Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[TopHat]

I see you ignore the bulk of my posts, so I’ll assume you agree with them.

Bad assumption.

[drstrange169]

The problem here is, you are stating things that aren't true or are simply personal opinion, as facts on the one hand and then complain that we are doing it on the other.

[TopHat]

Certainly, there is no known incident of a serial killer choosing to stay rather than flee under those circumstances.

You have studied the thousands of cases have you, the court records, the statements, etc, to come to this conclusion?

[TopHat]

I’ve emboldened that part for obvious reasons TopHat. I’m sorry but it reeks of desperation. You know full well that Cross could gain absolutely no benefit from using his stepfathers surname and you feel the need to add the above just to try and make it a ‘point’ when it’s not. So much has been written about this and apart from the deliberate omission of ‘about’ from book and documentary I think this continuing mention of the name is the greatest disgrace. It’s appalling that we have come to this. It’s a complete non-issue.

Calling it a "complete non-issue" won't make this unfortunate name issue that Cross has go away. 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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.

* Turning up to the inquest in my opinion late, and after the Paul interview.

.

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?

[drstrange169]

One more thing.

I've never understood the reasoning that Cross had to go to the inquest because of Paul's article.

He always had the option to remain anonymous.

[TopHat]

The neck wounds were never concealed. Robert Paul's testimony makes it clear that the torso wounds were not concealed when he first saw the body - "Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach."

My point was really that the Ripper was interrupted in his work, that it wasn't a "full" ripper event, and I'm suggesting he was interrupted by the approaching Paul.

[Herlock Sholmes]

* 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.

I’ve emboldened that part for obvious reasons TopHat. I’m sorry but it reeks of desperation. You know full well that Cross could gain absolutely no benefit from using his stepfathers surname and you feel the need to add the above just to try and make it a ‘point’ when it’s not. So much has been written about this and apart from the deliberate omission of ‘about’ from book and documentary I think this continuing mention of the name is the greatest disgrace. It’s appalling that we have come to this. It’s a complete non-issue.

[drstrange169]

Hello TopHat,

I see you ignore the bulk of my posts, so I’ll assume you agree with them.

As to the couple of comments you did make,


“Cross volunteered factually correct information above and beyond what he needed to."

That is complete subjective opinion.”


No, it's a fact.

A guilty Cross did not "need" to contradict Paul's account of her being long dead by saying Paul thought he detected a breath.
Cross did not "need" to say he refused to help move her.


""The pattern of events does not accord with known serial killer behaviour." - fact
Not a fact at all. It's a completely made-up assertion. If it's a fact - please prove it."

Certainly, there is no known incident of a serial killer choosing to stay rather than flee under those circumstances.
I'm not really up with serial killers, but I suspect there are more anomalies.

[TopHat]

Feel free to list what you think are suspicious actions by Charles Cross.

* 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.

* Turning up to the inquest in my opinion late, and after the Paul interview.

* 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.

The following things will go back and forth forever with arguments as to what actually happened; I think all three people involved have suspicious actions and statements, and at least one person is lying about something (eg, timings):

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

[TopHat]

"The pattern of events does not accord with known serial killer behaviour." - fact

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

[TopHat]

Apologies I'm not sure where I typed it but surely he went as soon as he could. He worked late till Friday evening. Saturday was the first day of the inquest which was unusual and fast, Sunday no inquest, Cross turns up next day. Surely he was summoned so he appeared when he was supposed to. What about Paul? He appeared much later and was sought out by the Police, who looks more suspicious here? You are making a sign of guilt out of nothing. I have not checked but when did the other first finders attend 'their' inquests?

"[Cross] went as soon as he could [to the inquest]"

That is entirely possible.

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. What did the police do after the Paul interview came out? They went searching for Paul. I don't think there's any argument saying that the police did not care about the Paul statement in the press. The police cared about this interview - it is possible that Cross cared about it as well.

