Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[TopHat]

Don't prioritise, just go with the facts as they exist.

Cross was on his way to work.

An independent witness confirms Cross's story.

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

It was easy for the killer to get away.

The neck wounds were visible.

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

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

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

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

To stray from the facts, is to invent. It's not protesting too much to correct factually wrong information or personal opinion claimed as factual, it is a duty.

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.

[TopHat]

Cross as a suspect is over-represented on YouTube and in the Web pages of non-serious commentators, I imagine many feel that Cross as a suspect is a dead horse that still needs beating. i am sure many here are tired of the topic. This thread is 39 pages, the other Cross conversation is at 141 pages. That is a fair amount of repetative litigation. This is not focused on you as a person, So many on the site have come to a personal conclusion on the other side of the fence as you. This situation is not unique , You can go on Reddit and try to convince everyone there that Adnan Syed is innocent and you will be harangued into submission. Oswald is a lone nut. OJ didn't kill his wife. etc.

You don't agree, fine. But Cross remains as a suspect for good reason. You can't make him "disappear" just because you want it so.

[scottnapa]

I've been reading this forum for years, off and on. And I expected some resistance, but it's so strong and attacking, that the phrase "The lady doth protest too much" springs to mind.

Cross as a suspect is over-represented on YouTube and in the Web pages of non-serious commentators, I imagine many feel that Cross as a suspect is a dead horse that still needs beating. i am sure many here are tired of the topic. This thread is 39 pages, the other Cross conversation is at 141 pages. That is a fair amount of repetative litigation. This is not focused on you as a person, So many on the site have come to a personal conclusion on the other side of the fence as you. This situation is not unique , You can go on Reddit and try to convince everyone there that Adnan Syed is innocent and you will be harangued into submission. Oswald is a lone nut. OJ didn't kill his wife. etc.

[drstrange169]

Don't prioritise, just go with the facts as they exist.

Cross was on his way to work.

An independent witness confirms Cross's story.

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

It was easy for the killer to get away.

The neck wounds were visible.

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

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

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

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

To stray from the facts, is to invent. It's not protesting too much to correct factually wrong information or personal opinion claimed as factual, it is a duty.

[TopHat]

I've been reading this forum for years, off and on. And I expected some resistance, but it's so strong and attacking, that the phrase "The lady doth protest too much" springs to mind.

[TopHat]

This is how it works for the Ripper murders:

Unfortunately it's so long since the Ripper murders happened, it's a matter of prioritizing the evidence for importance, accuracy, and veracity, and then ranking the suspects. If you want to accuse "manipulated evidence" for the Cross theory then this applies to every suspect

Everything is essentially opinion, on how this prioritization is done. What I'm being accused of - bias I guess - everyone else has their own version of it. But at least I can admit it - ie, that I am prioritizing certain things - instead of demanding everyone conform to a false idea of fact.

[TopHat]

Of course in general B can result from A but you’re not talking generally. You were stating it as a fact. That you somehow know that Cross only attended the inquest because of the Lloyd’s article.

I said it was possible and suspicious - both of which are true.

[TopHat]

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

You then attempted to rewrite your words by ignoring your obviously false claims that Shipman killed on his way to work and after work.

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

Your form of argument is like that of the Stasi!

[drstrange169]

“Harold Shipman often "discovered the body".”

So far as I know, Shipman never “discovered” a body. They were all alive when he met them, in places they were expected to be, he had a known connection to all of the victims. None were random people in the street to be “discovered”.

There is no realistic comparison between Cross and Shipman’s circumstances..



"Shipman also killed on his way to work, during work, after work, and on weekends."

Shipman was a doctor, all his victims were patients, by all sensible definitions he was working or pretending to work.

It doesn’t matter if Cross left home at midnight, he and Paul were in Buck’s Row around 3:40 and he started work at 4:00. The journey from Buck’s Row was about 15 to 20 minutes, ergo, he was indisputably on his way to work.

Despite numerous attempts to twist this fact, nobody to date has come up with another serial killer who did this.


"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."

Working on this theory, the ‘discoverers” of Kathleen Grundy, Irene Turner, Jean Lilley, Muriel Grimshaw, Bianka Pomfret, Norah Nuttall, Winifred Mellor and Joan Melia were "THE suspects, the prime suspects, and nobody else in contention even comes close to them.” And Shipman should never have been a suspect, that’s clearly ridiculous.

"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?"


