Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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]

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

Bad assumption.

[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.

[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’?

[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.

[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.

[drstrange169]

" It's all opinion."

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

[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).

[TopHat]

Yet you keep stating things as facts

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

[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!?”