Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[Herlock Sholmes]

As most people know, I’m probably the least likely person around to support the notion of any conspiracy but the pro-Cross case has all of the hallmarks of one. A concerted, organised propaganda campaign. Absolutely weird.

[Geddy2112]

I've even read today on another forum that claims Charles Cross was NOT Charles Lechmere... that would put the cat amongst the pigeons haha.

[Lewis C]

I’ve never understood why anyone could possibly think that wearing work clothes to an inquest is suspicious? I just don’t get it.

Yes, I've never understood that either. Also, if Cross didn't want to touch Nichols' body, why would that be suspicious? If he had killed her, he would want to touch her body, so that there would be a explanation if he had blood on him.

[rjpalmer]

I see that one of Ed's fans on Youtube, in the comment section of his most recent video, has apparently responded to this thread with a quote from a psychiatrist. (This thread was started on March 24, and his or her response was logged 9 days ago).

"Mr. Edward, I see that there are people who try to disqualify your notable work and research, those people are mediocre, here I put a writing about the mediocre according to a brilliant psychiatrist. “The vast majority of Mediocres do not know that they are mediocre, however, some unconscious suspicion makes them mean and envious people and, in the face of some outstanding attitude from their colleagues, they carry out negative actions such as defaming, destructively criticizing and putting emphasis on the inconsequential details and other vile things to attack the talented. The Mediocres, in these cases, have a sense of alliance that unites them to prevent the advancement of the outstanding ones. This alliance is not explicit, but tacit, it is as if each Mediocre felt threatened in their work or in their future by the presence of a talented person."

Etc. (It goes on further).

It seems to me that this commentary is wide of the mark, for it is the "inconsequential details" that comprise the entirety of the 'case' against Charles Allen Cross aka Lechmere--the vagaries of blood oozing, the alleged 'missing time,' etc.

How can anyone supply a defense of Charles Cross (and everyone--even the dead--deserve a criminal defense) without dissecting the "inconsequential details" on which Stow and Holmgren base their prosecution?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, I've never understood that either. Also, if Cross didn't want to touch Nichols' body, why would that be suspicious? If he had killed her, he would want to touch her body, so that there would be an explanation if he had blood on him.

One newspaper has Cross refusing to prop her up and one has Paul refusing. So a) why do those proposing Cross state that Cross refused as if it’s a fact? and b) as you’ve said, what is the problem with refusing because 1) it would have provided an excuse if he was found to have blood on him and 2) why is it strange for someone not to want to handle a corpse. Most people wouldn’t have been keen on handling one.

It’s another non-point. The case for Cross is full of them. It’s actually built on them.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I see that one of Ed's fans on Youtube, in the comment section of his most recent video, has apparently responded to this thread with a quote from a psychiatrist. (This thread was started on March 24, and his or her response was logged 9 days ago).

"Mr. Edward, I see that there are people who try to disqualify your notable work and research, those people are mediocre, here I put a writing about the mediocre according to a brilliant psychiatrist. “The vast majority of Mediocres do not know that they are mediocre, however, some unconscious suspicion makes them mean and envious people and, in the face of some outstanding attitude from their colleagues, they carry out negative actions such as defaming, destructively criticizing and putting emphasis on the inconsequential details and other vile things to attack the talented. The Mediocres, in these cases, have a sense of alliance that unites them to prevent the advancement of the outstanding ones. This alliance is not explicit, but tacit, it is as if each Mediocre felt threatened in their work or in their future by the presence of a talented person."

Etc. (It goes on further).

It seems to me that this commentary is wide of the mark, for it is the "inconsequential details" that comprise the entirety of the 'case' against Charles Allen Cross aka Lechmere--the vagaries of blood oozing, the alleged 'missing time,' etc.

How can anyone supply a defense of Charles Cross (and everyone--even the dead--deserve a criminal defense) without dissecting the "inconsequential details" on which Stow and Holmgren base their prosecution?

Hi Roger,

That sounds like a Party member in North Korea berating some state enemy for daring to criticise the Dear Leader. ‘Mr Edward!’ These people are clueless, evidence-averse acolytes who have been taken in by a couple of dodgy salesman. The evidence shows what a terrible suspect Cross is.

Let’s see that guy on here defending the details and discussing the evidence. No chance. None of them did except for Christer. The rest are just cheerleaders as we see on here and elsewhere. Cross is dead-in-the-water.

[Abby Normal]

Exactly. The Cult of Lechmere lives by the double standard.