P.C. Neil, who knew far more than we do about it, said it would have been VERY easy for the killer to escape unnoticed. Baxter’s official findings was that it would have been easy for the killer to escape unnoticed.

The claim that it would have been difficult is a fiction invented in recent years to make Cross look guilty. It has no basis in fact.


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


I’ve lost count of the times this lie has been proven false.

The neck wounds were NOT covered. P.C. Neil saw them clearly.

The only difference is that he had a light and Cross and Paul didn’t. Paul went straight to the head area and examined it as closely as he could. If Cross was the killer why would he have allowed Paul to do that?

Everything Cross did points to innocence.

"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."

A guilty Cross walked up the road towards Paul turned his back to him and waited … Yeah right, because that sounds so plausible!?!.

How did Paul not see him or hear Cross moving away from the body and toward him?

Another lie I read the other day was that Cross was the only suspect alone with a body, this, of course is nonsense. Cross is the only discoverer of a body to have his version of events witnessed and supported.


“And if Cross "discovered the body", then why did it take an interview of Paul to flush Cross out?”

This personal unsupported opinion, not a fact.


“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; “

Up till Sunday night the police were absolutely rejecting any claim that two men found the body first. This was specifically because too the claim P.C. Mizen did not encounter two men.

If Cross had have gone to the police prior to Mizen's later admission on the Monday morning, his claim would have been rejected.

The facts are we don’t know when Cross went to the police. We do know ,unlike Paul, he did contact the police, so it was always going to be “set-in-stone history (all the way until today and forever more!)” after the Monday inquest, that two men found the body before Neil.


"… the sly and patently dishonest Cross would have completely escaped scrutiny due to not existing as a name in the enquiry.”

Everything Cross said and did has the hallmarks of truth. The fact that you have to misrepresent and/or give factually wrong information to make him look guilty testifies to that.

Strip away the stories and return to the basic facts and the guilt evaporates like ice in the sun.

[John Wheat]

Cross was almost certainly innocent as there is nothing whatsoever to suggest Cross murdered anyone.

[Lewis C]

Another thing is that when Cross attended the inquest isn't necessarily a matter of his own choosing. It might be that he attended the inquest on the day that he did because that's when those holding the inquest wanted him to attend.

[Fiver]

The sequence of events exists; this is undeniable. You're saying B doesn't result from A; but it is possible that B DOES result from A.

No, you are assuming because B happened after A that B must have been caused by A.

You are assuming that Cross testified because Paul's account appeared in the papers. To do this you have to ignore all other possible reasons that Cross could have chosen to go to the police.

And you are assuming that B happened after A.

We do not know if Cross went to the police before or after Paul's account appeared in the papers. For that matter, we don't know if Cross had even seen Paul's account before he went to the police.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The sequence of events exists; this is undeniable. You're saying B doesn't result from A; but it is possible that B DOES result from A.

Of course in general B can result from A but you’re not talking generally. You were stating it as a fact. That you somehow know that Cross only attended the inquest because of the Lloyd’s article.

Theres a parallel with Christer’s imaginary gap. It’s ok to say that there could have been a gap but that’s not what Christer was trying to say when he deliberately omitted the word ‘about.’ He was saying that there definitely was a gap. Which is clearly a falsehood.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You still need to prove your assertion - which you state as if it's fact - even within your arbitrary boundaries. What proof do you have?

You’re splitting hairs TopHat. I’ll make this as clear as I can - as far as I’m aware, from years of reading about true crime (though before you say, I don’t consider myself an expert) and from years of asking others (including Christer) not one, after doing various searches in books and online have found a single case of a person finding a serial killers victim outdoors where it turned out that the finder was the killer. Another way of putting it, is that no one can find an example of a serial killer who, when faced with an opportunity of escape, elected to stand around for a chat with a complete stranger.

So, if you are saying that I need to provide every single example of a person who found a serial killers victim in the entirety of history, before you will accept the validity of the point then we can safely ignore your point. My boundaries aren’t ‘arbitrary’ they are mine, because the point was mine and I’ve hardly asked for examples of serial killers with one leg have I? Serial killers with victims found outdoors is hardly troublesome isn’t it. You should have no problem finding an example of 10. Strangely though…no one has yet.

[Fiver]

Yes I did say that. What's your point? How did I "rewrite" its meaning?

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

You then attempted to rewrite your words by ignoring your obviously false claims that Shipman killed on his way to work and after work.

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