Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[TopHat]

Then you certainly have no concept of ‘suspicious’ TopHat. And why have you added the ‘Cross didn’t turn up at the inquest’ part. A fairly typical invention. He turned up at the inquest. There was never a time that he ‘doesn’t turn up.’ He actually testified before Paul. Unbelievable!

• A man kills a woman and then escapes just as every other serial killer in history did.
• A man is walking a street as he did 6 days a week
• That man arrived at the spot where you would have found him 6 days a week at that time.
• He discovers a body as untold numbers of people have all through history.
• Another man arrives who is also on his way to work.
• They go to find a Constable as any innocent passer-by person would.
• Both men turn up at the inquest and give their testimony.

I struggle to think of anything less suspicious.

You're just letting Cross off scot-free. In a modern-day investigation, Cross would never be ruled out at this point. He was the closest known person in time next to a fresh murder, who subsequently did not make it clear to the police what had happened, and then did not turn up to the inquest on day one where the police were positive a policeman had found the body.

[TopHat]

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.

I didn't "rewrite my words". Shipman was a body finder; not ALWAYS, however - and all my words are perfectly good English. And I didn't "describe" Shipman's murders in their entirety - I merely pointed out he didn't discriminate as to the day or time when it came to committing murder.

The definition of "who can find a body" doesn't include Shipman, a doctor, apparently. No doctors. Nor therefore does it include multiple serial killer nurses who often found dead bodies on their rounds of the ward. And also doesn't include people murdered inside buildings, for some reason (what about garden sheds - a murder in one of these, would it be "inside" or "outside"?). A completely self-serving definition, and I do not subscribe to it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You're just letting Cross off scot-free. In a modern-day investigation, Cross would never be ruled out at this point. He was the closest known person in time next to a fresh murder, who subsequently did not make it clear to the police what had happened, and then did not turn up to the inquest on day one where the police were positive a policeman had found the body.

First point - I’m not letting him off Scot free because for over 10 years I and others have examined in the minutest detail every aspect of the murder in Bucks Row. Your statement that “Cross would never be ruled out at this point” is clearly untrue, whatever “this point” you mean, because eventually every suspect is ruled out until the guilty one is found and convicted. The police at the time, despite not having modern knowledge, would have been fully aware that Cross had been alone for an unknown period near to the body and they found nothing suspicious in him. We haven’t a clue to what extent they looked into him but you can’t simply assume that they would have believed him no matter what (which is the feeble angle Christer tried). That’s a typically convenient viewpoint. They would have interviewed him, probably at length, and let him go because his story convinced them. That doesn’t prove innocence of course but it does prove that investigators at the time looked into him and saw nothing suspicious.

Second point - “..subsequently did not make it clear to the police what had happen…” Again, and typically, you are being selective. You, and other Cross supporters, have no issue with saying that the police could have messed up and let the real killer go, but you are strangely reluctant to accept that a police Constable (Mizen) who was otherwise engaged at the time (knocking up) might simply have misheard or misunderstood what Cross and Paul said. He was human; why ‘must’ he have been correct? And that’s another glaringly obvious point…Cross left the scene with Paul (a man that he didn’t know and had no influence over) they walked together, they met Mizen together, they spoke to him together (confirmed by all three) so tell me how a ‘guilty’ Cross could have misled Mizen without Paul being in on it. How come Paul didn’t contradict him? It’s very clear that there was no misleading going on. And of course, Cross could have avoided this in the first place if he’d escaped….something that, as far as is known, every singly serial killer in the history of serial murder has done.

Third point - is barely worth answering. Why is it a problem that Cross didn’t attend the first day of the inquest and yet it’s perfectly ok that Paul didn’t attend on the first day either…and he’d been in the newspaper? It wasn’t down to witnesses as to when they attended and gave their testimony. They were told when to attend and Cross attended when he was told to. Do you really think that Cross was working on the basis of “let’s hope that the other bloke never tells anyone about us being in Bucks Row then I can avoid going to the inquest.” Hardly a bit of genius deception is it. Again, he had zero control over Paul.

Cross found the body like millions of others. He has absolutely nothing going for him as a suspect. In fact he’s an appalling suspect because the evidence is against his guilt at every point. All that’s happened is that people have become childishly obsessed over the ‘he was there, he was there’ thing. John Richardson was there with Chapman, has far more about him that could be called suspicious so was he the ripper? Of course he wasn’t. Then after the ‘he was there’ Christer manipulated the evidence to create an imaginary gap and some less critical people fell for it hook, line and sinker. Those with experience of the case didn’t. Then we have a bandwagon rolling with Stow and the family connection no doubt hoping that down the line a book might be in the offing.

