Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[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)

[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.

[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]

* 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?

[Sam Flynn]

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

[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?

[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]

"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."


If I read someone involved in the highest profile case in the news worked at my place of employment or lived my suburb, let alone my street, I and I suspect virtually everybody else would notice the "details".

[drstrange169]

Hello George,

"CARMAN CROSS was the the next witness. He lived at 22 Doveton street, Cambridge-road. He was employed by Pickfords."

"The Star
Largest Circulation of Any Evening Paper in the Kingdom.
LONDON. MONDAY, 3 SEPTEMBER, 1888."

[Fiver]

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

How is appearing in the second day of the inquest suspicious?

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.

Your theory requires Robert Paul to lie.

"I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead." - Robert Paul, Lloyd's Weekly News, 2 September, 1888.

Your theory also requires PC Mizen to lie.

"Police constable Mizen said that about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the corner of Hanbury Street and Baker's row, when a carman passing by in company with another man said, "You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there." - PC Mizen, Daily News, 4 September, 1888.

The police thinking they had found the body, when they hadn't, cannot be blamed on Charles Cross.

[Fiver]

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.

Robert Paul didn't think that anything that Cross did or said was suspicious. Neither did the police.

So why do you?

[Fiver]

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.

Your "point" was based on several provably false statements.

"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."

* The Ripper disappeared with out a trace in all of the other murders. Yet you try to make is sound out-of-place in the Nichols murder.
* The Ripper displayed his work in the Nichols murder.
* The Ripper did nothing to hide the wounds in the Nichols murder.
* The police said it would easy for the killer to just walk off into the darkness.
* If he stayed, the Ripper had to do a whole lot more than step into the middle of the road.

The Nichols murder was was frenzied overkill. For Cross to be the killer he has to snap out of that extreme emotion and start becoming controlled and deliberate. Rippermere has to clean his hands and the knife, stow the knife and cleaning rag, then move into the street without being seen or heard by Robert Paul. Then Rippermere has to slow his rushed breathing and his rapidly beating heart, calm his adrenaline rush and appear perfectly normal to Robert Paul in a matter of seconds, while also not showing the incredible tension and uncertainty of not knowing if Paul had seen or heard him in the act.

[Fiver]

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.

There is a difference. Your opinion requires repeatedly ignoring the facts.

[Geddy2112]

"[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.

Cross co-found the body. This is in the evidence. If we are going to discuss/debate etc then let's use the facts not speculation. Cross was never closer than 30 feet from the body alone. He went to the inquest because he would have been summoned. End of story.
Regardless of how and when he went to the inquest IF he had read Paul's article (did he buy every single newspaper that weekend just to see if he'd been outed?) then if he was guilty he would given times at the inquest to match Paul's exactly 3:45am, but he didn't because he was not guilty.

"it is possible that Cross cared about it as well" did I mention speculation?

[Geddy2112]

* 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 need to read Deed Poll, the authority on names in the UK. He gave his legal name. How is this suspicious. Then you should read the all in a name threads here, or maybe a online blog by David Orsam who gives tons of examples of folk at the time doing exactly the same thing.

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

Unfortunately and with all due respect your opinion does not count for much in regards the law. How could he appear at the inquest BEFORE the Paul interview? You do know he appeared on the 2nd day of the inquest. So by this logic Paul, Spratling, Mizen and Helson etc are suspicious as well?

* 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.

Please can you get the idea Cross found the body out of your head as it did not happen. He co-found the body with Paul, he was never at the body alone. Cross and Paul mentioned a woman in Bucks Row and thought she was dead or drunk, Cross confirmed he thought she was dead.