Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[Herlock Sholmes]

Cross could be lying about what time he left home.

He certainly could have. No one has ever doubted that or claimed that Cross couldn’t have had time to commit the murder as far as I’m aware. It’s certainly physically possible. What we object to is Christer Holmgren’s provably false claim that there was a mysterious ‘gap.’ He doesn’t claim that there might have been one, he claims that there provably was one. This is provably untrue and is a perfect example of how evidence is often manipulated to try and make this clearly innocent man appear guilty.

And if he did leave his house earlier you are left with another problem. Only three things could have happened..

1) Cross left home really early, picked up Mary Nichols elsewhere and took her to Bucks Row to kill her 20 minutes before he was due at work. I’m fairly sure that no Cross supporter favours this nonsense. So…next
2) Cross left home early and stood in Bucks Row waiting on the off chance of a woman showing up until 20 minutes before he was due at work. This is less likely than option one and I know of no one who would support it. Which leaves..
3) Cross left early, bumped into Nichols and killed her.

The problem with 3 though is this…even Christer accepts that this murder would have taken no more that 2 minutes. So if, for example, Cross left the house at 3.25 and got to Bucks Row at 3.32/3.33 then killed Nichols by say, 3.35/6, what the hell was he still doing there when Paul arrived at around 3.40?

Nothing ‘favours’ Cross. Not a single thing.

[Fiver]

I pointed out Shipman was a body finder - and also the murderer. And there really was no day or time he didn't set up a house call, "Shall I pop round and see you on my way into the surgery?"

You did not say that. You said "Harold Shipman often "discovered the body". Shipman also killed on his way to work, during work, after work, and on weekends."

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

[Fiver]

And the idea that a murderer has never declared discovering the body (their victim) to a witness, whether having had a chance to flee the scene or not, is equally preposterous. There have been countless murders where this seeming innocence has been displayed - and then it is found out the body finder actually committed the murder. "Finding" the body doesn't prove Cross is the murderer, but it doesn't prove innocence either, which is what some are suggesting.

If there are "countless examples" of the person claiming to find the body being the murderer, then you should easily be able to provide 3 or 4.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Par for the course Fiver.

This was aimed at your post 542 btw.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If there are "countless examples" of the person claiming to find the body being the murderer, then you should easily be able to provide 3 or 4.

The problem with this is that what gets mentioned are cases where the husband killed the wife and said that he’d found her after she’d been killed by an intruder. My point has always been about serial killers though and bodies found outdoors. The dog walkers, joggers, hikers, strollers who found a body. No one has yet been able to name one example where the finder turned out to have been the killer. Even if someone found one or two or three it would still be a minute percentage. But as yet…none.

[Fiver]

In a modern-day murder investigation, with what we know from the evidence before us, Cross would be the prime suspect. No way would he be ruled out (or reduced) in the manner that is being done by the "it's not Cross" team. He would remain the number one suspect until new evidence proved otherwise.

Charles Cross found a body - that's it. That cannot make him the "number one suspect" since it's exactly the same as Alfred Crow, John Reeves, PC Neil, John Davis, Louis Diemschutz, PC Watkins, Thomas Bowyer, and PC Andrews.

All you have proved is your own double standard.

* 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]

With a witness next to him, it makes sense for Cross to go along with this. What's the alternative? Allow Paul to find the police and tell them a man he just spoke to "discovered" a body and has decided to not play a part in reporting it?

The witness was only next to Cross because of Cross' actions.

If Cross was the killer he had lots of other options.
* Walk off into the darkness.
* When Robert Paul wanted to avoid him, just let Paul keep walking.
* Tell Paul that they should split up so they can find a constable sooner and then walk off into the darkness.

[Jon Guy]

Alfred Crow, John Reeves, PC Neil, John Davis, Louis Diemschutz, PC Watkins, Thomas Bowyer, and PC Andrews.

Yes, and all these FINDERS had no witnesses to them finding the body or being with the body, whereas Cross was been watched by a witness as he approached the body

[Fiver]

Thanks for the welcome.

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 - and I suggest that when doing this fair application of "manipulation bias", the Cross theory is still the best theory.

I have seen manipulation of the evidence for several suspects, but seldom as much as the case of Charles Cross. There remains no evidence of any kind against Charles Cross.

Cross could be lying about what time he left home.

Cross could be lying about what time he left home. So could Robert Paul. PC Neil could be lying about when he last walked down Bucks-row. The night watchmen could have been lying about not leaving their posts. The slaughtermen could have been lying about none of them leaving alone. the neighbors could have been lying about being asleep in bed.