You could pretty much take any aspect of the case, pick out someone at random, and build some kind of ‘case’ against them. How much stone cold evidence against him do you need?

There’s nothing about him or his life that suggests crime or violence or the life of a serial killer.
On the day in question he was exactly where he should have been at just that time.
He stood around waiting for a complete stranger to show up…forgoing an opportunity of escape that a toddler could have achieved.
They have a cursory look at the body.
They both need to get to work.
They walk together to find a PC.
They find a PC and tell him about the woman.
He shows up at the inquest and gives evidence that makes perfect sense.
He’s 90 minutes into his shift when Chapman is killed.

Barring proof that he was in the Outer Hebrides when Eddowes was killed it doesn’t get clearer. Innocent. Absolutely game over. This pursuit of Cross is just a distraction…a massive waste of time.

[TopHat]

That is interesting because I'm sure I've read about 19 different newspaper articles stating Charles Cross did turn up at the inquest.

That's correct; I meant straight away. My bad.

I think not going straight away to the inquest is not an issue for some people. For me, the most important witness (Cross) not appearing at the inquest until after Paul has gone public - and therefore the police now know about the mystery man who found the body - is a huge issue.

Edit: I did actually list he eventually turned up:

---------------
* 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.
---------------

[Herlock Sholmes]

I didn't "rewrite my words". Shipman was a body finder; not ALWAYS, however - and all my words are perfectly good English. And I didn't "describe" Shipman's murders in their entirety - I merely pointed out he didn't discriminate as to the day or time when it came to committing murder.

The definition of "who can find a body" doesn't include Shipman, a doctor, apparently. No doctors. Nor therefore does it include multiple serial killer nurses who often found dead bodies on their rounds of the ward. And also doesn't include people murdered inside buildings, for some reason (what about garden sheds - a murder in one of these, would it be "inside" or "outside"?). A completely self-serving definition, and I do not subscribe to it.

You can’t compare the type of serial killer Jack the Ripper was to Harold Shipman or Lucy Letby.

I’m talking about serial killers who leave there victims outdoors (like the ripper) and there have been thousands so we have many to compare with. What makes me smile is that over the years I’ve lost count of the amount of times on here that Christer has gone to a ‘history of crime ‘ argument. How he used ‘precedent’ to try and make a point. But since I pointed out a couple of glaringly obvious ones it suddenly becomes unimportant. Or someone tries to change the criteria by adding in poisoners.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's correct; I meant straight away. My bad.

I think not going straight away to the inquest is not an issue for some people. For me, the most important witness (Cross) not appearing at the inquest until after Paul has gone public - and therefore the police now know about the mystery man who found the body - is a huge issue.

Why?

As I mentioned in a previous post, do you assume that every time A occurs before B then B must have resulted from A. Because that’s the approach that you are taking on this point.

A question - You are assuming that Cross only attended the inquest because of the Lloyd’s article. Can you provide evidence to support that assumption please? And while you’re at it, maybe you can provide proof that Cross never went to the police?

[TopHat]

You can’t compare the type of serial killer Jack the Ripper was to Harold Shipman or Lucy Letby.

I’m talking about serial killers who leave there victims outdoors (like the ripper) and there have been thousands so we have many to compare with. What makes me smile is that over the years I’ve lost count of the amount of times on here that Christer has gone to a ‘history of crime ‘ argument. How he used ‘precedent’ to try and make a point. But since I pointed out a couple of glaringly obvious ones it suddenly becomes unimportant. Or someone tries to change the criteria by adding in poisoners.

You still need to prove your assertion - which you state as if it's fact - even within your arbitrary boundaries. What proof do you have?

[Fiver]

You're just letting Cross off scot-free. In a modern-day investigation, Cross would never be ruled out at this point. He was the closest known person in time next to a fresh murder, who subsequently did not make it clear to the police what had happened, and then did not turn up to the inquest on day one where the police were positive a policeman had found the body.

* "closest" means in the middle of the street, not next to the body.
* There were plenty of other people nearby with no alibi.
* It was quite possible for an unknown person to have been the killer. This is what happened for every other Ripper murder.
* It would have been easy for an unknown murderer to escape; the police directly said so.
* "fresh" means sometime withing the last half hour. Ignore the so-called Blood Evidence theory - it's not what those experts said and blood flow not used by any police to determine time of death.
* Cross and Paul both spoke PC Mizen. Yet you don't use this miscommunication as "proof" against Paul. All you have proved is your double standard.
* Neither Cross nor Paul testified on the first day of the inquest. Yet you don't use this as "proof" against Paul. All you have proved is your double standard.
* PC Mizen knew the body had been found by two carmen. The only way the rest of the police would not have known this would be if there was extremely poor communication between Police Division H and Police Division J or if PC Mizen hadn't told anyone. That might be evidence against PC Mizen, but not against Cross.

