’ll be able to lie about her being drunk instead of dead so that he won’t detain us.” How can anyone believe that Cross would have put himself in such a position (with a bloodied knife in his pocket and, who knows, potentially some wet blood on him)? If guilty he’d have been better off suggesting to Paul that it would improve their chances of finding a Constable if they went in different directions. But he didn’t. He didn’t need to because he’d done nothing wrong.
But Christer does ‘suggest’ that Cross somehow managed to speak to Mizen out of Paul’s earshot despite the inconvenient evidence:
Mizen (Times) - “When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man,”
Mizen (Telegraph) - “..when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row,”
Paul (Times) - “Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen.”
Paul (Telegraph) - “The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman.”
Despite the wordplay that’s used to suggest a separation we have two choices…which is likelier?
- Cross and Paul decide together to go find a Constable - they leave Bucks Row together - they walk to Old Montague Street together - together they find a Constable - they talk to the Constable together. Or…
- Cross and Paul decide together to go find a Constable - they leave Bucks Row together - they walk to Old Montague Street together - together they find a Constable - then Cross separates himself from Paul and talks secretively to the Constable while Paul kicks his heels disinterestedly a few feet away.
I’d suggest that we’ve all faced tougher choices in life.
> The Mizen Scam is the most desperate scam of all. We can eliminate it with confidence.
The Alleged Gap - No point is claimed as a stronger point against Cross than the alleged time gap. If proven this couldn’t fail to make anyone suspicious about Cross’ actions that morning. Scobie reckoned that Cross had a case to answer because he was presented with exactly that…a proven gap. The problem is of course that he was dealing with inaccurate information that created such a gap in the first place; not the ‘possibility’ of a gap but an actual, proven-by-the-evidence gap. A point based on sleight-of-hand. It was known by all at the time of the documentary that the majority of newspapers said that Cross left home at about 3.30, but the about was omitted when pointing out this vital ‘gap’ to the documentary audience. This omission makes a fundamental difference to any inferences that were being made. Could this have been accidental omission? I’ll leave it to others to form their own opinions (but how can it have been given what was common knowledge and given the level of research that had been done?) It shows how a case can be shaped and formed where there is a will and an incentive to do so. Just one word left out and the spotlight homes in on an innocent man.
We have no way of knowing what time he left the house but he’d said ‘about 3.30.’ So he was undoubtedly estimating; this is inescapable. Those that believe Cross guilty of course try to narrow this down to as close to 3.30 as possible in their pursuit of a ‘gap’ but this is impossible to do; it’s an exercise in absolute futility. And yes, we have to accept that if we allow for some possible leeway after 3.30 then we have to allow for leeway before 3.30. A very few minutes before, exactly 3.30 or a very few minutes after 3.30 are all equally possible and cannot be separated in terms of likelihood. So in general terms we are likely to be not far off if we estimate that Cross left his house sometime between 3.25 and 3.35. But yes, Cross could have left the house at 2.30 for all that we know but that would make his guilt even less likely of course.
Equally we have no way of knowing exactly what time Cross discovered the body but we can get reasonably close. Baxter said:
“The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data”
The important point here is the phrase “so many independent data.” Christer points to Robert Paul and Dr. Llewelyn in his effort to drag the discovery time to as close to 3.45 as possible so as to widen the imaginary gap. So that’s two. Hardly “so many independent data” territory is it? The rest of us though cite five. Perfectly in line with his “so many independent data.” The only times that Baxter had to work with were those of PC’s Neil, Thain and Mizen who all quoted 3.45 at the inquest - therefore, and very obviously, Cross discovered the body before those three became involved. So, before 3.45, but not long before. But how long is ‘not long?’ It’s relative of course. In life fifteen minutes can be ‘not long’ though clearly we can’t suggest 15 minutes here. Around 4 or 5 is likely.
So how could Baxter estimate the discovery time working back from the three Constable’s? Only from Robert Paul who said that no more than four minutes elapsed between his meeting with Cross and their meeting with Mizen. So this takes us back to around 3.41. Cross stated that he heard Paul approaching just as he saw that the bundle was actually a woman. Therefore Baxter can only have been suggesting that the body was discovered at around 3.40-3.41. We also have Abberline saying that the body was discovered at 3.40. Baxter’s “so many independent data..” doesn’t fit two people so he was clearly using more. It does fit five though. There can be no doubt about what Baxter meant. He knew what he meant; Abberline knew what he meant and we know what he meant.
