Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[TopHat]

You said "Harold Shipman often "discovered the body". Shipman also killed on his way to work, during work, after work, and on weekends."

You then attempted to rewrite your words by ignoring your obviously false claims that Shipman killed on his way to work and after work.

Your attempt to rewrite your own words is noted. Your description of Shipman's murders remains laughably inaccurate.

Your form of argument is like that of the Stasi!

[drstrange169]

“Harold Shipman often "discovered the body".”

So far as I know, Shipman never “discovered” a body. They were all alive when he met them, in places they were expected to be, he had a known connection to all of the victims. None were random people in the street to be “discovered”.

There is no realistic comparison between Cross and Shipman’s circumstances..



"Shipman also killed on his way to work, during work, after work, and on weekends."

Shipman was a doctor, all his victims were patients, by all sensible definitions he was working or pretending to work.

It doesn’t matter if Cross left home at midnight, he and Paul were in Buck’s Row around 3:40 and he started work at 4:00. The journey from Buck’s Row was about 15 to 20 minutes, ergo, he was indisputably on his way to work.

Despite numerous attempts to twist this fact, nobody to date has come up with another serial killer who did this.


"As for Cross, he is absolutely a suspect. In actual fact he is THE suspect, the prime suspect, and nobody else in contention even comes close to him."

Working on this theory, the ‘discoverers” of Kathleen Grundy, Irene Turner, Jean Lilley, Muriel Grimshaw, Bianka Pomfret, Norah Nuttall, Winifred Mellor and Joan Melia were "THE suspects, the prime suspects, and nobody else in contention even comes close to them.” And Shipman should never have been a suspect, that’s clearly ridiculous.

"One of the biggest issues for Cross is that if it wasn't him, how did the ripper do his work and escape unseen with all the timings involved for witnesses Cross and Paul and for multiple policemen walking their beats in very close proximity?"


P.C. Neil, who knew far more than we do about it, said it would have been VERY easy for the killer to escape unnoticed. Baxter’s official findings was that it would have been easy for the killer to escape unnoticed.

The claim that it would have been difficult is a fiction invented in recent years to make Cross look guilty. It has no basis in fact.


"Also of major concern is that Cross "found" a body with the wounds not on show."


I’ve lost count of the times this lie has been proven false.

The neck wounds were NOT covered. P.C. Neil saw them clearly.

The only difference is that he had a light and Cross and Paul didn’t. Paul went straight to the head area and examined it as closely as he could. If Cross was the killer why would he have allowed Paul to do that?

Everything Cross did points to innocence.

"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."

A guilty Cross walked up the road towards Paul turned his back to him and waited … Yeah right, because that sounds so plausible!?!.

How did Paul not see him or hear Cross moving away from the body and toward him?

Another lie I read the other day was that Cross was the only suspect alone with a body, this, of course is nonsense. Cross is the only discoverer of a body to have his version of events witnessed and supported.


“And if Cross "discovered the body", then why did it take an interview of Paul to flush Cross out?”

This personal unsupported opinion, not a fact.


“If Paul had not stated publicly what he had experienced, the police would still have thought that a policeman discovered the body - in fact that would have been the set-in-stone history (all the way until today and forever more!) of the discovery of that murder: a body found by a policeman; “

Up till Sunday night the police were absolutely rejecting any claim that two men found the body first. This was specifically because too the claim P.C. Mizen did not encounter two men.

If Cross had have gone to the police prior to Mizen's later admission on the Monday morning, his claim would have been rejected.

The facts are we don’t know when Cross went to the police. We do know ,unlike Paul, he did contact the police, so it was always going to be “set-in-stone history (all the way until today and forever more!)” after the Monday inquest, that two men found the body before Neil.


"… the sly and patently dishonest Cross would have completely escaped scrutiny due to not existing as a name in the enquiry.”

Everything Cross said and did has the hallmarks of truth. The fact that you have to misrepresent and/or give factually wrong information to make him look guilty testifies to that.

