Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think it's about Case Closed you are free to go Mr Cross now. Something else to think about...

Not sure if the Holmgren/Thiblin conversation was ever made public but he did post it on Facebook a couple of months ago -





Some things to note. Holmgren states he KNOWS that Polly was cut half a minute to a minute before Paul was sure he felt movement. What evidence does he have for this timing? He also when asking Thiblin his questions never mentions the severity of the wounds or what order they came in. He never mentions the strangulation for example which of course would have had an effect.

Holmgren's expert Prof Thiblin was asked about Agonal Breathing and his response started with 'If it is correct..' so even the Prof is not totally sure if it was possible Polly exhibited agonal breathing. To make things worse for Team Lechmere the same professors opinion on how long Polly could bleed for give a 10-15 mins timing as an outer limit, Holmgren states in his book 'but we settled on 5-7 mins' which of course is a total lie. We have just had Thiblin saying 10-15 mins is possible. So lets look at some of Team Lechmere's timings...

1) They insist the body was found at 3:45am

2) Thiblin states the bleeding could go on for 10-15 mins

3) When asked about the agonal breathing even though he was not sure it was agonal breathing he gave a time of 'a couple of minutes' after bleeding out.

So lets do some basic maths, using the outer limits mentioned. Bleeding out 10-15 mins added to the couple (2) mins that Thiblin states the breathing could go on for is 17 mins.

Time body was found according to Holmgren was 3:45am minus the 17 mins given by his expert we are now at a time of 3:28am for time of death. Unfortunately for Holmgren and Stow et al Lechmere was at least 7m 7 s away kissing his missus goodbye at the that time.

So even using Holmgren's own opinions on timing and his own expert can we now firmly say case closed, you are free to go Mr Lechmere?

All that it appears to say is that if Paul had detected agonal breathing it meant, as we’ve said a million times, no more than the fact that Cross was killed not too long before Cross arrived. And how do we know that Paul wasn’t simply mistaken? He certainly wasn’t sure. I was out with a friend the other day and she stood with her hands out swearing that she could feel rain. No one else could and it didn’t rain. People make mistakes so unless they can prove that Paul did indeed feel breathing then it’s a non-starter. If she was breathing then surely it would have been fairly easy to tell? You don’t need a degree to detect breathing.

How desperate are these people? This is one reason that I’m losing interest in the subject of the Whitechapel Murders as a whole. Dishonesty, gullibility, self-interest and agenda are rife. This is the product of the internet era and it’s why we live in a world of people swallowing conspiracy theories hook, line and sinker. It’s a waste of time using reason because it doesn’t fit the script. The whole thing has become an embarrassment. If Cross is a suspect then everyone that could draw breath and was vertical at the time is a suspect - and the majority are likelier than him.

[Geddy2112]

I think it's about Case Closed you are free to go Mr Cross now. Something else to think about...

Not sure if the Holmgren/Thiblin conversation was ever made public but he did post it on Facebook a couple of months ago -

My question is: For how long a time after the throat is cut can the body perform something that can be interpreted as breathing movements? I am aware that there is something called agonal breathing, but I am uncertain whether or not it can be a question of agonal breathing in this case. Nichols had her throat severed at least half a minute or a minute before Robert Paul was sure that he felt movement as of breathing. Can it be that such movement remained at this stage, or could Paul have felt something else, a weak heart beat or a chemical/electrical reaction of sorts?

If it is correct that oxygen deprivation in the brain at a heart stop causes agonal breathing, it is also reasonable that oxygen depletion following on bleeding out also causes it. It is fully conceivable that a shallow breathing could be felt a couple of minutes after the bleeding out, which in its turn could have taken some minutes after the damage was inflicted. Other explanations, such as weak heart beats or an electrical reaction, I would regard as highly unlikely.

Some things to note. Holmgren states he KNOWS that Polly was cut half a minute to a minute before Paul was sure he felt movement. What evidence does he have for this timing? He also when asking Thiblin his questions never mentions the severity of the wounds or what order they came in. He never mentions the strangulation for example which of course would have had an effect.

Holmgren's expert Prof Thiblin was asked about Agonal Breathing and his response started with 'If it is correct..' so even the Prof is not totally sure if it was possible Polly exhibited agonal breathing. To make things worse for Team Lechmere the same professors opinion on how long Polly could bleed for give a 10-15 mins timing as an outer limit, Holmgren states in his book 'but we settled on 5-7 mins' which of course is a total lie. We have just had Thiblin saying 10-15 mins is possible. So lets look at some of Team Lechmere's timings...

1) They insist the body was found at 3:45am

2) Thiblin states the bleeding could go on for 10-15 mins

3) When asked about the agonal breathing even though he was not sure it was agonal breathing he gave a time of 'a couple of minutes' after bleeding out.

So lets do some basic maths, using the outer limits mentioned. Bleeding out 10-15 mins added to the couple (2) mins that Thiblin states the breathing could go on for is 17 mins.

