Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[Geddy2112]

sly and patently dishonest Cross

Did I get an answer to my question of how Cross was sly and patently dishonest?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I've been reading this forum for years, off and on. And I expected some resistance, but it's so strong and attacking, that the phrase "The lady doth protest too much" springs to mind.

There is, what you call resistance, because none of us have ever encountered this phenomena before. When one ‘suspect’ has engendered such wave of exaggerated support where people have gone to such bizarre lengths. I don’t do social media but Fiver or Geddy (to name just 2) could produce a sizeable list of the extraordinary things that have been claimed to ‘support’ Cross’s guilt. Even the fact that he turned up for the inquest in his work clothes has been listed as suspicious. There is a whole propaganda machine that has been created to try a prove that this clearly innocent man was guilty. Why? If you presented Cross to the police today they would have a look (because he was there), check that evidence, and quickly move on because there’s nothing to suggest guilt and plenty that absolutely screams that Cross was innocent. Forget Holmgren and Stow and the obsessives and for a minute just consider this ‘suspect’ TopHat.

He left the house that morning at around his usual time.
He walks to work as he did for six days a week.
He finds a body like millions have through time.
As this is in a street and not some remote field it’s not surprising that a second person arrived.
Cross stood a distance from the body and waited for the man to arrive (in open view)
The both give the body a cursory check but it’s so dark that neither see the throat wounds.
One man suggests sitting her up but the other guy suggests that they go and find a Constable.
They find a Constable and tell him that he’s wanted in Bucks Row where there’s a woman lying either dead or drunk.
They find Constable gets to Bucks Row to find another officer there…Neill.
By the time that the inquest came Mizen assumes that Cross was saying “you are wanted by a PC.”
Its letter discovered that Cross’s birth name was Lechmere, but as he’d given his correct forenames, his place of work and his address he clearly wasn’t trying to deceive anyone.
The murders cease after Kelly or Mackenzie (whatever your opinion) but Cross lives a long and normal working family life as far as we know.

That is what happened. How is this man suspicious? Why would he have been of continued interest to the police after an initial investigation? As a suspect, John Richardson, who I don’t believe was the ripper, has far more against him that can be called suspicious and yet he doesn’t have a campaign in support of him. More facts have been manipulated in the act of supporting Cross than any suspect that I’ve heard of in 40 years of interest in the case.

[Geddy2112]

Cross was innocent as there is nothing whatsoever to suggest Cross murdered anyone.

Taken the 'almost certainly' out to correct your post sir.. thank you.

[Geddy2112]

A question - You are assuming that Cross only attended the inquest because of the Lloyd’s article. Can you provide evidence to support that assumption please? And while you’re at it, maybe you can provide proof that Cross never went to the police?

So IF he did read the Remarkable Statement why did he not alter his times if guilty to match the 'exactly 3:45am' given by Paul. This would have surely given him an alibi. He didn't because he was not guilty and stuck to his own timings.
Cross never went to the Police? Was PC Mizen not a policeman?

[Geddy2112]

That's correct; I meant straight away. My bad.

I think not going straight away to the inquest is not an issue for some people. For me, the most important witness (Cross) not appearing at the inquest until after Paul has gone public - and therefore the police now know about the mystery man who found the body - is a huge issue.

Apologies I'm not sure where I typed it but surely he went as soon as he could. He worked late till Friday evening. Saturday was the first day of the inquest which was unusual and fast, Sunday no inquest, Cross turns up next day. Surely he was summoned so he appeared when he was supposed to. What about Paul? He appeared much later and was sought out by the Police, who looks more suspicious here? You are making a sign of guilt out of nothing. I have not checked but when did the other first finders attend 'their' inquests?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I said it was possible and suspicious - both of which are true.

It’s not remotely suspicious TopHat. I can’t understand why you think it so. I believe that it’s about what mindset you employ. If you look at the case from a perspective that Cross was guilty then it’s easy to imagine that everything was suspicious but I’d suggest that you could do that for many of the witnesses in the case. For example, look how Paul almost airbrushes Cross out of events in his Lloyd’s article. Doesn’t that make him suspicious?

[scottnapa]

You don't agree, fine. But Cross remains as a suspect for good reason. You can't make him "disappear" just because you want it so.

Cross is a notional suspect. You see connections. I don’t see any evidence of guilt. I don’t have a suspect. Cross is a witness to me. Not sure how you are using the word disappear. The Ripper/Cross makes Nichols disappear. That is, if Cross is the Ripper, why would Polly be at Buck’s Row? There are no prostitutes on Buck’s Row.