[Fiver]

I agree that Paul's actions could be argued as suspicious. Mizen's also. It's a matter of degree. All things considered, I place Cross's suspicious actions much, much higher on the list - there are just way more of them and each one degrees higher. Also of note is that Cross actually had killed someone, in the record, albeit considered an accident by the authorities: a child he ran over with his cart.

Feel free to list what you think are suspicious actions by Charles Cross.

[TopHat]

It’s not remotely suspicious TopHat. I can’t understand why you think it so. I believe that it’s about what mindset you employ. If you look at the case from a perspective that Cross was guilty then it’s easy to imagine that everything was suspicious but I’d suggest that you could do that for many of the witnesses in the case. For example, look how Paul almost airbrushes Cross out of events in his Lloyd’s article. Doesn’t that make him suspicious?

I agree that Paul's actions could be argued as suspicious. Mizen's also. It's a matter of degree. All things considered, I place Cross's suspicious actions much, much higher on the list - there are just way more of them and each one degrees higher. Also of note is that Cross actually had killed someone, in the record, albeit considered an accident by the authorities: a child he ran over with his cart.

[Fiver]

Your "facts" contain an awful lot of opinion. Just one for now, if you wish to argue it I'll provide more.

"Cross volunteered factually correct information above and beyond what he needed to."

That is complete subjective opinion.

Dusty's post contained hardly any opinion.

"Cross was on his way to work.' - fact

"An independent witness confirms Cross's story." - fact

"The pattern of events does not accord with known serial killer behaviour." - fact

"It was easy for the killer to get away." - fact

"The neck wounds were visible." - fact

"There is no record of when Cross first approached the police." - fact

"The police denied Mizen saw two men. That did not change until the Monday sitting of the inquest." - fact

"Cross volunteered factually correct information above and beyond what he needed to." - a mixture of fact and opinion

"Three policeman gave evidence that fits perfectly with Cross's testimony." - fact

Now lets look at your first post.

Harold Shipman often "discovered the body". Shipman also killed on his way to work, during work, after work, and on weekends.

That's an objectively false statement on your part.

As for Cross, he is absolutely a suspect. In actual fact he is THE suspect, the prime suspect, and nobody else in contention even comes close to him.

That's your opinion, not a fact.

One of the biggest issues for Cross is that if it wasn't him, how did the ripper do his work and escape unseen with all the timings involved for witnesses Cross and Paul and for multiple policemen walking their beats in very close proximity? Instead of looking at it as timings for the guilty Cross, look at it as if it wasn't Cross, and Cross only had maybe 15 minutes to carry out the deed when he is blamed - then how did another Jack do it?

That is speculation by you. Your speculation is contradicted by the facts. The police said it would have been easy for the killer to escape undetected. Cross and Paul did "escape" Bucks-row undetected.

Also of major concern is that Cross "found" a body with the wounds not on show.

That's an objectively false statement on your part. The neck wounds were never concealed. Robert Paul's testimony makes it clear that the torso wounds were not concealed when he first saw the body - "Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach."

Why would the ripper escape without a trace and without his work displayed? The scenario that makes the most sense is that the ripper was disturbed, he did what he could with the dead victim to hide the wounds, and then he stepped into the middle of the road to meet the oncoming disturbance: Paul.

You then build on the false statement by adding your opinion, which frankly makes no sense. It would have been safer and easier for the Ripper to just walk off and that is exactly what they did in at least one other murder.

And if Cross "discovered the body", then why did it take an interview of Paul to flush Cross out? If Paul had not stated publicly what he had experienced, the police would still have thought that a policeman discovered the body - in fact that would have been the set-in-stone history (all the way until today and forever more!) of the discovery of that murder: a body found by a policeman; alongside which the sly and patently dishonest Cross would have completely escaped scrutiny due to not existing as a name in the enquiry.

And this mere opinion on your part. we don't know when or why Cross choose to come forward and testify. You have provided no evidence that Cross was "sly" or "patently dishonest".

To sum up, Dusty's post was almost entirely fact, with a little bit of opinion. Your post was mostly opinion, with a fair amount of provably false statements.