All you have proved is your own double standard.

[Fiver]

The idea that Cross discovered the body is not what happened; it's only half the story.

This is what happened: Paul discovered the person (Cross) who discovered the body.

This is extremely important.

It is important - Robert Paul seeing Cross means means Charles Cross is less likely to have been the Ripper.

Robert Paul's presence means that Rippermere will have to pull out a handkerchief, clean his knife and hands, hide the knife and handkerchief, and move well away from the body without being heard or seen by Paul.

All of the other finders could have spent at least some time unobserved to conceal bloodstains and their knives and then claimed to have found the body. Cross doesn't have this possibility.

[Geddy2112]

And the idea that a murderer has never declared discovering the body (their victim) to a witness, whether having had a chance to flee the scene or not, is equally preposterous. There have been countless murders where this seeming innocence has been displayed - and then it is found out the body finder actually committed the murder.

To be honest I'm not an expert but I'm struggling to think of an example. Could you enlighten me please?

[Geddy2112]

Yes, and all these FINDERS had no witnesses to them finding the body or being with the body, whereas Cross was been watched by a witness as he approached the body

Sorry Sir that simply is not true. It did not happen.

This is what is kind of frustrating, a bit like the name none issue. These statements are made and when asked how did it make a difference you get no reply...

Even if there were 30 people watching Cross standing in the middle of the road it does not make him more suspicious or a likely killer. In fact Paul being present actually exonerates him because Paul saw nothing suspicious. We can't say that about the other first finders. So I'm not sure how Paul being present makes him more of a serial killer...

[Fiver]

So if it's not Cross who did the murder, it goes like this:

* Jack did the murder.
* Jack disappeared.
* Cross found the body.
* Paul found Cross (and the body).
* A policeman found the body.
* Cross doesn't turn up to the inquest or even go to the police to say what happened.
* The police still think they found the body.
* Paul is interviewed in the press.
* Cross turns up to the inquest.

If that sequence of events is not extremely suspicious, I don't know what is.

* Jack did the murder.
* Jack disappeared.
* Cross found the body.

No one finds these suspicious for any of the other murders.

* Paul found Cross (and the body).

Paul would have kept walking if Cross hadn't have stopped him. Cross' behavior is the same as John Reeves, PC Neil, John Davis, Louis Diemschutz, PC Watkins, Thomas Bowyer, and PC Andrews.

* A policeman found the body.

This is identical to the Eddowes and McKenzie murders.

* Cross doesn't turn up to the inquest or even go to the police to say what happened.

This is provably false. Nether Robert Paul nor PC Mizen knew who Charles Cross was. Charles Cross could only have ended up at the inquest if he went to the police.

* The police still think they found the body.

PC Mizen knows that two carmen told him there was a body. The rest of the police thinking they have found the body is either a sign of poor communication between H and J divisions or of PC Mizen never reporting it. If there is any suspicion, it attaches to PC Mizen, not Cross.

* Paul is interviewed in the press.

But Paul does not go to the police. If there is any suspicion, it attaches to Paul, not Cross

* Cross turns up to the inquest.

Nether Robert Paul nor PC Mizen knew who Charles Cross was. Charles Cross could only have ended up at the inquest if he went to the police.

[Jon Guy]

Sorry Sir that simply is not true. It did not happen.

This is what is kind of frustrating, a bit like the name none issue. These statements are made and when asked how did it make a difference you get no reply...

Even if there were 30 people watching Cross standing in the middle of the road it does not make him more suspicious or a likely killer. In fact Paul being present actually exonerates him because Paul saw nothing suspicious. We can't say that about the other first finders. So I'm not sure how Paul being present makes him more of a serial killer...

I pointed this out to Stowe on his House of Cross channel, and he was still adamant that Cross was guiltier than the other Finder`s, despite the fact that we only had the word of the other Finder`s as there were no witnesses, whereas Cross was been watched all the way.

To be fair it`s consistent for that mob as they`re just Johnny come lately`s jumping on the back of some proper research by Derek Osborne.

[Geddy2112]

I pointed this out to Stowe on his House of Cross channel, and he was still adamant that Cross was guiltier than the other Finder`s, despite the fact that we only had the word of the other Finder`s as there were no witnesses, whereas Cross was been watched all the way.

Indeed, I just do not get it. The evidence is clear. It's astonishing that they still believe this rubbish after over a decade of them being told it's a load of rubbish. I guess it's the YouTube clicks that matter, not the truth.