[chubbs]

I've been reading this forum for years, off and on. And I expected some resistance, but it's so strong and attacking, that the phrase "The lady doth protest too much" springs to mind.

You've come up against your biggest problem to date, haven't you, TopHat ? While it might be easy to get away with flaky pronouncements in a bar or at home, or in your own mind, now that you've laid them out before people who actually KNOW the details, it's unravelling and you're starting to flail around a fair bit. I'd go back to the 'reading' part of your investigation, if I were you.
From what I've learned from your posts, I don't expect you to agree with me, not for one moment, but I've been proven wrong before.

[TopHat]

Don't prioritise, just go with the facts as they exist.

Cross was on his way to work.

An independent witness confirms Cross's story.

The pattern of events does not accord with known serial killer behaviour.

It was easy for the killer to get away.

The neck wounds were visible.

There is no record of when Cross first approached the police.

The police denied Mizen saw two men. That did not change until the Monday sitting of the inquest.

Cross volunteered factually correct information above and beyond what he needed to.

Three policeman gave evidence that fits perfectly with Cross's testimony.

To stray from the facts, is to invent. It's not protesting too much to correct factually wrong information or personal opinion claimed as factual, it is a duty.

Your "facts" contain an awful lot of opinion. Just one for now, if you wish to argue it I'll provide more.

"Cross volunteered factually correct information above and beyond what he needed to."

That is complete subjective opinion.

[TopHat]

Cross as a suspect is over-represented on YouTube and in the Web pages of non-serious commentators, I imagine many feel that Cross as a suspect is a dead horse that still needs beating. i am sure many here are tired of the topic. This thread is 39 pages, the other Cross conversation is at 141 pages. That is a fair amount of repetative litigation. This is not focused on you as a person, So many on the site have come to a personal conclusion on the other side of the fence as you. This situation is not unique , You can go on Reddit and try to convince everyone there that Adnan Syed is innocent and you will be harangued into submission. Oswald is a lone nut. OJ didn't kill his wife. etc.

You don't agree, fine. But Cross remains as a suspect for good reason. You can't make him "disappear" just because you want it so.

[scottnapa]

I've been reading this forum for years, off and on. And I expected some resistance, but it's so strong and attacking, that the phrase "The lady doth protest too much" springs to mind.

Cross as a suspect is over-represented on YouTube and in the Web pages of non-serious commentators, I imagine many feel that Cross as a suspect is a dead horse that still needs beating. i am sure many here are tired of the topic. This thread is 39 pages, the other Cross conversation is at 141 pages. That is a fair amount of repetative litigation. This is not focused on you as a person, So many on the site have come to a personal conclusion on the other side of the fence as you. This situation is not unique , You can go on Reddit and try to convince everyone there that Adnan Syed is innocent and you will be harangued into submission. Oswald is a lone nut. OJ didn't kill his wife. etc.

[drstrange169]

Don't prioritise, just go with the facts as they exist.

Cross was on his way to work.

An independent witness confirms Cross's story.

The pattern of events does not accord with known serial killer behaviour.

It was easy for the killer to get away.

The neck wounds were visible.

There is no record of when Cross first approached the police.

The police denied Mizen saw two men. That did not change until the Monday sitting of the inquest.

Cross volunteered factually correct information above and beyond what he needed to.

Three policeman gave evidence that fits perfectly with Cross's testimony.

To stray from the facts, is to invent. It's not protesting too much to correct factually wrong information or personal opinion claimed as factual, it is a duty.

[TopHat]

I've been reading this forum for years, off and on. And I expected some resistance, but it's so strong and attacking, that the phrase "The lady doth protest too much" springs to mind.

[TopHat]

This is how it works for the Ripper murders:

Unfortunately it's so long since the Ripper murders happened, it's a matter of prioritizing the evidence for importance, accuracy, and veracity, and then ranking the suspects. If you want to accuse "manipulated evidence" for the Cross theory then this applies to every suspect

Everything is essentially opinion, on how this prioritization is done. What I'm being accused of - bias I guess - everyone else has their own version of it. But at least I can admit it - ie, that I am prioritizing certain things - instead of demanding everyone conform to a false idea of fact.

[TopHat]

Of course in general B can result from A but you’re not talking generally. You were stating it as a fact. That you somehow know that Cross only attended the inquest because of the Lloyd’s article.

I said it was possible and suspicious - both of which are true.