So Cross left his house any time between 3.25 and 3.35 and he found the body at around 3.40-3.41.
> Therefore, categorically, we cannot assume or suggest a mysterious gap of time. It’s a deliberate construct to suggest suspicion. An invention and nothing more and something which could be suggested for most people that discover a body while they are alone. Is it possible that Cross arrived a few minutes before Paul giving him enough time physically to kill? Absolutely. Can this be indicated by evidence? Absolutely not. The majority of people that find bodies had ‘time’ to have committed the murder. The problem is of course that they never turn out to have done so.
A point also worth mentioning in my opinion is this - if someone suggests that Cross did indeed leave the house earlier then this would bring up another difficult question requiring an answer. What had he been doing? The murder and mutilation can only have taken 2 minutes or so and Nichols would hardly have required cajoling into business as she was desperate for cash. As he clearly wouldn’t have picked up Nichols elsewhere and brought her to Bucks Row he must have met her there. He surely wouldn’t have stood in Bucks Row at that time of the morning on the off-chance of a prostitute showing up (and we know that Neill passed at 3.15 of course) so he met her by chance. Even if, for example, he’d arrived in Bucks Row at 3.30, bumped into Nichols and killed her, why was he still there at around 3.40 when Robert Paul showed up? He’d have been long gone and possibly have performed far more extensive mutilations. So he arrives too late and he hadn't enough time before Paul shows up..if he arrives too early we need to ask why he was still there when Paul arrived. Everything shouts ‘innocent’ at that location.
I think that it’s also worth noting that Trevor said that he had a phone call with Scobie in which he said that he wouldn’t have arrived at the conclusion that he did if he’d been made aware of the full facts.
So let’s sum up so far.
We have a man on his way to work. He’s at a spot where we would have expected him to have been at a time when we would have expected him to have been there. Nothing remotely suspicious. There’s nothing in his background or in anything that we know of him that even raises an eyebrow in terms of criminality or violence or insanity or in issues with women (let alone prostitutes). He refuses the opportunity of fleeing to involve a complete stranger which he knows will result in the involvement of the police - not the act of a guilty man. We have the fact that crime history so far yields no serial killers killing on their way to work; or of ‘discovering’ bodies and foregoing the chance of escape to hang around for a chat with a passerby which either makes Cross seemingly unique in crime history or else the unlikeliest of suspects.
The ‘gap’ is an invention that cannot be sustained by evidence and yet it keeps getting repeated as if it’s some kind of proven point against him when it’s nothing of the kind. A perfect illustration of the desperation of the case against Cross
So how can this obvious witness be transformed into a suspect? And not just a suspect but one that some go so far as to think obviously guilty? How did we get from ‘innocent witness’ to ‘hang him?’ I find it nothing short of staggering how we have arrived at this point. Well we’ve already dismissed the obvious attempt to create a gap - this alone should dismiss Cross from any suspicion but nothing is that simple when we have a bandwagon rolling. The next thing of course is the ‘name thing.’
The Name Thing - Did Cross use a false name instead of his birth name Lechmere? The short and only answer is of course no. He used his step-fathers name. Researchers like David Barrat have dealt with this in serious detail and yet it keeps getting mentioned as if it’s a sign of evil intent. It’s the turd that just won’t flush away. Calling himself Fred Smith of Bethnal Green would have been suspicious behaviour. Charles Cross? No. The only question has to be - would a guilty man have gained any advantage in regard to this murder from calling himself Charles Allen Cross of 22 Doveton Street instead of Charles Allen Lechmere of 22 Doveton Street? This is about as clear a no brainer as can be. It’s amazing that it still gets promoted as a point in favour of guilt. I’m afraid that, like the ‘gap’ its entirely indicative of the desperation of the attempt to fit up this clearly innocent man.
