Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[Herlock Sholmes]

If there are "countless examples" of the person claiming to find the body being the murderer, then you should easily be able to provide 3 or 4.

The problem with this is that what gets mentioned are cases where the husband killed the wife and said that he’d found her after she’d been killed by an intruder. My point has always been about serial killers though and bodies found outdoors. The dog walkers, joggers, hikers, strollers who found a body. No one has yet been able to name one example where the finder turned out to have been the killer. Even if someone found one or two or three it would still be a minute percentage. But as yet…none.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Par for the course Fiver.

This was aimed at your post 542 btw.

[Fiver]

And the idea that a murderer has never declared discovering the body (their victim) to a witness, whether having had a chance to flee the scene or not, is equally preposterous. There have been countless murders where this seeming innocence has been displayed - and then it is found out the body finder actually committed the murder. "Finding" the body doesn't prove Cross is the murderer, but it doesn't prove innocence either, which is what some are suggesting.

If there are "countless examples" of the person claiming to find the body being the murderer, then you should easily be able to provide 3 or 4.

[Fiver]

I pointed out Shipman was a body finder - and also the murderer. And there really was no day or time he didn't set up a house call, "Shall I pop round and see you on my way into the surgery?"

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Cross could be lying about what time he left home.

He certainly could have. No one has ever doubted that or claimed that Cross couldn’t have had time to commit the murder as far as I’m aware. It’s certainly physically possible. What we object to is Christer Holmgren’s provably false claim that there was a mysterious ‘gap.’ He doesn’t claim that there might have been one, he claims that there provably was one. This is provably untrue and is a perfect example of how evidence is often manipulated to try and make this clearly innocent man appear guilty.

And if he did leave his house earlier you are left with another problem. Only three things could have happened..

1) Cross left home really early, picked up Mary Nichols elsewhere and took her to Bucks Row to kill her 20 minutes before he was due at work. I’m fairly sure that no Cross supporter favours this nonsense. So…next
2) Cross left home early and stood in Bucks Row waiting on the off chance of a woman showing up until 20 minutes before he was due at work. This is less likely than option one and I know of no one who would support it. Which leaves..
3) Cross left early, bumped into Nichols and killed her.

The problem with 3 though is this…even Christer accepts that this murder would have taken no more that 2 minutes. So if, for example, Cross left the house at 3.25 and got to Bucks Row at 3.32/3.33 then killed Nichols by say, 3.35/6, what the hell was he still doing there when Paul arrived at around 3.40?

Nothing ‘favours’ Cross. Not a single thing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The idea that Cross discovered the body is not what happened; it's only half the story.

This is what happened: Paul discovered the person (Cross) who discovered the body.

This is extremely important.

So if it's not Cross who did the murder, it goes like this:

* Jack did the murder.
* Jack disappeared.
* Cross found the body.
* Paul found Cross (and the body).
* A policeman found the body.
* 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.

If that sequence of events is not extremely suspicious, I don't know what is.

Then you certainly have no concept of ‘suspicious’ TopHat. And why have you added the ‘Cross didn’t turn up at the inquest’ part. A fairly typical invention. He turned up at the inquest. There was never a time that he ‘doesn’t turn up.’ He actually testified before Paul. Unbelievable!

• A man kills a woman and then escapes just as every other serial killer in history did.
• A man is walking a street as he did 6 days a week
• That man arrived at the spot where you would have found him 6 days a week at that time.
• He discovers a body as untold numbers of people have all through history.
• Another man arrives who is also on his way to work.
• They go to find a Constable as any innocent passer-by person would.
• Both men turn up at the inquest and give their testimony.

I struggle to think of anything less suspicious.

[Geddy2112]

Thanks for the welcome.

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 - and I suggest that when doing this fair application of "manipulation bias", the Cross theory is still the best theory.

It's possibly one of the worst theories to be fair. It starts with a suspect who became a suspect because of the so called 'name' issue, which is a complete none starter because he gave his legal name in court, home and work address. Once it was discovered about the name it was time to make up evidence to suit the suspect. The safer more accurate way would be to look at the evidence and then find a suspect it led too.

Cross could be lying about what time he left home.

Ah 'could be' so speculation then. See how it works?

The idea that Cross discovered the body is not what happened; it's only half the story.

This is what happened: Paul discovered the person (Cross) who discovered the body.

This is extremely important.