Strip away the stories and return to the basic facts and the guilt evaporates like ice in the sun.

[John Wheat]

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

[Lewis C]

Another thing is that when Cross attended the inquest isn't necessarily a matter of his own choosing. It might be that he attended the inquest on the day that he did because that's when those holding the inquest wanted him to attend.

[Fiver]

The sequence of events exists; this is undeniable. You're saying B doesn't result from A; but it is possible that B DOES result from A.

No, you are assuming because B happened after A that B must have been caused by A.

You are assuming that Cross testified because Paul's account appeared in the papers. To do this you have to ignore all other possible reasons that Cross could have chosen to go to the police.

And you are assuming that B happened after A.

We do not know if Cross went to the police before or after Paul's account appeared in the papers. For that matter, we don't know if Cross had even seen Paul's account before he went to the police.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The sequence of events exists; this is undeniable. You're saying B doesn't result from A; but it is possible that B DOES result from A.

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.

Theres a parallel with Christer’s imaginary gap. It’s ok to say that there could have been a gap but that’s not what Christer was trying to say when he deliberately omitted the word ‘about.’ He was saying that there definitely was a gap. Which is clearly a falsehood.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You still need to prove your assertion - which you state as if it's fact - even within your arbitrary boundaries. What proof do you have?

You’re splitting hairs TopHat. I’ll make this as clear as I can - as far as I’m aware, from years of reading about true crime (though before you say, I don’t consider myself an expert) and from years of asking others (including Christer) not one, after doing various searches in books and online have found a single case of a person finding a serial killers victim outdoors where it turned out that the finder was the killer. Another way of putting it, is that no one can find an example of a serial killer who, when faced with an opportunity of escape, elected to stand around for a chat with a complete stranger.

So, if you are saying that I need to provide every single example of a person who found a serial killers victim in the entirety of history, before you will accept the validity of the point then we can safely ignore your point. My boundaries aren’t ‘arbitrary’ they are mine, because the point was mine and I’ve hardly asked for examples of serial killers with one leg have I? Serial killers with victims found outdoors is hardly troublesome isn’t it. You should have no problem finding an example of 10. Strangely though…no one has yet.

[Fiver]

Yes I did say that. What's your point? How did I "rewrite" its meaning?

You said "Harold Shipman often "discovered the body". Shipman also killed on his way to work, during work, after work, and on weekends."

You then attempted to rewrite your words by ignoring your obviously false claims that Shipman killed on his way to work and after work.

Your attempt to rewrite your own words is noted. Your description of Shipman's murders remains laughably inaccurate.

[Fiver]

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.

Edit: I did actually list he eventually turned up:

---------------
* Cross doesn't turn up to the inquest or even go to the police to say what happened.
* The police still think they found the body.
* Paul is interviewed in the press.
* Cross turns up to the inquest.
---------------

* Your first statement is still false. Charles Cross did go to the police and testify at the inquest. The question is when.
* PC Mizen knows that two unknown carmen told him they found the body.
* Yet when PC Neil testifies the next day, neither he, the coroner, nor the rest of the police seem to know what PC Mizen knows.
* Robert Paul's newspaper interview appears in the papers. He doesn't know who the other carman was and appears to start dodging the police, later saying "he was fetched up in the middle of the night by the police".
* The only way Cross could have testified on the second day of the inquest was if he went to the police.

[TopHat]

You did not say that. You said "Harold Shipman often "discovered the body". Shipman also killed on his way to work, during work, after work, and on weekends."

Your attempt to rewrite your own words is noted. Your description of Shipman's murders remains laughably inaccurate.

Yes I did say that. What's your point? How did I "rewrite" its meaning?

[TopHat]

Why?

As I mentioned in a previous post, do you assume that every time A occurs before B then B must have resulted from A. Because that’s the approach that you are taking on this point.

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?

The sequence of events exists; this is undeniable. You're saying B doesn't result from A; but it is possible that B DOES result from A.

