Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock, and welcome back,

I agree with the general thrust of your argument and with most of the specific points. I think Cross is a very weak suspect, but probably not as weak as you think he is. The one specific point that I disagree with is that I think geographic connection counts for something, though I would call it geographic connection to the area where the murders occurred rather than to the murder sites. I think it probable that JtR knew the area well and that he had a place that he could go in the area after the murders occurred. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that Cross was anymore geographically connected to the area than the several suspects that lived closer to the heart of the area the murders occurred than he did. So that's a box that he can check, but so can several other suspects.

Another box Cross can check is that he was a straight male adult who was less than 40 years old at the time the murders occurred. Of course, many others can also check that box.

Hi Lewis, it’s certainly been a while.

You’re certainly not alone on the geographical point. I did think David O’s comparison with Terry Hawkshaw in the Yorkshire Ripper case was an interesting one though. Despite the police’s faults you couldn’t help understanding the alarm bells going off at the time with him at the time.

I should have added the age range to my list.

[Herlock Sholmes]

hi herlock
half the true crime cases i watch on tv or read about, the person who "finds" the body is the killer. however, almost all are family members/friends or romantic partners (unlike lech who is a stranger to the victim) . and i cant think of a single serial killer who found the body (again, of course, unlike Lech). but i see what your trying to get at. so while your statement is in error of fact, it is in spirit a strong check mark against lech as a suspect IMHO.

Hi Abby,

Thanks for that. Maybe one day we’ll get him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello, Herlock!

I am grateful to you for writing this excellent summation and dismissal of Cross/Lechmere as The Ripper. I never felt him a strong suspect, myself. However, I can see how using persuasive language and being free with the facts can convince one otherwise; I was watching the YouTube channel, "The House of Lechmere," where the host gives a compelling account of his favorite suspect...on the surface. The man has a way with words, I will give him that. But he fails badly at justifying any good (or bad) reason for this unassuming man to be a notorious murderer. I simply cannot accept Cross as indulging a bloodlust for prostitutes, culminating in the complete slaughter of MJK, then, upon reflection say to himself, "Well, that was fun. I feel much better now. Got *that* out of my system. Time to go on with my life," and proceed to do exactly that. And with no known criminal or behavioral health issues to write home about. I'm a retired Corrections Officer and have interacted with many killers, and especially the ones with more than one body to their credit always have exhibited an almost indefinable affect that will be very obvious if you have seen it before. You just *know* these people are off/dangerous. Lechmere may well have been, but these people almost never "fly under the radar" today. Normally one sees a long history of violence and/or behavioral health issues. Back then, I fear it would be less noticeable. "Could" Lechmere be the killer? Sure. So "could" a lot of people, probably many more likely than he. I feel he may have given the different name simply because he didn't want to be involved. Nichols was technically the third in the "Whitechapel Murders" series, and Cross might have just thought, "I'm not getting involved in this mess!" Also, did anyone else notice the deliberate placing of the photograph as Lechmere as an old man? Not sure if that's the only one in existence, but if not, then they picked a pic that shows him with a certain glare, subtly implying that "this is the face of evil." Somebody should send that pic to Patricia Cornwell and claim it is Walter Sickert as an old man; I'm sure she'll jump up and down, screaming, "See?? Look at his face! It's evil, I tell you! Eviiillll!" LOL

Hi HIB,

Thanks for your comments. Yes, I always smile when I hear someone described as having an ‘evil’ look and I recall Patricia Cornwall saying it about Cornwell. It reminds me of when I was a kid and older people used to say “his eyes are too close together!” I always used to think to myself “was he a cartoon?”

[FISHY1118]

Hi Herlock. I don't think Cross should be even classed as a suspect. He was someone who found a body. And with the total absence of any evidence against him he's to my mind not a suspect.

Cheers John

Hi John

I agree with your last sentence, which could apply to others as well.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Thanks for that. Maybe one day we’ll get him.

herlock your post made me think about the finding the body thing and guilt/innocence etc. id never thought of it before in terms of serial killers. im racking my brains and trying to remember if any serial killer acted like he found one of his victims bodies . so far i cant think of any. does anyone else know of any?

to me its a pertinent point.

[Herlock Sholmes]

herlock your post made me think about the finding the body thing and guilt/innocence etc. id never thought of it before in terms of serial killers. im racking my brains and trying to remember if any serial killer acted like he found one of his victims bodies . so far i cant think of any. does anyone else know of any?

to me its a pertinent point.

Hi Abby,

I think that if we suggest that he killed on his way to work (around 20 minutes before being due to be there) and he then hung around to claim to have found the body (when he had the opportunity to flee the scene in the dark) it might make a guilty Cross entirely unique in crime history. To me this alone pushes him to the outer edges of ‘unlikely.’

[rjpalmer]

The one specific point that I disagree with is that I think geographic connection counts for something, though I would call it geographic connection to the area where the murders occurred rather than to the murder sites.

Hi Lewis.

But isn't this open to the accusation of being a circular argument?

It was BECAUSE Cross lived in the area and was forced to commute through a red-light district that he found the body, and it was hardly unusual for a denizen of East London to have moved around from address to address and thus have "connections" to the area. It nearly goes without saying.

Wouldn't it have been far more unusual (and suspicious) if the person who found Nichols' body hadn't had connections to the East End?

What if Monty Druitt had found her? He'd have quite a lot of explaining to do, wouldn't he, as to why he was in a darkened backstreet so far from home at 3.40 a.m.?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Also, by becoming ‘involved’ in the Nichols case Cross would have relinquished any opportunity that he might have had of making up some excuse if he’s been questioned near any of the other murder sites. Imagine if they’d taken him in for questioning after the Eddowes murder. Swearing his innocence wouldn’t have held much water for the same guy that just happened to have found Nichols.

