Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[Herlock Sholmes]

Cross could be lying about what time he left home.

He certainly could have. No one has ever doubted that or claimed that Cross couldn’t have had time to commit the murder as far as I’m aware. It’s certainly physically possible. What we object to is Christer Holmgren’s provably false claim that there was a mysterious ‘gap.’ He doesn’t claim that there might have been one, he claims that there provably was one. This is provably untrue and is a perfect example of how evidence is often manipulated to try and make this clearly innocent man appear guilty.

And if he did leave his house earlier you are left with another problem. Only three things could have happened..

1) Cross left home really early, picked up Mary Nichols elsewhere and took her to Bucks Row to kill her 20 minutes before he was due at work. I’m fairly sure that no Cross supporter favours this nonsense. So…next
2) Cross left home early and stood in Bucks Row waiting on the off chance of a woman showing up until 20 minutes before he was due at work. This is less likely than option one and I know of no one who would support it. Which leaves..
3) Cross left early, bumped into Nichols and killed her.

The problem with 3 though is this…even Christer accepts that this murder would have taken no more that 2 minutes. So if, for example, Cross left the house at 3.25 and got to Bucks Row at 3.32/3.33 then killed Nichols by say, 3.35/6, what the hell was he still doing there when Paul arrived at around 3.40?

Nothing ‘favours’ Cross. Not a single thing.

[Fiver]

I pointed out Shipman was a body finder - and also the murderer. And there really was no day or time he didn't set up a house call, "Shall I pop round and see you on my way into the surgery?"

You did not say that. You said "Harold Shipman often "discovered the body". Shipman also killed on his way to work, during work, after work, and on weekends."

Your attempt to rewrite your own words is noted. Your description of Shipman's murders remains laughably inaccurate.

[Fiver]

And the idea that a murderer has never declared discovering the body (their victim) to a witness, whether having had a chance to flee the scene or not, is equally preposterous. There have been countless murders where this seeming innocence has been displayed - and then it is found out the body finder actually committed the murder. "Finding" the body doesn't prove Cross is the murderer, but it doesn't prove innocence either, which is what some are suggesting.

If there are "countless examples" of the person claiming to find the body being the murderer, then you should easily be able to provide 3 or 4.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Par for the course Fiver.

This was aimed at your post 542 btw.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If there are "countless examples" of the person claiming to find the body being the murderer, then you should easily be able to provide 3 or 4.

The problem with this is that what gets mentioned are cases where the husband killed the wife and said that he’d found her after she’d been killed by an intruder. My point has always been about serial killers though and bodies found outdoors. The dog walkers, joggers, hikers, strollers who found a body. No one has yet been able to name one example where the finder turned out to have been the killer. Even if someone found one or two or three it would still be a minute percentage. But as yet…none.

[Fiver]

In a modern-day murder investigation, with what we know from the evidence before us, Cross would be the prime suspect. No way would he be ruled out (or reduced) in the manner that is being done by the "it's not Cross" team. He would remain the number one suspect until new evidence proved otherwise.

Charles Cross found a body - that's it. That cannot make him the "number one suspect" since it's exactly the same as Alfred Crow, John Reeves, PC Neil, John Davis, Louis Diemschutz, PC Watkins, Thomas Bowyer, and PC Andrews.

All you have proved is your own double standard.

* There is no physical evidence against Cross.
* There is no eyewitness evidence against Cross.
* There is no evidence of violence or criminal behavior by Cross.
* Cross had no knowledge of anatomy.
* The idea of hiding bloodstained clothing and trophy organs in a house full of small children is laughable.
* The timing of the Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes murders make it wildly unlikely that Cross killed them.
* Cross lived for over three decades after the murders ended.

[Fiver]

With a witness next to him, it makes sense for Cross to go along with this. What's the alternative? Allow Paul to find the police and tell them a man he just spoke to "discovered" a body and has decided to not play a part in reporting it?

The witness was only next to Cross because of Cross' actions.

If Cross was the killer he had lots of other options.
* Walk off into the darkness.
* When Robert Paul wanted to avoid him, just let Paul keep walking.
* Tell Paul that they should split up so they can find a constable sooner and then walk off into the darkness.