Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post
    So... going back to my previous post and to further my 'knowledge' of the Crossmere activity I've come to the horrible 'cross' roads. Do or do I not splash 15 on Cutting Point? (or 'What's The Point' as I saw one reviewer refer to it as...)
    The problem I have is the author for one. Very biased, rather rude and aggressive in attacking people who do not agree with him and never open to the fact he could be wrong no matter how many times he is told.
    For two the blurb on the back 'The Jack the Ripper murders and the Thames Torso murders, so similar to each other, took place during the same period in London and have never been solved.' (I actually think there are 3 or 4 'material inaccuracies' in the back cover alone.) Now even for me that seems rather a large stretch. The MO in both cases are completely different unless you count 'female victims' 'London' and the 'same 5 or so year period.' Does this kind of statement run through the book, i.e. comments that are rather economical with the truth?
    Thirdly, and more importantly does the book actually provide any 'decent' (of course I won't and can't use concrete) evidence in the other four canonical murders? Does it give good evidence for Lechmere killing Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly? Or it is just focused on the Bucks Row shenanigans?
    Thanks
    I'm afraid I lost some of the time I had for Christer after our conversation regarding the likelihood of Pickfords' legal people querying their employee "Lechmere" committing the level of perjury that both he and Ed seem to suggest he did. On TWO ocassions.
    While I can just about buy Christer's proposal of the possibility that no one at Pickfords took enough interest in the events surrounding Bucks Row, and the lack of Pickford's legal boys appearance at the Inquest, to notice or follow up on Cross/Lechmere. I cannot buy the idea that when he was in court to answer questions over the accidental death of the young boy, that Pickfords were unaware of THOSE events.

    If "Lechmere" gave his name as "Cross" in a case where culpability could quite possibly lead to a prison sentence, and would absolutely leave Pickfords liable for paying a substantial sum in damages to the family, then Pickfords would have thrown him under the bus as an untrustworthy criminal who would prejure himself to avoid punishment, and try and absolve themselves... because to NOT do that would have made them party to the same crime of perjury. If they knew he had filed a false name with the court.
    Christer sees no reason why Pickfords would have had any interest in that case, either being there themselves with lawyers or having any particular interest in its outcome until the outcome had been reached. I can only assume that because the oputcome was fine for them, they had simply hoped it would all be OK and simply couldn't be bothered to even keep an eye on the inquest... and because it all worked out, there's no way to prove otherwise.
    Beacuse... to admit that Pickfords would be aware of that inquest and what was happening is to also concede that Pickfords WOULD have known that he was going by the name Cross since the mid 1870 AT PICKFORDS, and therfore any use of the name "Charles Allen Cross" had absolutely ZERO criminal intent, and had NO impact whatsoever in his status as a suspect.
    Because THAT issue... the "False Name" is quite literally the ONLY thiing they have that even comes within smelling distance of "substantive evidence of criminal behaviour" in relation to the other wise spotless record of Charles Cross.

    Aside from all that, I know Christer can be annoyingly intransigent, but I admire his willingness to face his critics, (when he could easily just run off and use a fake name of his own and start a batshit conspiracy theory Youtube Channel) and he has done some very noteworthy research that I know I couldn never have done.

    I kinda like him...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by John Trent View Post
      If that were the case I'd agree but Cross testified, "her clothes were up above her knees, we tried to pull them over her, but they did not seem as if they would come down." To me that clearly implies that the hem of the dress at the front was at thigh level​.
      Hi John,

      I don’t understand why Cross’s quote should imply that the hem of the dress was at thigh level. So, could you please explain that a bit further?

      I mean, wherever the hem was, the clothes were up above her knees. That’s how I see it now. Where the hem ended up, would depend on who lifted the dress and, more importantly, how.

      As far as I can see, the quote doesn’t say anything about where the hem was. But, perhaps, that’s due to the fact that English isn’t my mother’s language.

