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.

[Fiver]

Your "facts" contain an awful lot of opinion. Just one for now, if you wish to argue it I'll provide more.

"Cross volunteered factually correct information above and beyond what he needed to."

That is complete subjective opinion.

Dusty's post contained hardly any opinion.

"Cross was on his way to work.' - fact

"An independent witness confirms Cross's story." - fact

"The pattern of events does not accord with known serial killer behaviour." - fact

"It was easy for the killer to get away." - fact

"The neck wounds were visible." - fact

"There is no record of when Cross first approached the police." - fact

"The police denied Mizen saw two men. That did not change until the Monday sitting of the inquest." - fact

"Cross volunteered factually correct information above and beyond what he needed to." - a mixture of fact and opinion

"Three policeman gave evidence that fits perfectly with Cross's testimony." - fact

Now lets look at your first post.

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

That's an objectively false statement on your part.

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.

That's your opinion, not a fact.

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?

That is speculation by you. Your speculation is contradicted by the facts. The police said it would have been easy for the killer to escape undetected. Cross and Paul did "escape" Bucks-row undetected.

Also of major concern is that Cross "found" a body with the wounds not on show.

That's an objectively false statement on your part. The neck wounds were never concealed. Robert Paul's testimony makes it clear that the torso wounds were not concealed when he first saw the body - "Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach."

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.

You then build on the false statement by adding your opinion, which frankly makes no sense. It would have been safer and easier for the Ripper to just walk off and that is exactly what they did in at least one other murder.

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.

And this mere opinion on your part. we don't know when or why Cross choose to come forward and testify. You have provided no evidence that Cross was "sly" or "patently dishonest".

To sum up, Dusty's post was almost entirely fact, with a little bit of opinion. Your post was mostly opinion, with a fair amount of provably false statements.

[TopHat]

It’s not remotely suspicious TopHat. I can’t understand why you think it so. I believe that it’s about what mindset you employ. If you look at the case from a perspective that Cross was guilty then it’s easy to imagine that everything was suspicious but I’d suggest that you could do that for many of the witnesses in the case. For example, look how Paul almost airbrushes Cross out of events in his Lloyd’s article. Doesn’t that make him suspicious?

I agree that Paul's actions could be argued as suspicious. Mizen's also. It's a matter of degree. All things considered, I place Cross's suspicious actions much, much higher on the list - there are just way more of them and each one degrees higher. Also of note is that Cross actually had killed someone, in the record, albeit considered an accident by the authorities: a child he ran over with his cart.

[Fiver]

I agree that Paul's actions could be argued as suspicious. Mizen's also. It's a matter of degree. All things considered, I place Cross's suspicious actions much, much higher on the list - there are just way more of them and each one degrees higher. Also of note is that Cross actually had killed someone, in the record, albeit considered an accident by the authorities: a child he ran over with his cart.

Feel free to list what you think are suspicious actions by Charles Cross.

[TopHat]

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?

"[Cross] went as soon as he could [to the inquest]"

That is entirely possible.

However, Cross found the body. He is an extremely important witness, for the police, for the inquest. And the sequence of events allows that he knew about Paul's interview in the press; and that he arrived to the inquest after this interview is not a moot point. It cannot be discounted that he went to the inquest because he had to, he was flushed out as it were. What did the police do after the Paul interview came out? They went searching for Paul. I don't think there's any argument saying that the police did not care about the Paul statement in the press. The police cared about this interview - it is possible that Cross cared about it as well.

[TopHat]

"The pattern of events does not accord with known serial killer behaviour." - fact

Not a fact at all. It's a completely made-up assertion. If it's a fact - please prove it.

[TopHat]

Feel free to list what you think are suspicious actions by Charles Cross.

* The usage of the name Cross was one of only two known times he used that name (the Nichols murder, and his "accidental" killing of a child). You will say this is how things were done back then, but I disagree. I believe this name usage was not some desire for "official correctness"; it was instead desire for his actually used name (Lechmere) to stay out of the press. It's a form of anonymity. It matters not what other details he gave - it's the name that's important, it's the name that everyone would read in the press.

* Turning up to the inquest in my opinion late, and after the Paul interview.

* That police thinking they had found the body, when they hadn't, has been blamed on police "miscommunication", as one explanation. But it makes more sense that Cross actually did only say to Mizen that he was "wanted" - ie, no mention of a body to Mizen, or at the very least no mention that he, Cross, had FOUND a body.

The following things will go back and forth forever with arguments as to what actually happened; I think all three people involved have suspicious actions and statements, and at least one person is lying about something (eg, timings):

* The interaction with Paul.
* The interaction with the body while Paul was there.
* The interaction with Mizen.

[drstrange169]

Hello TopHat,

I see you ignore the bulk of my posts, so I’ll assume you agree with them.

As to the couple of comments you did make,


“Cross volunteered factually correct information above and beyond what he needed to."

That is complete subjective opinion.”


No, it's a fact.

A guilty Cross did not "need" to contradict Paul's account of her being long dead by saying Paul thought he detected a breath.
Cross did not "need" to say he refused to help move her.


""The pattern of events does not accord with known serial killer behaviour." - fact
Not a fact at all. It's a completely made-up assertion. If it's a fact - please prove it."

Certainly, there is no known incident of a serial killer choosing to stay rather than flee under those circumstances.
I'm not really up with serial killers, but I suspect there are more anomalies.

[Herlock Sholmes]

* The usage of the name Cross was one of only two known times he used that name (the Nichols murder, and his "accidental" killing of a child). You will say this is how things were done back then, but I disagree. I believe this name usage was not some desire for "official correctness"; it was instead desire for his actually used name (Lechmere) to stay out of the press. It's a form of anonymity. It matters not what other details he gave - it's the name that's important, it's the name that everyone would read in the press.

I’ve emboldened that part for obvious reasons TopHat. I’m sorry but it reeks of desperation. You know full well that Cross could gain absolutely no benefit from using his stepfathers surname and you feel the need to add the above just to try and make it a ‘point’ when it’s not. So much has been written about this and apart from the deliberate omission of ‘about’ from book and documentary I think this continuing mention of the name is the greatest disgrace. It’s appalling that we have come to this. It’s a complete non-issue.