Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[Fiver]

Good points, Fiver, but "Lavender" is merely an anglicisation of Lawende, and they're pronounced almost exactly the same way.

I have always heard Lavender pronounced as LAV-en-dur. From what I can find online, Lawende appears to be pronounced la-Ven-dah. There are distinct differences in which syllable is emphasized and in the pronunciation of the final syllable.

[Geddy2112]

Good points, Fiver, but "Lavender" is merely an anglicisation of Lawende, and they're pronounced almost exactly the same way.

Hi Sam, I've seen this mentioned before in 'retaliation' of Fiver's point. However do you know who decided this 'anglicisation' or are we just guessing that is what he did? Thanks.

[chubbs]

* The usage of the name Cross was one of only two known times he used that name (the Nichols murder, and his "accidental" killing of a child).

It's very misleading of you to put the word 'accidental' in quotation marks (above), as though the young child's accidental death in 1876 may not have been accidental. Sadly for you, it also undermines your judgement on other issues relating to Mr Cross. The 4-year-old child's death WAS accidental. All the eye witnesses at the inquest swore it was an accident and the inquest jury returned a verdict of accidental death.
The accident happened at around 4pm on the shortest day of the year. The weather was drizzly, foggy and dark (sunset in London is around 3pm on that day). 2 very young children came out from behind a stationary carriage and into the path of Charles Cross's horse & cart, which was travelling slowly. Cross shouted a warning and tried to stop, but tragically the younger child went under the rear wheel and died shortly afterwards at the doctor's surgery. No blame whatsoever was attached to Charles Cross.

Playing loosely with the facts, in order to make Mr Cross appear more guilty, actually does the opposite - it further weakens your already flimsy case.

[Geddy2112]

Calling it a "complete non-issue" won't make this unfortunate name issue that Cross has go away. By using "Cross" he kept himself out of the papers. By keeping himself out of the papers, anyone with suspicions of his character would not know he was the person who "found" the body of Nichols.

He gave his address and work address. Also his first two names. How does this keep him out the papers? Where people thick as whale omelettes back then?

[Geddy2112]

My point was really that the Ripper was interrupted in his work, that it wasn't a "full" ripper event, and I'm suggesting he was interrupted by the approaching Paul.

Indeed, so if Paul did not exist and he completed the full Ripper event how late for work would he have been? Considerably and no doubt he had numerous kids and a wife to feed was more important to Cross.

[Geddy2112]

* The usage of the name Cross was one of only two known times he used that name (the Nichols murder, and his "accidental" killing of a child). You will say this is how things were done back then, but I disagree. I believe this name usage was not some desire for "official correctness"; it was instead desire for his actually used name (Lechmere) to stay out of the press. It's a form of anonymity. It matters not what other details he gave - it's the name that's important, it's the name that everyone would read in the press.

You need to read Deed Poll, the authority on names in the UK. He gave his legal name. How is this suspicious. Then you should read the all in a name threads here, or maybe a online blog by David Orsam who gives tons of examples of folk at the time doing exactly the same thing.

* Turning up to the inquest in my opinion late, and after the Paul interview.

Unfortunately and with all due respect your opinion does not count for much in regards the law. How could he appear at the inquest BEFORE the Paul interview? You do know he appeared on the 2nd day of the inquest. So by this logic Paul, Spratling, Mizen and Helson etc are suspicious as well?

* That police thinking they had found the body, when they hadn't, has been blamed on police "miscommunication", as one explanation. But it makes more sense that Cross actually did only say to Mizen that he was "wanted" - ie, no mention of a body to Mizen, or at the very least no mention that he, Cross, had FOUND a body.

Please can you get the idea Cross found the body out of your head as it did not happen. He co-found the body with Paul, he was never at the body alone. Cross and Paul mentioned a woman in Bucks Row and thought she was dead or drunk, Cross confirmed he thought she was dead.

[Geddy2112]

"[Cross] went as soon as he could [to the inquest]"

That is entirely possible.

However, Cross found the body. He is an extremely important witness, for the police, for the inquest. And the sequence of events allows that he knew about Paul's interview in the press; and that he arrived to the inquest after this interview is not a moot point. It cannot be discounted that he went to the inquest because he had to, he was flushed out as it were. What did the police do after the Paul interview came out? They went searching for Paul. I don't think there's any argument saying that the police did not care about the Paul statement in the press. The police cared about this interview - it is possible that Cross cared about it as well.

Cross co-found the body. This is in the evidence. If we are going to discuss/debate etc then let's use the facts not speculation. Cross was never closer than 30 feet from the body alone. He went to the inquest because he would have been summoned. End of story.
Regardless of how and when he went to the inquest IF he had read Paul's article (did he buy every single newspaper that weekend just to see if he'd been outed?) then if he was guilty he would given times at the inquest to match Paul's exactly 3:45am, but he didn't because he was not guilty.

"it is possible that Cross cared about it as well" did I mention speculation?