Time body was found according to Holmgren was 3:45am minus the 17 mins given by his expert we are now at a time of 3:28am for time of death. Unfortunately for Holmgren and Stow et al Lechmere was at least 7m 7 s away kissing his missus goodbye at the that time.

So even using Holmgren's own opinions on timing and his own expert can we now firmly say case closed, you are free to go Mr Lechmere?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I was thinking about this the other day. Surely it's actually worse than that for Team Lechmere. Surely Baxter CAN'T be using Paul as Paul's 'exactly 3:45am' only appeared in the 'Remarkable Statement' and we have no evidence to suggest Baxter read that and surely even if he did it would not be allowed to go in his summing up. Surely only evidence contained within the inquest itself would be allowed for Baxter to form his judgement. In Paul's testimony he never mentioned any timings apart from the four minutes that had elapsed from being at the body and being with Cross and Mizen.

So for me Christer is relying on ONE piece of evidence to mean 'many' as opposed to FIVE. Or have I ballsed it up?

No, you’re right, that was the Paul quote that I was talking about when I was considering the ‘so many independent data.’ Al that Baxter could go on was Neil, Thain and Mizen all saying 3.45…therefore the body must have been discovered before 3.45….and Paul saying that no more than 4 minutes elapsed between Paul meeting Cross and the two of them finding Mizen.

So Baxter was clearly saying that the body was discovered between 3.40 and 3.41. There’s no other interpretation unless a desperate attempt is made to manufacture one which is exactly what he tries to do to manufacture a ‘proven’ gap which any reasonably intelligent toddler could see through.

There is no case against Cross. It’s a propaganda campaign initiated by those with a vested interest supported by the gullible.

[Geddy2112]

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.

I was thinking about this the other day. Surely it's actually worse than that for Team Lechmere. Surely Baxter CAN'T be using Paul as Paul's 'exactly 3:45am' only appeared in the 'Remarkable Statement' and we have no evidence to suggest Baxter read that and surely even if he did it would not be allowed to go in his summing up. Surely only evidence contained within the inquest itself would be allowed for Baxter to form his judgement. In Paul's testimony he never mentioned any timings apart from the four minutes that had elapsed from being at the body and being with Cross and Mizen.

So for me Christer is relying on ONE piece of evidence to mean 'many' as opposed to FIVE. Or have I ballsed it up?

[Geddy2112]

Don't worry bro... I've got your back.

[Herlock Sholmes]

...and maybe edit from 'light' to 'line'

[Geddy2112]

To late to edit but in the first light ‘we can’ should read ‘we can’t’ of course.

...and maybe edit from 'light' to 'line'

[Herlock Sholmes]

To late to edit but in the first light ‘we can’ should read ‘we can’t’ of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What was Charles Cross wearing on the morning of August 31st? We can be a 100% certain I suppose but surely he’d have been wearing the clothes that he worked in? It would make most sense. We’ve all seen a photograph of a Pickford’s carman sitting on his wagon and I’ve seen at least one other photograph of a carman dressed in the same way - with a long, rough apron. And that often used quote from The Star:

“That man was Carman Cross (who came into the Court-room in a coarse sacking apron)”

Do we have anything that might confirm that this was how Cross was dressed on the morning of the murder? We have Mizen quoted in the Morning Advertiser on September 4th as saying:

"You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row). The man appeared to be a carman.”

In The Star of the 3rd Mizen (spelt Myzen in the piece) said that Cross “…looked like a carman.”

How else could he have appeared to have been a carman unless he dressed in a way that was usual for a carman? This appears to suggest then that Cross was identifiable as a carman that morning which leaves us with a very obvious question -


Would a serial killer wear clothing that made him stand out? That might have allowed some witness to have told the police - well, he was dressed like a carman (especially so close to, and on the way to, Pickford’s.


It doesn’t seem likely to me.

[GBinOz]

Hi George.

Dawn that morning was recorded as 4:36 a.m., and sunrise as 5:11. There had been no shortage of police officers (as well as Dr. Lewellyn) at the scene while it was still dark (3:45-4:30) along with civilians, and one assumes that the next time PC Neil walked his beat he would have been acutely aware of the lighting conditions at 3:40-3:45 a.m. when he again walked past the gates.

If there was something wildly implausible in the account given by Cross and Paul about not being able to see the wounds/blood, wouldn't the police or Dr. Lewellyn have soon realized it? It was after all, a rather important element at the inquest.

Cheers.

Hi RJ,

I have to admit that you present a very good case. Of course Neil and Llewellyn had the advantage of examining the body by the aid of a lamp. Would they necessarily have turned off their lamps to ascertain what could be seen in the dark? Llewellyn testified:

"On the left side of the neck, about an inch below the jaw, there was an incision about four inches long and running from a point immediately below the ear. An inch below on the same side, and commencing about an inch in front of it, was a circular incision terminating at a point about three inches below the right jaw. This incision completely severs all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision is about eight inches long.".

