Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[Geddy2112]

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.

Apologies I'm not sure where I typed it but surely he went as soon as he could. He worked late till Friday evening. Saturday was the first day of the inquest which was unusual and fast, Sunday no inquest, Cross turns up next day. Surely he was summoned so he appeared when he was supposed to. What about Paul? He appeared much later and was sought out by the Police, who looks more suspicious here? You are making a sign of guilt out of nothing. I have not checked but when did the other first finders attend 'their' inquests?

[Geddy2112]

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?

So IF he did read the Remarkable Statement why did he not alter his times if guilty to match the 'exactly 3:45am' given by Paul. This would have surely given him an alibi. He didn't because he was not guilty and stuck to his own timings.
Cross never went to the Police? Was PC Mizen not a policeman?

[Geddy2112]

Cross was innocent as there is nothing whatsoever to suggest Cross murdered anyone.

Taken the 'almost certainly' out to correct your post sir.. thank you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I've been reading this forum for years, off and on. And I expected some resistance, but it's so strong and attacking, that the phrase "The lady doth protest too much" springs to mind.

There is, what you call resistance, because none of us have ever encountered this phenomena before. When one ‘suspect’ has engendered such wave of exaggerated support where people have gone to such bizarre lengths. I don’t do social media but Fiver or Geddy (to name just 2) could produce a sizeable list of the extraordinary things that have been claimed to ‘support’ Cross’s guilt. Even the fact that he turned up for the inquest in his work clothes has been listed as suspicious. There is a whole propaganda machine that has been created to try a prove that this clearly innocent man was guilty. Why? If you presented Cross to the police today they would have a look (because he was there), check that evidence, and quickly move on because there’s nothing to suggest guilt and plenty that absolutely screams that Cross was innocent. Forget Holmgren and Stow and the obsessives and for a minute just consider this ‘suspect’ TopHat.

He left the house that morning at around his usual time.
He walks to work as he did for six days a week.
He finds a body like millions have through time.
As this is in a street and not some remote field it’s not surprising that a second person arrived.
Cross stood a distance from the body and waited for the man to arrive (in open view)
The both give the body a cursory check but it’s so dark that neither see the throat wounds.
One man suggests sitting her up but the other guy suggests that they go and find a Constable.
They find a Constable and tell him that he’s wanted in Bucks Row where there’s a woman lying either dead or drunk.
They find Constable gets to Bucks Row to find another officer there…Neill.
By the time that the inquest came Mizen assumes that Cross was saying “you are wanted by a PC.”
Its letter discovered that Cross’s birth name was Lechmere, but as he’d given his correct forenames, his place of work and his address he clearly wasn’t trying to deceive anyone.
The murders cease after Kelly or Mackenzie (whatever your opinion) but Cross lives a long and normal working family life as far as we know.

That is what happened. How is this man suspicious? Why would he have been of continued interest to the police after an initial investigation? As a suspect, John Richardson, who I don’t believe was the ripper, has far more against him that can be called suspicious and yet he doesn’t have a campaign in support of him. More facts have been manipulated in the act of supporting Cross than any suspect that I’ve heard of in 40 years of interest in the case.

[Geddy2112]

sly and patently dishonest Cross

Did I get an answer to my question of how Cross was sly and patently dishonest?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You don't agree, fine. But Cross remains as a suspect for good reason. You can't make him "disappear" just because you want it so.

You’re right TopHat. It’s impossible to make a suspect disappear once named (unless an alibi can be found of course, and no one has ever claimed an alibi for Cross) The problem for many of us is this…for some reason we take a fair bit of stick (especially after Rubenhold panted us in the poorest light) So an exaggerated campaign in favour of one of the weakest suspects that the case has ever produced does the subject as a whole no favours. We all just get labelled ‘ripperologists’ (a title that I’ve always disliked)

[John Wheat]

Taken the 'almost certainly' out to correct your post sir.. thank you.

Thanks Geddy2112

I only included that bit as it's in the title of the thread.