      Then, not mentioning pulling down the clothes: "The other man put his hand on the breast outside the clothes - over her heart - and said, "I think she's breathing, but very little."​ Paul, at the inquest, said, "Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach.... He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not." Paul was also reported as saying "The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down." Disarranged doesn't chime with 'pulled up to the chest'.
      I have no doubt the clothes were disarranged, as also Neil described them as such. However, disarranged might also just mean ‘dislocated’, plus it doesn’t mean the hem had to be in a particular place, i.e. it could be anywhere.

      A snippet that I find interesting in this respect is that Paul in the Times of 18 September is quoted to have said: “While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement.

      Christer Holmgren has come up with some alternative explanations for why Paul would have had one of his hands on the chest, which I don’t have at hand, but what I think it suggests is that Paul was searching for the hem and in touching the breast in search of it, felt this slight movement. Or, at least, that's one of the possibilities.


      Bizarrely, by trying to hear her breathing Paul was doing what a trained first aider would do - listen (coupled with putting his face down to see if he could feel breath on his cheek). However, feeling her chest is pointless because you can't feel breathing unless the casualty is obviously breathing (which you can see). Paul wasn't trained and it would have been too dark for such a check anyway. I find Paul's evidence somewhat confusing as to precisely what he did. I speculate that he may be looking to feel a heart beat but it's unlikely (and you can't feel a heart beat through the rib cage anyway).
      See above. The “While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement., again, would explain why he, accidentally, touched and then felt the breast.

      Otherwise, I agree with Jeff's post above (#374).

      All the best,
      Frank
      "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
      Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post
        So... going back to my previous post and to further my 'knowledge' of the Crossmere activity I've come to the horrible 'cross' roads. Do or do I not splash 15 on Cutting Point? (or 'What's The Point' as I saw one reviewer refer to it as...)
        The problem I have is the author for one. Very biased, rather rude and aggressive in attacking people who do not agree with him and never open to the fact he could be wrong no matter how many times he is told.
        For two the blurb on the back 'The Jack the Ripper murders and the Thames Torso murders, so similar to each other, took place during the same period in London and have never been solved.' (I actually think there are 3 or 4 'material inaccuracies' in the back cover alone.) Now even for me that seems rather a large stretch. The MO in both cases are completely different unless you count 'female victims' 'London' and the 'same 5 or so year period.' Does this kind of statement run through the book, i.e. comments that are rather economical with the truth?
        Thirdly, and more importantly does the book actually provide any 'decent' (of course I won't and can't use concrete) evidence in the other four canonical murders? Does it give good evidence for Lechmere killing Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly? Or it is just focused on the Bucks Row shenanigans?
        Thanks


        Detailed debate on Bucks Row is a part of 1 chapter of 50 pages. The whole book is 203.

        The book brings together all that the author as posted online in one easy to read place.
        For that reason alone it's handy for those who are new to the theory.

        Steve

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post
          So... going back to my previous post and to further my 'knowledge' of the Crossmere activity I've come to the horrible 'cross' roads. Do or do I not splash 15 on Cutting Point? (or 'What's The Point' as I saw one reviewer refer to it as...)
          The problem I have is the author for one. Very biased, rather rude and aggressive in attacking people who do not agree with him and never open to the fact he could be wrong no matter how many times he is told.
          For two the blurb on the back 'The Jack the Ripper murders and the Thames Torso murders, so similar to each other, took place during the same period in London and have never been solved.' (I actually think there are 3 or 4 'material inaccuracies' in the back cover alone.) Now even for me that seems rather a large stretch. The MO in both cases are completely different unless you count 'female victims' 'London' and the 'same 5 or so year period.' Does this kind of statement run through the book, i.e. comments that are rather economical with the truth?
          Thirdly, and more importantly does the book actually provide any 'decent' (of course I won't and can't use concrete) evidence in the other four canonical murders? Does it give good evidence for Lechmere killing Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly? Or it is just focused on the Bucks Row shenanigans?
          Thanks
          hi geddy
          one. fish has been given more, or at least the same , as he has given in terms of bias, rudeness and personal attacks.