I struggle to imagine how wounds of this size, contrasting with white skin, could have been missed from such a short distance. JMO.

Cheers, George

[rjpalmer]

There were several reports at the time that Buck's Row was not all that badly lit. This contemporary illustration seems to support that possibility, although there still exists the possibility that the lamp shown opposite wasn't working on the night in question.



If that lamp was working it should have silhouetted Cross's movement to Paul, and it should have enabled the men to see the blood, unless the blood wasn't there at that time.

Hi George.

Dawn that morning was recorded as 4:36 a.m., and sunrise as 5:11. There had been no shortage of police officers (as well as Dr. Lewellyn) at the scene while it was still dark (3:45-4:30) along with civilians, and one assumes that the next time PC Neil walked his beat he would have been acutely aware of the lighting conditions at 3:40-3:45 a.m. when he again walked past the gates.

If there was something wildly implausible in the account given by Cross and Paul about not being able to see the wounds/blood, wouldn't the police or Dr. Lewellyn have soon realized it? It was after all, a rather important element at the inquest.

Cheers.

[Fiver]

Here's another question for you: why did Lechmere stop and wait some 20 - 30 seconds for Paul, when he had identified there being a woman in distress lying on her back? Wouldn't it make more sense to quickly check up on her condition before he accosted Paul. Most people would do that, particularly if they stopped out of a sense of concern. And yet he just stood there and waited for Paul. Strange!

That's not an accurate description of events. Cross had just identified that there was a woman "lying in front of the gateway". Nothing in either Cross or Paul's testimony indicates that they immediately assumed that the woman was in distress.

And why did he suddenly hear footsteps at that point, in the middle of the road, when a guy was supposedly walking right behind him for some 2 minutes?

That's a Lechmerian myth. Available evidence is that Robert Paul was walking about 50 yards behind Charles Cross, not right behind him.

[GBinOz]

Thats not an accurate summary of their testimony. Cross testified that shortly after he saw the body, he heard Paul behind him at an estimated distance of 40 yards. Paul testified that he saw Cross in front of him, but Paul was never asked how far that distance was or when he first saw Cross. Paul was never asked if he heard Cross before he saw Cross.

Hi Fiver,

You are absolutely correct - those questions were not specifically asked. But both men's testimony was in the form of a narrative. When I hear Paul saying "As I was passing up Buck's row I saw a man standing in the roadway", I deduce by implication, as apparently did the Coroner, that that was the first time that he became aware of Cross. Likewise, when Cross testified "He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from.", the implication is that that was the first time he heard footsteps behind him. But I agree that it would have been better if Baxter had asked those specific questions.

There were several reports at the time that Buck's Row was not all that badly lit. This contemporary illustration seems to support that possibility, although there still exists the possibility that the lamp shown opposite wasn't working on the night in question.



If that lamp was working it should have silhouetted Cross's movement to Paul, and it should have enabled the men to see the blood, unless the blood wasn't there at that time. The St James Gazette reported Paul as testifying "He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but he could not.". How can someone kneel and place their head next to a person's face and not see blood only inches away, particularly if there was a working light across the road?

Paul told the reporter from Lloyd's Weekly News "I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw." Did Cross strangle Polly, and was interrupted in the mutilations by Paul, and could not risk that Paul's observation of signs of life may have allowed Polly to recover. Did Paul move off first, allowing Cross just enough time to cut Polly's throat and quickly catch Paul up? This would explain why Paul didn't see the blood, and vindicate Lewellen's opinion that the mutilations were done first. Pure speculation, of course.

Cheers, George

[Fiver]

And as for the address, although he furnished it to officials, it has already been well hashed out that he most likely did not mention his address at the inquest - all but one newspaper failing to mention it, as opposed to most other witnesses.

That idea has little traction outside of Lechemerian echo chambers. Inquest proceeding did allow for a witness to not publicly state their address, but it was at the discretion of the coroner, not the witness. And it was unusual enough that the press usually commented on it.

Which leaves two possibilities.

* Charles Cross publicly asked the coroner to be allowed to not give his home address at the inquest. None of the newsmen mentioned this unusual action. The reporter from the Star, an evening paper, chose to ignore the coroner's wishes and get the information from the court clerk. The court clerk chose to ignore the coroner's wishes and give the information to the reporter. Having spent the time to get Cross' home address, the reporter didn't take the time to record Cross' first name, let alone his middle name. The coroner, upon finding his wishes had been defied, did nothing to censure the reporter or the court clerk.

* Cross gave his home address at the inquest. Only one paper mentioned it.

Yet Lechmerians think the first option his more likely.

[Fiver]

This is new to me, what do you mean exactly here? That he saw cross walking in front of him, or the usual saw a man standing in the middle of the street ?


The Baron

"He left home about a quarter to 4 on the Friday morning and as he was passing up Buck's-row he saw a man standing in the middle of the road."

Paul testified that he saw Cross in front of him, but Paul was never asked how far that distance was or when he first saw Cross. Paul was never asked if he heard Cross before he saw Cross.