Freshly Killed - Then of course we get the phrase ‘freshly killed’ as if that screams guilt when it does nothing of the sort. The killer simply fled the scene just before Cross arrived and it was entirely possible that he’d heard Cross approaching and fled (just as a killer would do - unlike Cross) Christer regularly uses the phrase ‘phantom killer’ to describe this other man in a vain attempt at ridiculing to dismiss, but does a killer become less likely to have existed because we can’t put a name to him? Is that how investigation works? Does Cross become likelier just because he was there and we can name him despite the complete lack of evidence of his guilt. Our check on crime history tells us how vanishingly unlikely it is that Cross was as a killer. The fact that Nichols was freshly killed means nothing more than she hadn’t been dead for long. Killed by a killer who did what killers do…he fled the scene. If Cross hadn’t noticed the body and passed by and Paul had found her would that have made Paul the likeliest killer? I’d suggest everyone read David Barrat on the medical evidence. Absolutely nothing about the medical evidence makes Cross likelier than the actual killer who murdered Polly a very few minutes (or even seconds) before he turned up. At least our ‘Phantom Killer’ acted like a killer would act; unlike Cross who acted like an entirely innocent witness.
So let’s sum up again shall we?. A man doing what he normally did and acting perfectly normally. He finds a recently murdered woman so we can deduce that the killer had left the scene very recently. He gave his stepfathers surname but his own forenames and his correct address and so was doing nothing suspicious and was certainly not trying to gain any criminal advantage from this so it’s a non-issue. Zero suspicion. So how can the case against Cross be manufactured? We enter nitpicking territory again of course.
The Prop - Christer asks this question in an attempt to pile suspicion onto Cross:
“..why he did not help prop her up.”
But…
Cross (Telegraph):
“Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her.”
Cross (Times):
“He wanted witness to assist in shifting her, but he would not do so.”
So one version has Paul refusing and one appears to have Cross refusing. Which is correct? Who knows?
> So why is it assumed the Cross must have been the one refusing? Because it’s convenient to do so it seems. And how is a refusal to handle a possible corpse indicative of guilt? How many of us would baulk at handling a corpse? I’d suggest quite a few. Or maybe they didn’t fancy the idea of a drunken woman suddenly waking up after being manhandled and screaming that they had attacked her? This is yet another complete non-issue.
So what else do we see used against poor old Cross?
Covering The Injuries - Christer gives us:
“..why the victim had her wounds covered”
Did she?
Paul (Telegraph):
“The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down.”
Paul (Times):
“Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach.”
> Answer…the clothes were raised almost to her stomach so the killer had made zero effort to cover the wounds unless Paul was ‘in on it’s too. Again… why does the opposite keep getting repeated against Cross? I can imagine Joseph Goebbels nodding with admiration at some of this stuff.
Another summing up…
Absolutely zero suspicious here. How does Cross get labelled a suspect from the above? How is the bandwagon still rolling along when it’s wheels have all fallen off and rolled into a ditch? What else can there be?
Geographical Hokum - Christer: “to why he had geographical links to the murder sites.”
Far too many words have been wasted on this silliness in my opinion. He didn’t. He was a local like thousands of other local men. This geographical ‘link’ is just the worst kind of desperation. Completely irrelevant. Since when did serial killers kill at locations with a familial connection? We might as well say “Cross has 5 letters, like the 5 victims.” He was a local man. So what?
David Orsam has made a very interesting comparison between Charles Cross and Terry Hawkshaw who was, at one time, the Yorkshire force’s main Yorkshire Ripper suspect. These guys really thought that this was there man.
He associate with prostitutes by driving them around in his taxi.
He even allowed them to use his taxi for business. It has been suggested that he might even have watched them.
He had been seen at the Mecca Ballroom on the night that Maureen Long had been attacked.
Maureen Long had been picked up in a white car (Hawkshaw had a white car)
Taxi receipts placed him close to red light districts on nights when murders occurred.
Police could also place him in Leeds and Bradford on the nights that women were murdered there.
Hawkshaw was obviously a far stronger suspect that Cross is and yet he was innocent - he was only eliminated when it was discovered that he had a solid alibi for one of the murders.
> Geographical stuff adds nothing to the alleged case against Cross.
Then of course we have this.