          two. imho and a growing number of others, including respected researchers, there are a lot of similarities between the two series and that they could have been done by the same hand.

          three. the book contains much circumstantial evidence that the ripper and torsoman were the same and that it was lech. it also contains a rather fascinating theory of what was the inspiration of the killers work. and yes it includes decent imho evidence and hypothesis of not only the other ripper victims but the torso victims as well.

          it is a short and very concise book on fishs theory and imho a cracking good read. i enjoyed it and personally recommend it.

          full disclaimer: i am NOT a lechmerian, more of a lech apologist lol. comparitively speaking hes not that bad of a suspect imho (but i put a handfull of other suspects ahead of him).

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

            hi geddy
            one. fish has been given more, or at least the same , as he has given in terms of bias, rudeness and personal attacks.

            two. imho and a growing number of others, including respected researchers, there are a lot of similarities between the two series and that they could have been done by the same hand.

            three. the book contains much circumstantial evidence that the ripper and torsoman were the same and that it was lech. it also contains a rather fascinating theory of what was the inspiration of the killers work. and yes it includes decent imho evidence and hypothesis of not only the other ripper victims but the torso victims as well.

            it is a short and very concise book on fishs theory and imho a cracking good read. i enjoyed it and personally recommend it.

            full disclaimer: i am NOT a lechmerian, more of a lech apologist lol. comparitively speaking hes not that bad of a suspect imho (but i put a handfull of other suspects ahead of him).
            I am 100% in agreement with this post.

            RD
            "Great minds, don't think alike"

            Comment


            • I would recommend getting Cutting Point. Debating with Christer involves a lot of convolution. With his book you get pure Christer, agree or disagree with him, it is important to understand his view point free from distraction.
              dustymiller
              aka drstrange

              Comment


              • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                I would recommend getting Cutting Point. Debating with Christer involves a lot of convolution. With his book you get pure Christer, agree or disagree with him, it is important to understand his view point free from distraction.
                Why buy a book that is totally bias?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by FrankO View Post

                  I have no doubt the clothes were disarranged, as also Neil described them as such. However, disarranged might also just mean ‘dislocated’, plus it doesn’t mean the hem had to be in a particular place, i.e. it could be anywhere.

                  Hi Frank,

                  I don't know if this helps (and I think your interpretation of the hem is very likely to be correct) but it's worth bearing in mind that it was very common for 19th Century British journalists to use the word "disarranged clothing" in rape cases. The clothing was 'disarranged' in a way that was suggestive of an assault, often a sexual assault, and I don't think it is coincidental that both Cross and Paul claimed publicly that they thought an 'outrage' had occurred.

                  Here are three random descriptions of rape cases all from the 1880s, and I could easily find a dozen more. Note that they all refer to the victim's clothing being 'disarranged.' I think the implication was meant to be understood by Victorian readers.

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	disarranged.jpg
Views:	128
Size:	138.5 KB
ID:	832609



                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by John Wheat View Post

                    Why buy a book that is totally bias?
                    I'm more concerned buying a book that is full of erm.. 'fibs' to fit a man up. I mean the documentary having Lechy Baby basically mounting poor Polly was shocking bias/untruth when all the statements clearly state 'middle of the road.'

                    I think I'll take the plunge though, thanks all for the advice.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post

                      I'm more concerned buying a book that is full of erm.. 'fibs' to fit a man up. I mean the documentary having Lechy Baby basically mounting poor Polly was shocking bias/untruth when all the statements clearly state 'middle of the road.'

                      I think I'll take the plunge though, thanks all for the advice.
                      Hi Geddy2112

                      I'm not going to argue about your point about fibs. It does seem there is a quest by some to fit Lechmere up too.

                      Cheers John

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                        hi geddy
                        one. fish has been given more, or at least the same , as he has given in terms of bias, rudeness and personal attacks.

                        two. imho and a growing number of others, including respected researchers, there are a lot of similarities between the two series and that they could have been done by the same hand.