Charles Lechmere did not have an alibi for Polly Nichols murder. Neither did Robert Paul. Neither did PC John Neil. Or William Nichols. Or Walter Purkiss. Or Patrick Mulshaw. Or James Green. Or Sergeant Henry Kirby.

The only people in the area with a confirmed alibi are the three slaughtermen.

There are hundreds of Ripper suspects. Only a handful of them have alibis.

Yet the Cult of Lechmere acts as if Lechmere is the only man without an alibi.

And that's hardly the only example of double standards. The Cult of Lechmere notes that he lived and worked in the area, ignoring the hundreds, if not thousands of other people that lived and worked in the area. They insist Lechmere walking on the right side of the street is suspicious, ignoring that Robert Paul and PC Neil also did. They insist Lechmere wearing work clothes to the inquest is suspicious, ignoring all the other witnesses that did so. They make much of Nichols and Chapman being killed on Lechmere's route to work, ignoring that it was also the route of Robert Paul and of dozens, perhaps scores of other people. They also ignore that none of the other victims were killed on Lechmere's route to work. They act as if Lechmere was the only man to use another surname at an inquest, ignoring dozens of other examples, including one witness in the Eddowes inquest.

well at least you finally admit that lech didnt have an alibi! sorry. couldnt resist.

[Fiver]

Yes, I've never understood that either. Also, if Cross didn't want to touch Nichols' body, why would that be suspicious? If he had killed her, he would want to touch her body, so that there would be a explanation if he had blood on him.

Exactly. The actual murderer wouldn't be squeamish about touching a dead body or worried about her waking up and drunkenly accusing Paul and Lechmere of assault or robbery.

[Fiver]

well at least you finally admit that lech didnt have an alibi! sorry. couldnt resist.

I have never said that Lechmere had an alibi for the Nichols murder. I have also repeatedly pointed out that Chapman was murdered after Lechmere started work, while killing Stride and Eddowes would require staying up for 23+ hours or getting up 3+ hours early on his only day off.

[drstrange169]

"Mr. Edward, I see that there are people who try to disqualify your notable work and research ..."

As noted in my previous post, I, and I assume most, have no problems with the actual research done into the Lechmere family, in fact I think it very commendable.

The problem lies not with the facts, but rather the sometimes dubious theories being espoused from those facts.

[Fiver]

One newspaper has Cross refusing to prop her up and one has Paul refusing. So a) why do those proposing Cross state that Cross refused as if it’s a fact? and b) as you’ve said, what is the problem with refusing because 1) it would have provided an excuse if he was found to have blood on him and 2) why is it strange for someone not to want to handle a corpse. Most people wouldn’t have been keen on handling one.

It’s another non-point. The case for Cross is full of them. It’s actually built on them.

Doing a quick check, it appears 7 papers had Paul suggesting they sit Nichols up, while 2 had Cross suggesting they sit her up. So the Lechmerians appear to be right that Lechmere refused, but clearly wrong that the refusal was a sign of guilt.

[drstrange169]

Also, Cross was the only person to mention the lifting refusal. A very strange admission for a guilty man to volunteer.

[A P Tomlinson]

Exactly. The actual murderer wouldn't be squeamish about touching a dead body or worried about her waking up and drunkenly accusing Paul and Lechmere of assault or robbery.

We also need to go back to the fact that if Cross/Lechmere IS the killer, there are two things he doesn't know in the instant that he sees Paul.
1) That Paul didn't see him at his work, now fears for his own life and won't tell the first copper they come across,
and
2) Whether he has incriminating blood marks on him from the murder.

It's been said a thousand times before, but helping to move the body would provide him with an easy excuse for the latter, should someone say "Hey... you have a blood stain on your cheek..." Not wanting to move the body does not indicate guilt.

I don't know what the Lechmere prosecution's excuse is for the first issue. (I imagine it will fall into either "He was a criminal genius" or "He was as thick as mince".)

[Sam Flynn]

Doing a quick check, it appears 7 papers had Paul suggesting they sit Nichols up, while 2 had Cross suggesting they sit her up.

Don't forget that multiple newspapers got their info from the same source (e.g. a press agency, if not outright "borrowing" from another press report), so surveys of that nature can often give a very misleading impression.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Doing a quick check, it appears 7 papers had Paul suggesting they sit Nichols up, while 2 had Cross suggesting they sit her up. So the Lechmerians appear to be right that Lechmere refused, but clearly wrong that the refusal was a sign of guilt.

Thanks Fiver. There can be repetition though.

Ah, Sam beat me to it.