Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[GBinOz]

"... By using "Cross" he kept himself out of the papers. By keeping himself out of the papers, anyone with suspicions of his character would not know he was the person who "found" the body of Nichols."


"Anyone with suspicions of his character" would know him either by the name Cross or that he lived at 22 Doveton Street or that he worked at Pickfords or that his middle name was allen or any mixture of above.

In fact, isn't the opposite true? If his neighbours and relatives knew him as Lechmere alone wouldn't they be suspicious of him using a "fake" name?

This a dog chasing its tail.

Hi Dusty,

I've just skimmed some of the major newspaper reports and while it was well reported that the carman Cross worked for Pickfords, I couldn't find a published report of his home address. But presuming there was a report, it would depend on a literate neighbour buying that particular publication and thinking "Hey, there's no Cross at that address". What then.

Some of his work mates at Pickfords may have noticed the reference to Cross in the papers and thought "look what's happened to Charlie". Some may have thought "who is this guy named Cross" and assumed it was one of 400+ employees that they didn't know.



Cheers, George

[drstrange169]

"People who knew him/of him would have known him as Charles Lechmere, who worked at Pickford's. And how many people would have known his address, not many I'd say; same with his middle name. By providing the name Cross he ruled out all those who purely knew him as Charles Lechmere (or Charles Lechmere who worked at Pickford's)."


So, he did suspicious things under the name Lechmere which strangers who didn't know him knew about. Yet, his neighbours, relatives, mates, work colleagues and bosses never found the fact that he used a "fake" name at the inquest strange. That's one hell of a theory!


You keep avoiding multiple content in peoples posts, could you explain some of things you've claimed here?

[Sam Flynn]

Good points, Fiver, but "Lavender" is merely an anglicisation of Lawende, and they're pronounced almost exactly the same way.

[Fiver]

* The usage of the name Cross was one of only two known times he used that name (the Nichols murder, and his "accidental" killing of a child). You will say this is how things were done back then, but I disagree. I believe this name usage was not some desire for "official correctness"; it was instead desire for his actually used name (Lechmere) to stay out of the press. It's a form of anonymity. It matters not what other details he gave - it's the name that's important, it's the name that everyone would read in the press.

You're forgetting he was also Charles Cross in the 1861 Census.

At the inquest, he stated that he was Charles Allen Cross of 22 Doveton Lane, who had worked for Pickfords for about 20 years and whose shift began at the Broad Street Station at 4am. Who would ever suspect that he was the stepson of Thomas Cross, Charles Allen Lechmere of 22 Doveton Lane, who had worked for Pickfords for about 20 years and whose shift began at the Broad Street Station at 4am? What a baffling mystery! Holmes himself would be stumped!

If he was known as Lechmere in his daily life, then using Cross would not give him anonymity. It would lead to him being deluged with questions by his employers, coworkers, family, friends, and neighbors.

And that's before we consider that he wanted anonymity, he could have just not contacted the police.

Let me mention another witness at one of the Ripper inquests. The surname on his marriage license was Lavender. The surname in the censuses for him, his wife, and his children, was Lavender. In a 1876 proceeding at the Old Bailey, his surname was given as Levender [sic] and it is clear from the court records that his friends knew his surname as Lavender. He appeared in city directories as Lavender. He was buried as Lavender.

But at the Eddowes inquest, he used the name Joseph Lawende. He never mentioned the surname Lavender.

Was that a suspicious action on Joseph Lavender's part?

[Fiver]

Not a fact at all. It's a completely made-up assertion. If it's a fact - please prove it.

If the pattern of events did not accord with known serial killer behavior you should easily be able to provide multiple examples.

[Fiver]

However, Cross found the body. He is an extremely important witness, for the police, for the inquest. And the sequence of events allows that he knew about Paul's interview in the press; and that he arrived to the inquest after this interview is not a moot point. It cannot be discounted that he went to the inquest because he had to, he was flushed out as it were.

The idea that Cross was forced to go to the inquest can be safely ruled out
* Robert Paul did not know who Cross was and appears to have been dodging the police.
* The earliest the police might know Paul's name is Sunday, when his account appears in the news.
* PC Mizen did not know who Paul or Cross was and appears to have not mentioned meeting Cross and Paul until after the first day of the inquest on Saturday.

The police don't have Cross' name. They don't have his address. They don't know where he works. At best, by Saturday night they have vague description from PC Mizen along with a guess that he is a carman. That might be early enough that they can park PC Mizen in Bucks-row during the evening, hoping that one or both of the unknown carmen pass that way and that Mizen can correctly pick out a man he saw for a few moments in poor lighting.

And if PC Mizen is slow enough, then the police are straight out of luck. The next day is Sunday, a carman's day off.

Charles Cross might have decided to go to inquest because he wanted to correct PC Neil's testimony. Cross might have decided to go to the inquest because he wanted to corroborate or correct Robert Paul's statement.

But if Cross didn't want to go to the inquest, he just needed to change his route to work, which would be trivial for someone who had been a carman for two decades.

[Herlock Sholmes]

People who knew him/of him would have known him as Charles Lechmere, who worked at Pickford's. And how many people would have known his address, not many I'd say; same with his middle name. By providing the name Cross he ruled out all those who purely knew him as Charles Lechmere (or Charles Lechmere who worked at Pickford's).

You’re doing it again TopHat. So I’ll just request….