                        three. the book contains much circumstantial evidence that the ripper and torsoman were the same and that it was lech. it also contains a rather fascinating theory of what was the inspiration of the killers work. and yes it includes decent imho evidence and hypothesis of not only the other ripper victims but the torso victims as well.

                        it is a short and very concise book on fishs theory and imho a cracking good read. i enjoyed it and personally recommend it.

                        full disclaimer: i am NOT a lechmerian, more of a lech apologist lol. comparitively speaking hes not that bad of a suspect imho (but i put a handfull of other suspects ahead of him).
                        Hi Abby

                        I just don't get this attitude. How can a clearly innocent man be not a bad suspect?

                        Cheers John

                        Comment



                        • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                          I don't know if this helps (and I think your interpretation of the hem is very likely to be correct) but it's worth bearing in mind that it was very common for 19th Century British journalists to use the word "disarranged clothing" in rape cases. The clothing was 'disarranged' in a way that was suggestive of an assault, often a sexual assault, and I don't think it is coincidental that both Cross and Paul claimed publicly that they thought an 'outrage' had occurred.
                          Totally agree, language has changed somewhat in 140 years. Look at some of the rubbish that gets passed as English nowadays or how the young uns’ communicate with their abbreviations and the like.
                          I always find it funny, now this is going to be difficult to explain in type. How people are portrayed to have spoken in Victorian times. I like the bit in the Jack The Ripper 1988 production ‘I washed away the blood… best I could… but I never had a brrrrush.’ Victorian lower classes are seemed to be portrayed as speaking in somewhat broken English with lots of short bursts or statements to make a sentence. Like I said hard to explain but if you watch the videos, you will spot it.

                          The other ‘language’ thing that keeps getting mentioned in relation to Cross is of course the ‘needed’ or ‘wanted’ statement and how they could be interpreted as meaning two completely different things and then on the flip side meaning the same thing. Should we throw ‘required’ into the hat as well. It is extremely difficult without intonation from the written word to 100% accurately assume it’s meaning in some cases. The needed or wanted example being the case in point. For me personally, saying wanted or needed means the same thing and does not imply a third party let alone a policeman. Maybe that is just me though. Language moves on…

                          Interesting I can see Penshaw Monument out my window now… I wonder where the ‘disarranging’ went on… mmm

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by John Wheat View Post

                            I'm not going to argue about your point about fibs. It does seem there is a quest by some to fit Lechmere up too.
                            This is what I'm totally uneasy about. This bloke no doubt, since he had a large family has living great grandchildren, possibly grandchildren (My nana was alive during the Victorian era.) How do they feel watching a documentary, seeing stuff posted on the internet claiming their Grandfather was a notorious serial killer and not just JtR but ALSO the Torso Killer. I'm not well read enough to know if any of them have come forward to dispute the claims.

                            I think it's one thing to say some evidence suggests he is JtR (I personally do not see it) but to 'aggressively' condemn the man to the Gallows plus make considerable money from it is another.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post


                              Hi Frank,

                              I don't know if this helps (and I think your interpretation of the hem is very likely to be correct) but it's worth bearing in mind that it was very common for 19th Century British journalists to use the word "disarranged clothing" in rape cases. The clothing was 'disarranged' in a way that was suggestive of an assault, often a sexual assault, and I don't think it is coincidental that both Cross and Paul claimed publicly that they thought an 'outrage' had occurred.

                              Here are three random descriptions of rape cases all from the 1880s, and I could easily find a dozen more. Note that they all refer to the victim's clothing being 'disarranged.' I think the implication was meant to be understood by Victorian readers.

                              Click image for larger version  Name:	disarranged.jpg Views:	0 Size:	138.5 KB ID:	832609


                              If both Lechmere and Paul both publicly stated they thought Nichol's had been outraged, then they must have had some visual indications to even suspect that.

                              It would seem evident that their assumption was based on the positioning of her clothing when they first approached her.

                              So whether they thought she was dead or alive, they at least believed that she had been the victim of a sexually motivated attack.

