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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Is this a serious comment or intended as humour? Shipman was a doctor who poisoned his victims..entirely different. The specific point that is made (as I suspect that you well know) is about serial killers who murder and leave their victims bodies to be found by others. How many over there years? It would be a huge figure and not one of those joggers, strollers, dog walkers, birdwatchers or whatever EVER turned out to have been the killer themselves. It’s slightly concerning that you would try to use Shipman who doesn’t fit the criteria for comparison.

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.

And this is the worrying part. That some people actually think this. I assume that you’ve read the evidence or rather the complete lack of it. Evidence is important and cannot simply be manipulated into existence or imaged in ever more created ways. He is a non-suspect without a single factor creating suspicion.

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?

Where do you get 15 minutes from? Even Christer Holmgren agrees (and I’ve seen no one disputing it) that the murder would have taken no more that 2 minutes. A killer working and escaping (as every serial killer in history has done btw) before Cross arrived would have had more than ample time. You are stretching the ‘time required’ by 7 times purely to make a point. This is what we mean about the manipulation of the evidence. Two minutes tops.

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.

So, Robert Paul trudging to work in a deserted, echoing cobbled street, no doubt wearing boots, somehow managed to sneak up on Cross. Was he tiptoeing to work? And the skirt was raised because the two men pulled it down as much as they could. So the killer had raised the skirt with one hand while wielding the knife with the other. When he had finished he released his hold on the skirt and it fell back, still raised to the thighs but with the wounds covered. We also have to remember that it was dark and neither men saw the throat wounds.

And according to you, he hears Paul approach (in fact, close enough to mean that he couldn’t escape) so he wipes his knife, hides it on his person whilst walking to the middle of the road? How could he possibly have even the slightest confidence that Paul hadn’t seen him. What do you think might have happened if, at the inquest, Cross had said that he hadn’t been near the body when Paul arrived and yet Paul says “I saw him walking back from the body.” We can keep using the ‘well he was an idiot’ excuse to shoehorn Cross into place.”

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.

This is false assumption which can be classed as a Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy. This is when someone assumes that because A occurred before B then A must have been the cause of B.

All that we know is that, unlike Paul, Cross didn’t speak to The Press. We can’t say that he didn’t talk to the police as we don’t have the police records. All that we can state as a fact is that he turned up at the inquest to give his testimony. You are doing what those that support Cross always do in that you are viewing events through ‘Cross was guilty’ goggles.

Not a single thing that he did that day or the days following was remotely suspicious if viewed dispassionately. The combined facts that he was on his way to work and that he didn’t flee when he had the easy opportunity of doing so and that he was willing to allow a man, over whom he had no control into the story, is enough to dismiss Cross. The arguments ‘for’ are feeble and largely invented.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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’ll add someone that I don’t think for a minute was the ripper but he is a far more like suspect than Cross - John Richardson.

Cross was where he had to be because he had to be at work 6 days a week - Richardson only went to number 29 to check his mother’s cellar. At any time he could have avoided going and she wouldn’t have known. For all that we know he might have just said that he was checking to put his mothers mind at rest.

All that the medical doctors can tell us about Nichols is that she wouldn’t have been dead for long by the time that Cross arrived - According to Dr. Phillips Annie Chapman was dead by the time Richardson was there but he said she wasn’t. So we have a man who absolutely, 100% did contradict the medical evidence at the time.

We have no evidence that Cross carried a knife - Richardson absolutely did.

We have Cross perfectly legitimately gave his stepfathers name (but his own forenames, address and workplace) - According to the police Richardson failed to even mention sitting on the back step.

Cross didn’t want to prop up the body (hardly suspicious, a) many people wouldn’t want to handle a potential corpse, b) he wanted to get to work, or c) as they couldn’t be certain that she wasn’t just unconscious he wouldn’t have wanted her waking up to find to strange men crouching over her causing her to scream out ‘rape!’ or ‘murder!’ or just ‘help!’ - Richardson appeared to say that he did repairs on his boot and yet the knife that he produced wasn’t the up to the job. He then admitted that he’d used another one at the market.

He was a local man. His mother lived in Hanbury Street.

So hear we have a man that I don’t believe for a minute was the ripper and yet he has much more that was suspicious about him that Cross.

I do hope that you don’t fall into the habit of repeatedly saying that ‘Cross was there. Cross was there,” because every single person in crime history that discovered the body of a serial killers victim outdoors was ‘there.’ Being ‘there’ isn’t exactly a killer point is it?

[Geddy2112]

Death from asphyxia takes a minimum of two minutes and a maximum of four minutes.

I've seen timings up to 30 mins depending on other factors like struggling ect. However let's remember these four minutes then two more minutes to do the cutting. Dear me that mysterious time gap is slowly evaporating. Not that there was one in the first place.

[Geddy2112]

Welcome to the forums, what an opening post to settle yourself in...

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.

He is only a suspect in some folks eyes because of manipulated evidence, mythological time gaps, false Mizen Scams, not understanding the law on names, not understanding where the corner of the Wool Warehouse in Bucks Row was etc etc. There is not one shred of evidence to prove Charles Cross is a killer, none.

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 is quite possible the murder occurred at 3:30am. When the witness heard mumblings and heard a train go by. Cross at this juncture was just leaving home some 7-8 mins away. So very easy for another 'Jack' to do the deed and escape.

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.

Unfortunately if you follow the evidence and use basic maths you can see Cross was never closer to the body alone than 30 feet. Why would killer Cross hide the wounds THEN stop the first passer-by to show him the wounds so to speak? (Or a chance of.)

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.

Did Paul name or describe him in the Newspaper article? No. And if he had read the article why did a guilty Cross not adjust his timings to match the 'exactly 3:45am' given by Paul to give himself an alibi? Why? Because he was not guilty that's why.

'Sly and patently dishonest Cross' <--- where is that in the evidence? See what I mean about Team Lechmere making stuff up?