Can you please provide us all with the written evidence (and not just your opinion) that Cross was known as Lechmere at Pickford’s. (Bearing in mind of course that you’ve already mentioned the accident which, if him, had him calling himself Cross way before 1888)

[Herlock Sholmes]

You have your opinion. Cross was almost certainly innocent, apparently. It's all opinion. Why is it all opinion? Because we don't know who Jack the Ripper was.

True enough. We don’t know who the ripper was and there’s nothing wrong with looking at all suspects or favouring a particular suspect - we probably all have our list of ‘most likely of the named suspects.’ The problem for me and others is that most suspects don’t have people bending over backwards to ‘convict.’ We have never really experienced this very strange movement (for want of a better word) in favour of someone who acted perfectly normally. If someone had acted as he did connected to another case no one would have given him a second glance. But in this case it’s different. It’s become a cause where everything is viewed with the Cross Goggles on. Look at the manipulation that went on to manufacture a ‘gap.’ Why would such an allegedly strong suspect require that? Should that action receive praise or censure? Look at the name. Researchers on here and JtRForums have produced documented example after example of people using other than their birth name, even in court. But here it’s treated as obfuscation when common sense tells us that it would only have been suspicious if he’d given a false name, address and place of work - if he had intended to divert the police’s attention away from him. But we know that wasn’t the case. It wasn’t as if he was discovered somewhere that he shouldn’t have been. He didn’t run away like a guilty person would have. Basically Cross supporters resort to the kind of tricks that you see from the less reputable of conspiracy theorists (and I’m not putting you in any category like that TopHat because we don’t know you well enough.)

Look at the list on here of the stuff that has been suggested on social media as helping in pointing toward guilt. You’d genuinely question people’s sanity. You would certainly question their competence at assessing evidence or maintaining a level of reason or common sense.

This is why you see a level of exasperation on here TopHat. It’s nothing personal against you. It’s an accumulation of how many times we’ve heard a suggestion and thought “you can’t be serious!?”

[TopHat]

Yet you keep stating things as facts

A common trait on this forum, I'd say.

[TopHat]

"... By using "Cross" he kept himself out of the papers. By keeping himself out of the papers, anyone with suspicions of his character would not know he was the person who "found" the body of Nichols."


"Anyone with suspicions of his character" would know him either by the name Cross or that he lived at 22 Doveton Street or that he worked at Pickfords or that his middle name was allen or any mixture of above.
This a dog chasing its tail.

People who knew him/of him would have known him as Charles Lechmere, who worked at Pickford's. And how many people would have known his address, not many I'd say; same with his middle name. By providing the name Cross he ruled out all those who purely knew him as Charles Lechmere (or Charles Lechmere who worked at Pickford's).

[drstrange169]

" It's all opinion."

Yet you keep stating things as facts, that dog and its tail again.

[drstrange169]

"... By using "Cross" he kept himself out of the papers. By keeping himself out of the papers, anyone with suspicions of his character would not know he was the person who "found" the body of Nichols."


"Anyone with suspicions of his character" would know him either by the name Cross or that he lived at 22 Doveton Street or that he worked at Pickfords or that his middle name was allen or any mixture of above.

In fact, isn't the opposite true? If his neighbours and relatives knew him as Lechmere alone wouldn't they be suspicious of him using a "fake" name?

This a dog chasing its tail.

[TopHat]

This isn’t an opinion TopHat I’m afraid. It’s a deliberately made assumption based from a starting point of Cross’s guilt. Viewed dispassionately it’s another non-point. We have no paperwork showing that any individual was called to any inquest in this case so we could say of any witness…well, he wasn’t going to the inquest until x happened.

Then we]hen someone asks how you have deduced it you just reply “it’s my opinion.”

Is that a reasoned approach?

You have your opinion. Cross was almost certainly innocent, apparently. It's all opinion. Why is it all opinion? Because we don't know who Jack the Ripper was.

[Herlock Sholmes]

* That police thinking they had found the body, when they hadn't, has been blamed on police "miscommunication", as one explanation. But it makes more sense that Cross actually did only say to Mizen that he was "wanted" - ie, no mention of a body to Mizen, or at the very least no mention that he, Cross, had FOUND a body.

.

I had to read this three times to be sure I hadn’t got it wrong.

The Telegraph:

“Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body.“

The Times:

“Constable G. Mizen, 56 H, stated that at a quarter past 4 on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker’s-row, and a man passing said “You are wanted in Baker’s-row.” The man, named Cross, stated a woman had been found there.”

Where are you getting ‘no mention of a body from’?

[Herlock Sholmes]

* The interaction with Paul.
* The interaction with the body while Paul was there.
* The interaction with Mizen.

Two men spoke to Mizen together. 100% certain. Proven by evidence.

The interaction with the body is what one might expect from two human beings, neither of whom were medically trained, wanting to get to work. If Cross was concerned then he wouldn’t have waited for Paul and took him over to the body. How could he have known that Paul wouldn’t try to loosen her collar (which is what people often did for the unconscious) and thus discover her throat had been cut. The fact that Cross didn’t want to prop her couldn’t be less relevant.

The interaction with Mizen was an unimportant, very minor misunderstanding. Yet again, its only seen as ‘suspicious’ if you assume that a) Cross was guilty, and b) that he’d conjured up the Mizen Scam on the spot in Bucks Row - because he’d given up the opportunity to flee somehow assuming that he could blag his way past a Constable without his new companion being aware of it.

How far can reason be stretched? Surely you can see what nonsense this all is. Cross was clearly, blatently innocent.