                              The irony was of course that there was no evidence of sexual assault or rape.

                              So when they walk off in the opposite direction to their work and head East to then encounter PC Mizen, why did neither of them tell the officer they had found a woman who they believed had been outraged?

                              When Paul touches her to move her clothing, it seems to come from the idea of covering her dignity, and as he does so he inadvertently brushes her chest and believes he feels some movement or at least some indication she's alive.

                              So we have 2 men who stumble on an unresponsive woman, who may still be alive, and who they both believe had been outraged.

                              We know that Nichol's had been drinking earlier as she was seen in a drunken state as she headed East towards her eventual demise in Bucks Row.

                              We can therefore almost certainly add that at least one of the 2 men thought she may have been drunk; because it would be almost certain they would have smelt the alcohol as they got close to her to move her clothing.

                              So we have 2 men who find an unresponsive drunken woman who looks like they've been raped.

                              We also have the attire that Nichol's was wearing.

                              Would it have been evident to either of the men to realize she was an Unfortunate?

                              I would imagine it would have been fairly apparent that Nichol's was of the "Unfortunate" class of women


                              So we have an unresponsive drunk prostitute who looks like they've been raped.


                              Now rather than focus on the fact she was unresponsive, they focus on the belief she has been sexually assaulted or raped. This is evidenced by the fact that took the time to get close to her and attempt to rearrange her clothing. Otherwise, they would have just walked on without any intervention.

                              Their choice to move within close proximity to Nichols proves that in the first instance they had at least believed she had been attacked and was in need of help.

                              The question is that we will never know is...

                              Did either of them realize she had been murdered?

                              Neither of them claim to have seen any wounds.

                              If we take that at face value, we are left with 2 men who realize a woman is unresponsive on the floor and has likely been attacked by someone with a sexual motive.


                              But...i don't buy it.


                              I believe that initially they were curious, then concerned, but as Paul moved her clothing to cover her dignity, he noticed some blood. It was then at that moment he would have relayed to Lechmere (or vice versa) that she was bleeding from the neck.

                              It was then they realized she was dead

                              It was then that rather they call out for a policeman, they both made a decision to go together to tell a policeman, because they knew she was already dead and therefore couldn't be helped anyway.

                              they then relay to Mizen a message with no urgency or specific information (They only tell him he's wanted in Bucks Row)

                              But...

                              Why did neither Lechmere OR Paul specifically mention there was a woman they had found in Bucks Row?

                              They make no mention whatsoever of having found a woman


                              Why?


                              Just imagine if you will that you are Paul and you encounter a man who draws your attention to a woman lying on the floor. She's unresponsive, smells of alcohol, but crucially she looks like she has been raped. You then check her briefly and possibly discover some signs of life after you inadvertently brush her torso as you kindly replace her disarranged clothing. But despite that brief sign of life; she remains unresponsive. Maybe she's just drunk and sleeping it off?...oh hold on, she looked like she had been raped...that's why you got close and kindly rearranged her clothing in the first place.

                              What do you do next?

                              Imagine that you don't call for help and instead decide to walk with the other man to go find a policeman.

                              Thankfully you run into a PC Mizen.

                              At last, you can tell a policeman, who can quickly attend to that unresponsive woman lying in the street, who looked like she had been raped.


                              Wait for it...


                              "Officer!"


                              Wait for it...


                              Mizen - "Yes?"


                              Wait for it...


                              "You're wanted in Bucks Row"


                              No mention of the woman, from either you or the man you found standing in the road.


                              Why not?!



                              What a pathetic pair they were.




                              RD


                              Last edited by The Rookie Detective; 04-12-2024, 09:18 AM.
                              "Great minds, don't think alike"

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                                ...and yes it includes decent imho evidence and hypothesis of not only the other ripper victims but the torso victims as well.
                                Thanks Abby, can you please give me an example of 'decent evidence and hypothesis' of the other C5 murders? I've been asking Christer and Teddy for months and every time I've asked I've been greeted with avoidance or abuse.
                                Thank you.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X