[Fiver]

I didn't "rewrite my words". Shipman was a body finder; not ALWAYS, however - and all my words are perfectly good English. And I didn't "describe" Shipman's murders in their entirety - I merely pointed out he didn't discriminate as to the day or time when it came to committing murder.

The definition of "who can find a body" doesn't include Shipman, a doctor, apparently. No doctors. Nor therefore does it include multiple serial killer nurses who often found dead bodies on their rounds of the ward. And also doesn't include people murdered inside buildings, for some reason (what about garden sheds - a murder in one of these, would it be "inside" or "outside"?). A completely self-serving definition, and I do not subscribe to it.

You did not say that. You said "Harold Shipman often "discovered the body". Shipman also killed on his way to work, during work, after work, and on weekends."

Your attempt to rewrite your own words is noted. Your description of Shipman's murders remains laughably inaccurate.

[Fiver]

You're just letting Cross off scot-free. In a modern-day investigation, Cross would never be ruled out at this point. He was the closest known person in time next to a fresh murder, who subsequently did not make it clear to the police what had happened, and then did not turn up to the inquest on day one where the police were positive a policeman had found the body.

* "closest" means in the middle of the street, not next to the body.
* There were plenty of other people nearby with no alibi.
* It was quite possible for an unknown person to have been the killer. This is what happened for every other Ripper murder.
* It would have been easy for an unknown murderer to escape; the police directly said so.
* "fresh" means sometime withing the last half hour. Ignore the so-called Blood Evidence theory - it's not what those experts said and blood flow not used by any police to determine time of death.
* Cross and Paul both spoke PC Mizen. Yet you don't use this miscommunication as "proof" against Paul. All you have proved is your double standard.
* Neither Cross nor Paul testified on the first day of the inquest. Yet you don't use this as "proof" against Paul. All you have proved is your double standard.
* PC Mizen knew the body had been found by two carmen. The only way the rest of the police would not have known this would be if there was extremely poor communication between Police Division H and Police Division J or if PC Mizen hadn't told anyone. That might be evidence against PC Mizen, but not against Cross.

Now lets look at the points you ignore.
* The police said the killer could have easily escaped undetected. Cross and Paul did "escape" Bucks-row completely undetected.
* Cross touching Paul did not leave unexplained bloodstains on Paul's clothing.
* Paul, who was initially frightened of being mugged, did not notice bloodstains on Cross' hand or clothes, nor did he see anything odd in Cross' behavior.
* PC Mizen, who had a lantern, did not notice bloodstains on Cross' hand or clothes, nor did he see anything odd in Cross' behavior.
* Cross chose to contact the police - neither Mizen nor Paul knew who he was.
* Robert Paul's testimony about what was said supported Charles Cross, not PC Mizen.
* The police supported Cross' timing on when the body was found. That's based on the testimony of the first three police on site and the police reports. The Time Gap is a myth.
* There is no evidence of violence or criminal behavior by Cross.
* Cross had no knowledge of anatomy.
* The idea of hiding bloodstained clothing and trophy organs in a house full of small children is laughable.
* The timing of the Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes murders make it wildly unlikely that Cross killed them.
* Cross lived for over three decades after the murders ended.

[TopHat]

You can’t compare the type of serial killer Jack the Ripper was to Harold Shipman or Lucy Letby.

I’m talking about serial killers who leave there victims outdoors (like the ripper) and there have been thousands so we have many to compare with. What makes me smile is that over the years I’ve lost count of the amount of times on here that Christer has gone to a ‘history of crime ‘ argument. How he used ‘precedent’ to try and make a point. But since I pointed out a couple of glaringly obvious ones it suddenly becomes unimportant. Or someone tries to change the criteria by adding in poisoners.

You still need to prove your assertion - which you state as if it's fact - even within your arbitrary boundaries. What proof do you have?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Why?

As I mentioned in a previous post, do you assume that every time A occurs before B then B must have resulted from A. Because that’s the approach that you are taking on this point.

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?