Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[Fiver]

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

It is hard to imagine a more inaccurate description of Shipman's crimes than the one you just gave. Shipman was a doctor who gave lethal overdoses to his patients. None were killed on his way to work. None were killed on his way home from work. None were found by him on his way to work.

[Fiver]

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.

I strongly suggest you read Herlock's thread on rating the suspects. It will show you that there are many suspects far more likely than Cross.

* There is no physical evidence against Cross.
* There is no eyewitness evidence against Cross.
* There is no evidence of violence or criminal behavior by Cross.
* Cross had no knowledge of anatomy.
* The idea of hiding bloodstained clothing and trophy organs in a house full of small children is laughable.
* The timing of the Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes murders make it wildly unlikely that Cross killed them.
* Cross lived for over three decades after the murders ended.

[Fiver]

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? Instead of looking at it as timings for the guilty Cross, look at it as if it wasn't Cross, and Cross only had maybe 15 minutes to carry out the deed when he is blamed - then how did another Jack do it?

It's not an issue at all.

"It was quite possible for anybody to have escaped through Brady Street into Whitechapel road, or through a passage into Queen's buildings." - PC Neil, Daily News
3rd September 1888.

We should also note that Charles Cross and Robert Paul "escaped" Bucks-row unseen and unheard by anyone else - not the police, not the people that lived or worked nearby. If Cross and Paul hadn't chosen to seek out and talk to PC Mizen, no one else would have known they were ever there.

[Fiver]

Also of major concern is that Cross "found" a body with the wounds not on show. 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 idea that Nichol's wounds were hidden by her killer is a myth, one that is directly contradicted by the evidence.

"Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach." - Robert Paul, The Times, 18 September, 1888.

Even if Robert Paul had been crass enough to look up the skirt of a woman he thought had been outraged, there probably wasn't enough light to see the torso wounds.

"While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement." - Robert Paul, The Times, 18 September, 1888.

So the torso wounds were hidden by Robert Paul, while the neck wounds were never hidden by anyone.

[Fiver]

And if Cross "discovered the body", then why did it take an interview of Paul to flush Cross out? 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; alongside which the sly and patently dishonest Cross would have completely escaped scrutiny due to not existing as a name in the enquiry.

Feel frre to show any examples of Charles Cross being sly or dishonest.,

And here you regurgitate another Lechmerian myth. Paul's newspaper account couldn't have flushed anyone out - he had no idea who Lechmere was. The only witness who seems to have tried to avoid the police was Robert Paul.

"Mr. Paul says that after he made his statement to our representative, which appeared in Lloyd's, he was fetched up in the middle of the night by the police, and was obliged to lose a day's work the next day, for which he got nothing.: - Robert Paul, Lloyds Weekly News, 30 September 1888.