Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[Sam Flynn]

I'm not convinced that Cross was anymore geographically connected to the area than the several suspects that lived closer to the heart of the area the murders occurred than he did...

Indeed, and several thousand other men — a huge demographic group, which almost certainly contained several much stronger candidate suspects whose names we may never know.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Lewis.

But isn't this open to the accusation of being a circular argument?

It was BECAUSE Cross lived in the area and was forced to commute through a red-light district that he found the body, and it was hardly unusual for a denizen of East London to have moved around from address to address and thus have "connections" to the area. It nearly goes without saying.

Wouldn't it have been far more unusual (and suspicious) if the person who found Nichols' body hadn't had connections to the East End?

What if Monty Druitt had found her? He'd have quite a lot of explaining to do, wouldn't he, as to why he was in a darkened backstreet so far from home at 3.40 a.m.?

if anything sticks in my craw is accusations of circular argument when it is nothing of the sort. it happens way too much on here and alot of the times by your nemesis. drives me nuts. how can someone saying geographic connections account for something be a circular argument?

his route to work brings him by some of the murder sites near tod, his mum lived near where stride was killed, the bloody rag and gsg is in the direction of if he was heading home after mitre square, and all the murder sites are roughly in the area outlined from his home, work and mums location. in terms of geographic connection, lech beats all other suspects hands down.
its a strong point imho, especially in the age of an on foot killer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Very good contribution to the case Herlock.
Your point about Cross having some explaining to do if he was found in the vicinity of any other murders is one that I've always found compelling but rarely stated.
Fisherman has fought his case well, but I think that the case against Cross has a strong, if unconscious, whiff of confirmation bias about it.

Hello Barn,

Thanks for that. I certainly agree about the confirmation bias. It’s seems that for some everything that’s ever happened points to his guilt. You get the feeling that for some an alibi would somehow prove his guilt.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It somehow frightens me to agree with Sherlock (we seldom do) but your first post is excellent and deserves applause. May I add something that you may not be aware of: Cross was obviously using his stepfather's surname. Not an unusual thing in Victorian times. But he was also using his legal name. There is a difference between a registered name and a legal name. The 'Church of Lechmere' would have you believe that Cross was an assumed alibi. This is untrue. The authority on the subject is HM's Governmental department that deals with Deed Polls. They clearly state that your legal name is the name you wish to be known by. It is not necessarily your registered name. You do not have to give your registered name in any UK court but you do have to give the name you are known by and must not give a false name with intention to deceive. The legal name definition does not come from an enacted law but from historic case law (examples going back to 1335 can be found on the Government website at https://deedpolloffice.com/change-name/law/case-law). Charles Cross gave his legal name, address and employer's details at the inquest. Any suggestion that he was deceitful is utter rubbish. I hope that clarifies the situation.

Thanks for that John.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Also, by becoming ‘involved’ in the Nichols case Cross would have relinquished any opportunity that he might have had of making up some excuse if he’s been questioned near any of the other murder sites. Imagine if they’d taken him in for questioning after the Eddowes murder. Swearing his innocence wouldn’t have held much water for the same guy that just happened to have found Nichols.

Very good contribution to the case Herlock.
Your point about Cross having some explaining to do if he was found in the vicinity of any other murders is one that I've always found compelling but rarely stated.
Fisherman has fought his case well, but I think that the case against Cross has a strong, if unconscious, whiff of confirmation bias about it.