Not sure about important but that certainly did not happen. If you read the evidence Cross was at the corner of the Wool Warehouse when he found the body, some 60 feet away. He crossed to the middle of the road, some 30 feet away. Here is a little diagram to illustrate:



At this juncture in time, according to his testimony Cross then heard Paul some 40 yards away and turned back to the north pavement and tried to attract the attention of Paul, Paul dropped his shoulder and sold him a dummy so Cross tapped him on the shoulder and told him there was a woman lying there. They both went to the body together. Therefore according to the evidence and simple maths Cross was never closer than 30 feet away from the body ALONE.



THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.

So if it's not Cross who did the murder, it goes like this:

* Jack did the murder.
* Jack disappeared.

Yes, Jack did what all serial killers have done, run away and since the killing probably happened when the witness heard the mumblings and the train go by at 3:30am then Cross was just leaving home.

* Cross found the body.
* Paul found Cross (and the body).

As explained this did not happen.

* A policeman found the body.

Correct after Cross and Paul did, it was PC Neil at 3:45am.

* Cross doesn't turn up to the inquest or even go to the police to say what happened.

That is interesting because I'm sure I've read about 19 different newspaper articles stating Charles Cross did turn up at the inquest. I'm also sure I've read a few newspaper reports that he told PC Mizen about four mins after co-finding the body what had happened.

* The police still think they found the body.

Which is odd since I'm sure Mizen would have told Neil about the carmen.

* Paul is interviewed in the press.

Yes, Paul inserted himself into the investigation, ooooo what does the FBI say about that? (Not that I give the FBI opinions in anything much weight.)

* Cross turns up to the inquest.

So Cross worked till late on the Friday, first day of the inquest was rushed and held on the Saturday. No inquest on Sunday, Cross appears on the Monday. Sorry that is quite lively considering. When did Paul turn up? Sorry he didn't he had to be sought out by the Police. Who is more suspicious at this point? Cross or Paul?

If that sequence of events is not extremely suspicious, I don't know what is.

Hopefully I've shown it's not suspicious one little bit.

[TopHat]

The idea that Cross discovered the body is not what happened; it's only half the story.

This is what happened: Paul discovered the person (Cross) who discovered the body.

This is extremely important.

So if it's not Cross who did the murder, it goes like this:

* Jack did the murder.
* Jack disappeared.
* Cross found the body.
* Paul found Cross (and the body).
* A policeman found the body.
* 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.

If that sequence of events is not extremely suspicious, I don't know what is.

[TopHat]

Welcome to the forums, what an opening post to settle yourself in...

He is only a suspect in some folks eyes because of manipulated evidence, mythological time gaps, false Mizen Scams, not understanding the law on names, not understanding where the corner of the Wool Warehouse in Bucks Row was etc etc. There is not one shred of evidence to prove Charles Cross is a killer, none.

Thanks for the welcome.

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 - and I suggest that when doing this fair application of "manipulation bias", the Cross theory is still the best theory.

It is quite possible the murder occurred at 3:30am. When the witness heard mumblings and heard a train go by. Cross at this juncture was just leaving home some 7-8 mins away.

Cross could be lying about what time he left home.

[TopHat]

It is hard to imagine a more inaccurate description of Shipman's crimes than the one you just gave. Shipman was a doctor who gave lethal overdoses to his patients. None were killed on his way to work. None were killed on his way home from work. None were found by him on his way to work.

I pointed out Shipman was a body finder - and also the murderer. And there really was no day or time he didn't set up a house call, "Shall I pop round and see you on my way into the surgery?"

What does it mean, "on his way to work"? If Cross leaves earlier than he needs to, is he still "on his way to work"? And he doesn't even need to leave earlier to make the idea that killers can't possibly kill during their work commute preposterous. Of course they can, especially in a dark street alone with the victim. Unless there's a murderers charter I'm unaware of that is signed "I will never murder on my way to work."

And the idea that a murderer has never declared discovering the body (their victim) to a witness, whether having had a chance to flee the scene or not, is equally preposterous. There have been countless murders where this seeming innocence has been displayed - and then it is found out the body finder actually committed the murder. "Finding" the body doesn't prove Cross is the murderer, but it doesn't prove innocence either, which is what some are suggesting.

I think the assertion by Herlock Sholmes that "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" can be safely negated.

I strongly suggest you read Herlock's thread on rating the suspects. It will show you that there are many suspects far more likely than Cross.