Now lets look at the points you ignore.
* The police said the killer could have easily escaped undetected. Cross and Paul did "escape" Bucks-row completely undetected.
* Cross touching Paul did not leave unexplained bloodstains on Paul's clothing.
* Paul, who was initially frightened of being mugged, did not notice bloodstains on Cross' hand or clothes, nor did he see anything odd in Cross' behavior.
* PC Mizen, who had a lantern, did not notice bloodstains on Cross' hand or clothes, nor did he see anything odd in Cross' behavior.
* Cross chose to contact the police - neither Mizen nor Paul knew who he was.
* Robert Paul's testimony about what was said supported Charles Cross, not PC Mizen.
* The police supported Cross' timing on when the body was found. That's based on the testimony of the first three police on site and the police reports. The Time Gap is a myth.
* 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]

I didn't "rewrite my words". Shipman was a body finder; not ALWAYS, however - and all my words are perfectly good English. And I didn't "describe" Shipman's murders in their entirety - I merely pointed out he didn't discriminate as to the day or time when it came to committing murder.

The definition of "who can find a body" doesn't include Shipman, a doctor, apparently. No doctors. Nor therefore does it include multiple serial killer nurses who often found dead bodies on their rounds of the ward. And also doesn't include people murdered inside buildings, for some reason (what about garden sheds - a murder in one of these, would it be "inside" or "outside"?). A completely self-serving definition, and I do not subscribe to it.

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.

[TopHat]

Why?

As I mentioned in a previous post, do you assume that every time A occurs before B then B must have resulted from A. Because that’s the approach that you are taking on this point.

A question - You are assuming that Cross only attended the inquest because of the Lloyd’s article. Can you provide evidence to support that assumption please? And while you’re at it, maybe you can provide proof that Cross never went to the police?

The sequence of events exists; this is undeniable. You're saying B doesn't result from A; but it is possible that B DOES result from A.

[TopHat]

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.

Yes I did say that. What's your point? How did I "rewrite" its meaning?

[Fiver]

That's correct; I meant straight away. My bad.

I think not going straight away to the inquest is not an issue for some people. For me, the most important witness (Cross) not appearing at the inquest until after Paul has gone public - and therefore the police now know about the mystery man who found the body - is a huge issue.

Edit: I did actually list he eventually turned up:

---------------
* 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.
---------------

* Your first statement is still false. Charles Cross did go to the police and testify at the inquest. The question is when.
* PC Mizen knows that two unknown carmen told him they found the body.
* Yet when PC Neil testifies the next day, neither he, the coroner, nor the rest of the police seem to know what PC Mizen knows.
* Robert Paul's newspaper interview appears in the papers. He doesn't know who the other carman was and appears to start dodging the police, later saying "he was fetched up in the middle of the night by the police".
* The only way Cross could have testified on the second day of the inquest was if he went to the police.

[Fiver]

Yes I did say that. What's your point? How did I "rewrite" its meaning?

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

You then attempted to rewrite your words by ignoring your obviously false claims that Shipman killed on his way to work and after work.

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

You still need to prove your assertion - which you state as if it's fact - even within your arbitrary boundaries. What proof do you have?

You’re splitting hairs TopHat. I’ll make this as clear as I can - as far as I’m aware, from years of reading about true crime (though before you say, I don’t consider myself an expert) and from years of asking others (including Christer) not one, after doing various searches in books and online have found a single case of a person finding a serial killers victim outdoors where it turned out that the finder was the killer. Another way of putting it, is that no one can find an example of a serial killer who, when faced with an opportunity of escape, elected to stand around for a chat with a complete stranger.

So, if you are saying that I need to provide every single example of a person who found a serial killers victim in the entirety of history, before you will accept the validity of the point then we can safely ignore your point. My boundaries aren’t ‘arbitrary’ they are mine, because the point was mine and I’ve hardly asked for examples of serial killers with one leg have I? Serial killers with victims found outdoors is hardly troublesome isn’t it. You should have no problem finding an example of 10. Strangely though…no one has yet.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The sequence of events exists; this is undeniable. You're saying B doesn't result from A; but it is possible that B DOES result from A.

Of course in general B can result from A but you’re not talking generally. You were stating it as a fact. That you somehow know that Cross only attended the inquest because of the Lloyd’s article.

Theres a parallel with Christer’s imaginary gap. It’s ok to say that there could have been a gap but that’s not what Christer was trying to say when he deliberately omitted the word ‘about.’ He was saying that there definitely was a gap. Which is clearly a falsehood.