The Mizen/ Cross/ Paul Conversation - Christer says: “Lechmere said "You are WANTED in Bucks Row", as per Mizen. Not "needed". And that suggests that he was told that somebody wanted him in Bucks Row. Which is in line with the claim about the PC. Are we to suspect that when Mizen arrived in Bucks Row, he came to the conclusion that the carman must have used "wanted" and that he must have spoken of a policeman? Is that how the human memory works? You are told "You are needed in Bucks Row", you go there and when you see a PC in place, you reason "Ah, he must have said that I was WANTED in Bucks Row, not that I was needed there, and he must have mentioned the policeman too, although I did not pick up on it at the time"?
Is that in any way realistic? Personally, I don't think so.”
I’m afraid that it’s entirely realistic if we accept a standard use of the English language and, as we’ve all heard, there’s nothing wrong with Christer’s English.
So what actually happened? By far the likeliest explanation for me is the obvious and the simplest (as is usually the case in the real world). Cross told Mizen that he was wanted in Bucks Row. What he actually meant was that his presence was required in Bucks Row…a Constable was required in Bucks Row. This is a perfectly normal, everyday usage of the English language. Surely no one can dispute this? Mizen either assumed that they meant that a Constable wanted him in Bucks Row or he somehow misheard what Cross had said; especially if he was indeed more interested in his knocking up duties as claimed by Paul. So when he was called into Bucks Row by PC Neill he assumed that this was the officer that the two men were talking about. A totally understandable mistake. And because of this he had no need to mention Cross or Paul to Neill because he assumed that Neill already knew about them. There’s nothing unusual or suspicious about this kind of misunderstanding.
So Neill became the ‘finder’ of the body but when the police saw Paul’s Lloyd’s Weekly story Neill and Mizen had questions to answer as their superiors would have wanted to know why there had been no mention of the two men that actually found the body. Neill had no way of knowing of their existence and so was in the clear but Mizen had assumed that Neill had seen them because he’d misinterpreted or misheard what Cross had said. When reporting to his superiors Neill was assumed to have been the finder and that he’d summoned Mizen to the scene so Mizen’s role became unimportant that no one questioned him in detail to elicit a mention of Cross and Paul.
Mizen then, realising what had happened and knowing that Paul had accused him of being more interested in his knocking up duties than he was of a woman lying in the street, decides to cover his own backside to avoid looking an idiot in front of his superiors or to the coroner. So in his statement he insisted that Cross had specifically mentioned seeing a Constable in Bucks Row; giving Mizen the excuse for not mentioning the two men to Neill.
I realise that ‘sounds true’ counts for little or nothing but still.. Cross’s response has always had the ring of truth in it for me:
“A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?
Witness: No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row.”
Either the above is correct or Cross pointlessly lied with Robert Paul standing there right next to him. Do we really need Hercule Poirot to work this one out? Obviously those accusing Cross take the more convoluted, anti-reason route. Those taking a more reasoned approach can see through this.
> But this is suggested as an example of guilty behaviour. If it was then Paul was in on it too. And just think..if Cross had scarpered like any genuine killer would have done he’d have had no need for this silly wordplay. This is another mystery where none exists.
Were Cross and Paul Callous?
I think that we have to consider that in different times people often thought and acted in a way that might seem heartless or even strange to us today. Go back a few hundred years (or less) and we can read of all manner of brutality and cruelty that was considered the norm. We know that life was tough for people like Cross and Paul and they would have been totally aware of how fragile their existence was; of how they might only have been one or two strokes of bad luck away from abject poverty or the Workhouse. They would both have lived under the fear of unemployment and it’s consequences. No claims, no workers rights, no industrial tribunals. You p*** off your boss on a bad day and that could be it; no job…no money…no eat. So I don’t think that we should judge Cross and Paul too harshly. I don’t think many in their position would have acted much differently.
Work And Chapman
Although some dispute this we have three witnesses in the Chapman case telling us that she was killed at some time near to 5.30. If true (and I’m certainly not alone in saying that those three witnesses trump a Victorian Doctor’s ToD estimation using unreliable methods) then she was killed at around 90 minutes
after Cross would have started work. This meant that he’d have been out and about on a Pickford’s cart making deliveries to customers.