[John Trent]

It somehow frightens me to agree with Sherlock (we seldom do) but your first post is excellent and deserves applause. May I add something that you may not be aware of: Cross was obviously using his stepfather's surname. Not an unusual thing in Victorian times. But he was also using his legal name. There is a difference between a registered name and a legal name. The 'Church of Lechmere' would have you believe that Cross was an assumed alibi. This is untrue. The authority on the subject is HM's Governmental department that deals with Deed Polls. They clearly state that your legal name is the name you wish to be known by. It is not necessarily your registered name. You do not have to give your registered name in any UK court but you do have to give the name you are known by and must not give a false name with intention to deceive. The legal name definition does not come from an enacted law but from historic case law (examples going back to 1335 can be found on the Government website at https://deedpolloffice.com/change-name/law/case-law). Charles Cross gave his legal name, address and employer's details at the inquest. Any suggestion that he was deceitful is utter rubbish. I hope that clarifies the situation.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Also, by becoming ‘involved’ in the Nichols case Cross would have relinquished any opportunity that he might have had of making up some excuse if he’s been questioned near any of the other murder sites. Imagine if they’d taken him in for questioning after the Eddowes murder. Swearing his innocence wouldn’t have held much water for the same guy that just happened to have found Nichols.

Very good contribution to the case Herlock.
Your point about Cross having some explaining to do if he was found in the vicinity of any other murders is one that I've always found compelling but rarely stated.
Fisherman has fought his case well, but I think that the case against Cross has a strong, if unconscious, whiff of confirmation bias about it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It somehow frightens me to agree with Sherlock (we seldom do) but your first post is excellent and deserves applause. May I add something that you may not be aware of: Cross was obviously using his stepfather's surname. Not an unusual thing in Victorian times. But he was also using his legal name. There is a difference between a registered name and a legal name. The 'Church of Lechmere' would have you believe that Cross was an assumed alibi. This is untrue. The authority on the subject is HM's Governmental department that deals with Deed Polls. They clearly state that your legal name is the name you wish to be known by. It is not necessarily your registered name. You do not have to give your registered name in any UK court but you do have to give the name you are known by and must not give a false name with intention to deceive. The legal name definition does not come from an enacted law but from historic case law (examples going back to 1335 can be found on the Government website at https://deedpolloffice.com/change-name/law/case-law). Charles Cross gave his legal name, address and employer's details at the inquest. Any suggestion that he was deceitful is utter rubbish. I hope that clarifies the situation.

Thanks for that John.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Very good contribution to the case Herlock.
Your point about Cross having some explaining to do if he was found in the vicinity of any other murders is one that I've always found compelling but rarely stated.
Fisherman has fought his case well, but I think that the case against Cross has a strong, if unconscious, whiff of confirmation bias about it.

Hello Barn,

Thanks for that. I certainly agree about the confirmation bias. It’s seems that for some everything that’s ever happened points to his guilt. You get the feeling that for some an alibi would somehow prove his guilt.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Lewis.

But isn't this open to the accusation of being a circular argument?

It was BECAUSE Cross lived in the area and was forced to commute through a red-light district that he found the body, and it was hardly unusual for a denizen of East London to have moved around from address to address and thus have "connections" to the area. It nearly goes without saying.

Wouldn't it have been far more unusual (and suspicious) if the person who found Nichols' body hadn't had connections to the East End?

What if Monty Druitt had found her? He'd have quite a lot of explaining to do, wouldn't he, as to why he was in a darkened backstreet so far from home at 3.40 a.m.?

if anything sticks in my craw is accusations of circular argument when it is nothing of the sort. it happens way too much on here and alot of the times by your nemesis. drives me nuts. how can someone saying geographic connections account for something be a circular argument?

his route to work brings him by some of the murder sites near tod, his mum lived near where stride was killed, the bloody rag and gsg is in the direction of if he was heading home after mitre square, and all the murder sites are roughly in the area outlined from his home, work and mums location. in terms of geographic connection, lech beats all other suspects hands down.
its a strong point imho, especially in the age of an on foot killer.

[Sam Flynn]

I'm not convinced that Cross was anymore geographically connected to the area than the several suspects that lived closer to the heart of the area the murders occurred than he did...

Indeed, and several thousand other men — a huge demographic group, which almost certainly contained several much stronger candidate suspects whose names we may never know.

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis.

But isn't this open to the accusation of being a circular argument?

It was BECAUSE Cross lived in the area and was forced to commute through a red-light district that he found the body, and it was hardly unusual for a denizen of East London to have moved around from address to address and thus have "connections" to the area. It nearly goes without saying.

Wouldn't it have been far more unusual (and suspicious) if the person who found Nichols' body hadn't had connections to the East End?

What if Monty Druitt had found her? He'd have quite a lot of explaining to do, wouldn't he, as to why he was in a darkened backstreet so far from home at 3.40 a.m.?

Hi RJ,

I don't think "circular argument" is quite the right word for it. It might be said that if one listed Cross' finding the body as one reason to suspect him and his living in the area is another reason, it would be almost like counting the same reason twice, or at least counting two related facts as separate reasons. I agree that his discovering the body would have been more suspicious if he hadn't lived in the area. Maybe the best way to put it is like this: He discovered the body, and as one would expect, the discoverer of the body lived in the area. I believe that there's a strong probablilty that JtR lived in the area, so that's a box that Cross checks, just as those who lived in the area but didn't discover a body would check that box. But his living in the area doesn't make his discovering the body suspicious.