* There is no physical evidence against Cross.
* There is no eyewitness evidence against Cross.
* 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.

In a modern-day murder investigation, with what we know from the evidence before us, Cross would be the prime suspect. No way would he be ruled out (or reduced) in the manner that is being done by the "it's not Cross" team. He would remain the number one suspect until new evidence proved otherwise.

If Cross and Paul hadn't chosen to seek out and talk to PC Mizen, no one else would have known they were ever there.

With a witness next to him, it makes sense for Cross to go along with this. What's the alternative? Allow Paul to find the police and tell them a man he just spoke to "discovered" a body and has decided to not play a part in reporting it?

[scottnapa]

Cross is a notional suspect. He is only a suspect if you think he is a suspect.
two things stand out for me. The testimony of Harriet Lilley and the path of Polly Nichols.
First from the Echo:

“I slept in front of the house, and could hear everything that occured in the street.

On that Thursday night I was somehow very restless. Well, I heard something I mentioned to my husband

in the morning. It was a painful moan - two or three faint gasps - and then it passed away

. It was quite dark at the time, but a luggage went by as I heard the sounds. There was, too,

a sound as of whispers underneath the window. I distincly heard voices,but cannot say what was said

- it was too faint. I then woke my husband, and said to him, "I don't know what possesses me, but

I cannot sleep to-night." Mrs. Lilley added that as soon as she heard of the murder she came

to the conclusion that the voices she heard were in some way connected with it. The cries

were very different from those of an ordinary street brawl. It has been ascertained that a goods train

passed on the East London Railway at about half-past three - the 3.7 out from New-cross ,

which was probably the time when Mary Ann Nicholls was killed. “ Lilley's testimony lines up with Dr Llewellyn's time of death. Cross is leaving his house at 3:30.


Second, the idea that Polly Nichols would be on Buck’s Row alone.

Polly is inebriated on Whitechapel Road and Osborne states her intent to seek her final punter of the night, and walks east on Whitechapel. She is taken to Buck’s Row, a sleepy warehouse district.

Polly would not be alone to Buck’s Row, waiting for a blood-thirsty carman and amateur magican with a disappearing knife to walk by on his way to work.

[Geddy2112]

Welcome to the forums, what an opening post to settle yourself in...

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.

He is only a suspect in some folks eyes because of manipulated evidence, mythological time gaps, false Mizen Scams, not understanding the law on names, not understanding where the corner of the Wool Warehouse in Bucks Row was etc etc. There is not one shred of evidence to prove Charles Cross is a killer, none.

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? Instead of looking at it as timings for the guilty Cross, look at it as if it wasn't Cross, and Cross only had maybe 15 minutes to carry out the deed when he is blamed - then how did another Jack do it?

It is quite possible the murder occurred at 3:30am. When the witness heard mumblings and heard a train go by. Cross at this juncture was just leaving home some 7-8 mins away. So very easy for another 'Jack' to do the deed and escape.

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

Unfortunately if you follow the evidence and use basic maths you can see Cross was never closer to the body alone than 30 feet. Why would killer Cross hide the wounds THEN stop the first passer-by to show him the wounds so to speak? (Or a chance of.)

And if Cross "discovered the body", then why did it take an interview of Paul to flush Cross out? 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; alongside which the sly and patently dishonest Cross would have completely escaped scrutiny due to not existing as a name in the enquiry.

Did Paul name or describe him in the Newspaper article? No. And if he had read the article why did a guilty Cross not adjust his timings to match the 'exactly 3:45am' given by Paul to give himself an alibi? Why? Because he was not guilty that's why.

'Sly and patently dishonest Cross' <--- where is that in the evidence? See what I mean about Team Lechmere making stuff up?

[Geddy2112]

Death from asphyxia takes a minimum of two minutes and a maximum of four minutes.

I've seen timings up to 30 mins depending on other factors like struggling ect. However let's remember these four minutes then two more minutes to do the cutting. Dear me that mysterious time gap is slowly evaporating. Not that there was one in the first place.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

I’ll add someone that I don’t think for a minute was the ripper but he is a far more like suspect than Cross - John Richardson.

Cross was where he had to be because he had to be at work 6 days a week - Richardson only went to number 29 to check his mother’s cellar. At any time he could have avoided going and she wouldn’t have known. For all that we know he might have just said that he was checking to put his mothers mind at rest.