How likely would it have been that, while making his quota of deliveries before returning to the yard to load up again, he’d have been looking for a victim? Surely he’d have been under some time pressure? Would he have left a Pickford’s cart standing around near a murder scene for some passer-by or local to mention to the police? And in such an area of extreme poverty and where many didn’t know where their next meal was coming from is it remotely likely that he’d have left a cart full of meat unattended for any length of time. If anything was stolen how could he explain that to his bosses?
> The Chapman murder is strong evidence against Cross as the killer. It’s why Christer, despite saying that it wouldn’t count against Cross, argues so forcefully that Dr Phillips ToD should be accepted.
So..a final summon up.
We have a man who, as a person, doesn’t stand out in any way as being the type of person that might have been a serial killer or even just a killer. This absence doesn’t make him innocent of course as killers are often seen as Mr Respectable before their guilt is revealed, but the fact still has to be noted. We have some suspects who were violent; some with an issue with women; some who consorted with prostitutes; some who had mental health issues; some who were criminals; some who had medical/anatomical knowledge; some who were suspected by the police. We have none of this with Cross. He appears to have been Mr Normal. Married for years; worked for the same company for years; provided well for his wife and family etc and lived on long after the murders ceased.
The day of the murder….
On the 31st of August he was clearly on his way to work, and where he’d have been expected to have been, when he found a recently killed woman. How recent? We have no exact figures to go on but we’re talking about a very few minutes. If it can be suggested that perhaps Cross stopped what he was doing after hearing Paul approach then it’s equally possible that someone else did the same…except for the fact that this unnamed killer actually acted as a guilty man would have done by fleeing the scene. Either that or the killer fled before Cross arrived as he’d done all that he’d intended to do (being his first murder)? Or perhaps he’d heard some other noise (a voice, a slamming door etc) which spooked him into fleeing (perhaps less confident than he later became)? The fact that he Cross easily have fled but chose instead to wait for a complete stranger to arrive is a clear and obvious sign of an innocent man doing what an innocent man would have done under those circumstances. They covered her modesty by lowering her skirts then went together to look for a Constable on their continued way to work. This has been considered a bit heartless by some but we have to remember the times. They found a Constable who was knocking up and told him about the woman lying in Bucks Row and there is no evidence that Cross could have told some pointless lie without Paul hearing. And if we even consider the possibility of a lie it’s still doesn’t imply guilt…only a desire not to be detained and so arrive at work late (Cross could still have been visually identified by Mizen and Paul if required) It’s therefore a question as to how closely Mizen took note of exactly what was said or what he might have ‘thought’ had been said. The exact wording of their conversation cannot be confirmed but this shouldn’t be assumed as being suspicious. Not a single thing, when looked at dispassionately, gives us even the slightest cause for suspicion.
The only real mystery is how has Cross not only become a suspect but how has it come to the situation when some actually believe it case closed? How can such a level of confidence have been attained based on so little? I think that it perfectly illustrates the downside of suspectology. The ‘defend at all cost’ ethos. It becomes a game where ‘my suspect is better than your suspect.’ A competition where every point, however tangential, ‘points’ somehow to guilt. Not all who see Cross as a decent suspect are obsessives of course….its possible to simply have made different judgment calls. For example, I know of one poster on here who feels that Cross is a decent suspect and that person is a fair-minded, reasonable person that I respect (we just disagree on Cross) But some take it way too far in getting carried away.
I’ll make a suggestion and some won’t like it - if there had never been any suggestion of there being a ‘gap’ then no one would have given Charles Cross a second thought as a suspect. It’s been a case of - invent a gap and then build on it. Some will disagree and some will agree but over the last few weeks I’ve tried to reconsider the case against Cross. To try and start from scratch and to see if I’ve been too harsh in my previous judgment but the only thing that stood out to me was one question - why is Charles Cross considered a suspect? For me he doesn’t even get into the starting blocks. Worth a look initially certainly- we’ve looked in depth now - Cross found a body and that’s all for me. Maybe more evidence will be uncovered that incriminates him? If that happens then I’ll re-assess my position but until such a time Cross, for me, will stay on the list of the poorest suspects.
Comment