Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[The Rookie Detective]

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

[Abby Normal]

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).

[Elamarna]

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

[FrankO]

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

[A P Tomlinson]

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...

[Geddy2112]

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

[JeffHamm]

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. 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'.

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).

Disclaimer - I was a St John Ambulance instructor and examiner and also a qualified Police First Aid instructor. I am very aware that neither Cross nor Paul had any first aid knowledge. It just seems very odd to me that Paul acted as he did.

Hi John Trent,

Unfortunately for us, the statements are often very unclear and given how they are reported in the papers, more versions usually add to, rather than reduce, the confusion. I sometimes think if multiple people were given a mannequin and asked to arrange the clothes as described by the witnesses, we would have as many versions as we have people! The details of what they saw and what they did are hard to pin down, and as such all we can do is suggest the various ways they could be interpreted to get an idea of the range of possibilities of what happened.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

"'IF' not to be funny but it's a bloody big 'IF.' The whole Lechmere theory hangs on it."

Not really, he swore under oath that he worked for Pickford for 20 years and gave the address of 22 Doveton. Census records show him as a carman. There is a lot to doubt about Lechmere's candidacy, but working for Pickfords isn't really one of them.

[Fiver]

Name changing in relation to Lechmere, Shirley Knott... I know the 'Butler' did it...

Stow that kind of talk.

[Geddy2112]

I suspect that your tongue is somewhat in your cheek, but I think pretty much everyone is disputing it, aren't they?

She found an alternative Charles Cross--not a particularly unusual name--who was a carman in Lambeth--the Surrey side of the river.

She's found nothing to connect this Cross to Pickford's, nor to 22 Doveton Street, nor to even Mile-End or Bethnal Green.

By contrast, the witness, Charles Cross aka Lechmere, did live at 22 Doveton Street. His stepfather's name was Cross, which explains his use of it. He's listed as Charles Cross in 1861, but Charles Lechmere in 1871. He's listed as a carman on his 1870 marriage records, as a carman in 1871, and a carman in 1881.

It's him.

It kinda was in my cheek but I had a long break from these forums and still catching up. The Lechmere thing was the main area of reading for me mainly because of that documentary, Cutting Point and Inside Bucks Row. As far as I can remember I've not known a suspect be so aggressively supported by so few so I decided the Lechmere angle would be 'read' first. The documentary is riddled with erm inaccuracies, I've not got to Cutting Point yet, I'm a good chunk through 'Inside Bucks Row' which I consider to be very well presented and think HOL should be banned from YouTube due to the 'Fake News' elements of the productions.
So apologies to yourself and John Trent but I was just double checking. Mainly because if there is any doubt that Cross and Lechmere are two different people and or there is no evidence stating he worked for Pickfords (which there appears not to be, a carman could be a number of working venues I presume) then it blows the who Crossmere theory out the water and should never be discussed again haha. So apologies, just dotting the I's and Lechmering the T's so to speak. Thank you.

[John Trent]

Hi John Trent,

The hem would normally come to her ankles. If you pull that up and place it near her chest, then the fold will be mid thigh ish. So to pull down a dress that is exposing up to the thighs one would grab the hem that is near the chest.

Something like that I imagin.

- Jeff

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. 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'.

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).

Disclaimer - I was a St John Ambulance instructor and examiner and also a qualified Police First Aid instructor. I am very aware that neither Cross nor Paul had any first aid knowledge. It just seems very odd to me that Paul acted as he did.

[JeffHamm]

That is a point I have raised for years Jeff, Paul was not asked one very important question.
"Were you aware of the man ahead of you , before you saw him in the road"

Steve

I suspect the police did ask him that. What is sad, is that we have no record of it - so nobody can prove I'm wrong. Hmmmm, may that should become my hobby horse.

[JeffHamm]

Hang on, are you suggesting the latest HOL video is being economical with the truth? According to the HOL there are at least 4 opportunities for Cross/Lechmere to have been seen by Paul and vice versa before entering Bucks Row, even though within seconds the video contradicts itself by showing on film 15 seconds or more of 'blackout territory.' Seriously you can't make it up... although they have tried.

Oh Dear,
If HOL has shown that, I should bin everything, they've clearly sorted it.

[John Trent]

'IF' not to be funny but it's a bloody big 'IF.' The whole Lechmere theory hangs on it. Like I said another site proposes with 'evidence' that Charles Cross and Charles Lechmere were not the same person. Was discussed a few pages ago and whilst it's agreed the author may be slightly erm.. insert your own adjective here as I do not wish to fall foul of the Mark no one seems to dispute what she found. Or can prove it anyway.

There's the report of a Mr Cross in the RTA from 20 years previously and Charles Cross testifying that he'd worked for Pickfords for 20 years. That could be a coincidence. However, nobody ever seems to have found in any records, such as census reports, any carman named Cross in the intervening period. That seems pretty strong evidence that they are one and the same.

(Sorry rjp - I was typing at the same time as you)

[rjpalmer]

no one seems to dispute what she found. Or can prove it anyway.

I suspect that your tongue is somewhat in your cheek, but I think pretty much everyone is disputing it, aren't they?

She found an alternative Charles Cross--not a particularly unusual name--who was a carman in Lambeth--the Surrey side of the river.

She's found nothing to connect this Cross to Pickford's, nor to 22 Doveton Street, nor to even Mile-End or Bethnal Green.

By contrast, the witness, Charles Cross aka Lechmere, did live at 22 Doveton Street. His stepfather's name was Cross, which explains his use of it. He's listed as Charles Cross in 1861, but Charles Lechmere in 1871. He's listed as a carman on his 1870 marriage records, as a carman in 1871, and a carman in 1881.

It's him.