[Fiver]

You have your opinion. Cross was almost certainly innocent, apparently. It's all opinion. Why is it all opinion? Because we don't know who Jack the Ripper was.

There is a difference. Your opinion requires repeatedly ignoring the facts.

[Fiver]

My point was really that the Ripper was interrupted in his work, that it wasn't a "full" ripper event, and I'm suggesting he was interrupted by the approaching Paul.

Your "point" was based on several provably false statements.

"Why would the ripper escape without a trace and without his work displayed? The scenario that makes the most sense is that the ripper was disturbed, he did what he could with the dead victim to hide the wounds, and then he stepped into the middle of the road to meet the oncoming disturbance: Paul."

* The Ripper disappeared with out a trace in all of the other murders. Yet you try to make is sound out-of-place in the Nichols murder.
* The Ripper displayed his work in the Nichols murder.
* The Ripper did nothing to hide the wounds in the Nichols murder.
* The police said it would easy for the killer to just walk off into the darkness.
* If he stayed, the Ripper had to do a whole lot more than step into the middle of the road.

The Nichols murder was was frenzied overkill. For Cross to be the killer he has to snap out of that extreme emotion and start becoming controlled and deliberate. Rippermere has to clean his hands and the knife, stow the knife and cleaning rag, then move into the street without being seen or heard by Robert Paul. Then Rippermere has to slow his rushed breathing and his rapidly beating heart, calm his adrenaline rush and appear perfectly normal to Robert Paul in a matter of seconds, while also not showing the incredible tension and uncertainty of not knowing if Paul had seen or heard him in the act.

[Fiver]

The following things will go back and forth forever with arguments as to what actually happened; I think all three people involved have suspicious actions and statements, and at least one person is lying about something (eg, timings):

* The interaction with Paul.
* The interaction with the body while Paul was there.
* The interaction with Mizen.

Robert Paul didn't think that anything that Cross did or said was suspicious. Neither did the police.

So why do you?

[Fiver]

* Turning up to the inquest in my opinion late, and after the Paul interview.

How is appearing in the second day of the inquest suspicious?

That police thinking they had found the body, when they hadn't, has been blamed on police "miscommunication", as one explanation. But it makes more sense that Cross actually did only say to Mizen that he was "wanted" - ie, no mention of a body to Mizen, or at the very least no mention that he, Cross, had FOUND a body.

Your theory requires Robert Paul to lie.

"I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead." - Robert Paul, Lloyd's Weekly News, 2 September, 1888.

Your theory also requires PC Mizen to lie.

"Police constable Mizen said that about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the corner of Hanbury Street and Baker's row, when a carman passing by in company with another man said, "You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there." - PC Mizen, Daily News, 4 September, 1888.

The police thinking they had found the body, when they hadn't, cannot be blamed on Charles Cross.

[drstrange169]

Hello George,

"CARMAN CROSS was the the next witness. He lived at 22 Doveton street, Cambridge-road. He was employed by Pickfords."

"The Star
Largest Circulation of Any Evening Paper in the Kingdom.
LONDON. MONDAY, 3 SEPTEMBER, 1888."

[drstrange169]

"It matters not what other details he gave - it's the name that's important, it's the name that everyone would read in the press."


If I read someone involved in the highest profile case in the news worked at my place of employment or lived my suburb, let alone my street, I and I suspect virtually everybody else would notice the "details".

[GBinOz]

"... By using "Cross" he kept himself out of the papers. By keeping himself out of the papers, anyone with suspicions of his character would not know he was the person who "found" the body of Nichols."


"Anyone with suspicions of his character" would know him either by the name Cross or that he lived at 22 Doveton Street or that he worked at Pickfords or that his middle name was allen or any mixture of above.

In fact, isn't the opposite true? If his neighbours and relatives knew him as Lechmere alone wouldn't they be suspicious of him using a "fake" name?

This a dog chasing its tail.

Hi Dusty,

I've just skimmed some of the major newspaper reports and while it was well reported that the carman Cross worked for Pickfords, I couldn't find a published report of his home address. But presuming there was a report, it would depend on a literate neighbour buying that particular publication and thinking "Hey, there's no Cross at that address". What then.

Some of his work mates at Pickfords may have noticed the reference to Cross in the papers and thought "look what's happened to Charlie". Some may have thought "who is this guy named Cross" and assumed it was one of 400+ employees that they didn't know.



Cheers, George

[drstrange169]

"People who knew him/of him would have known him as Charles Lechmere, who worked at Pickford's. And how many people would have known his address, not many I'd say; same with his middle name. By providing the name Cross he ruled out all those who purely knew him as Charles Lechmere (or Charles Lechmere who worked at Pickford's)."


So, he did suspicious things under the name Lechmere which strangers who didn't know him knew about. Yet, his neighbours, relatives, mates, work colleagues and bosses never found the fact that he used a "fake" name at the inquest strange. That's one hell of a theory!


You keep avoiding multiple content in peoples posts, could you explain some of things you've claimed here?