All that the medical doctors can tell us about Nichols is that she wouldn’t have been dead for long by the time that Cross arrived - According to Dr. Phillips Annie Chapman was dead by the time Richardson was there but he said she wasn’t. So we have a man who absolutely, 100% did contradict the medical evidence at the time.

We have no evidence that Cross carried a knife - Richardson absolutely did.

We have Cross perfectly legitimately gave his stepfathers name (but his own forenames, address and workplace) - According to the police Richardson failed to even mention sitting on the back step.

Cross didn’t want to prop up the body (hardly suspicious, a) many people wouldn’t want to handle a potential corpse, b) he wanted to get to work, or c) as they couldn’t be certain that she wasn’t just unconscious he wouldn’t have wanted her waking up to find to strange men crouching over her causing her to scream out ‘rape!’ or ‘murder!’ or just ‘help!’ - Richardson appeared to say that he did repairs on his boot and yet the knife that he produced wasn’t the up to the job. He then admitted that he’d used another one at the market.

He was a local man. His mother lived in Hanbury Street.

So hear we have a man that I don’t believe for a minute was the ripper and yet he has much more that was suspicious about him that Cross.

I do hope that you don’t fall into the habit of repeatedly saying that ‘Cross was there. Cross was there,” because every single person in crime history that discovered the body of a serial killers victim outdoors was ‘there.’ Being ‘there’ isn’t exactly a killer point is it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Is this a serious comment or intended as humour? Shipman was a doctor who poisoned his victims..entirely different. The specific point that is made (as I suspect that you well know) is about serial killers who murder and leave their victims bodies to be found by others. How many over there years? It would be a huge figure and not one of those joggers, strollers, dog walkers, birdwatchers or whatever EVER turned out to have been the killer themselves. It’s slightly concerning that you would try to use Shipman who doesn’t fit the criteria for comparison.

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.

And this is the worrying part. That some people actually think this. I assume that you’ve read the evidence or rather the complete lack of it. Evidence is important and cannot simply be manipulated into existence or imaged in ever more created ways. He is a non-suspect without a single factor creating suspicion.

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? Instead of looking at it as timings for the guilty Cross, look at it as if it wasn't Cross, and Cross only had maybe 15 minutes to carry out the deed when he is blamed - then how did another Jack do it?

Where do you get 15 minutes from? Even Christer Holmgren agrees (and I’ve seen no one disputing it) that the murder would have taken no more that 2 minutes. A killer working and escaping (as every serial killer in history has done btw) before Cross arrived would have had more than ample time. You are stretching the ‘time required’ by 7 times purely to make a point. This is what we mean about the manipulation of the evidence. Two minutes tops.

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

So, Robert Paul trudging to work in a deserted, echoing cobbled street, no doubt wearing boots, somehow managed to sneak up on Cross. Was he tiptoeing to work? And the skirt was raised because the two men pulled it down as much as they could. So the killer had raised the skirt with one hand while wielding the knife with the other. When he had finished he released his hold on the skirt and it fell back, still raised to the thighs but with the wounds covered. We also have to remember that it was dark and neither men saw the throat wounds.

And according to you, he hears Paul approach (in fact, close enough to mean that he couldn’t escape) so he wipes his knife, hides it on his person whilst walking to the middle of the road? How could he possibly have even the slightest confidence that Paul hadn’t seen him. What do you think might have happened if, at the inquest, Cross had said that he hadn’t been near the body when Paul arrived and yet Paul says “I saw him walking back from the body.” We can keep using the ‘well he was an idiot’ excuse to shoehorn Cross into place.”

And if Cross "discovered the body", then why did it take an interview of Paul to flush Cross out? 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; alongside which the sly and patently dishonest Cross would have completely escaped scrutiny due to not existing as a name in the enquiry.

This is false assumption which can be classed as a Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy. This is when someone assumes that because A occurred before B then A must have been the cause of B.

All that we know is that, unlike Paul, Cross didn’t speak to The Press. We can’t say that he didn’t talk to the police as we don’t have the police records. All that we can state as a fact is that he turned up at the inquest to give his testimony. You are doing what those that support Cross always do in that you are viewing events through ‘Cross was guilty’ goggles.

Not a single thing that he did that day or the days following was remotely suspicious if viewed dispassionately. The combined facts that he was on his way to work and that he didn’t flee when he had the easy opportunity of doing so and that he was willing to allow a man, over whom he had no control into the story, is enough to dismiss Cross. The arguments ‘for’ are feeble and largely invented.