Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[Geddy2112]

My point was really that the Ripper was interrupted in his work, that it wasn't a "full" ripper event, and I'm suggesting he was interrupted by the approaching Paul.

Indeed, so if Paul did not exist and he completed the full Ripper event how late for work would he have been? Considerably and no doubt he had numerous kids and a wife to feed was more important to Cross.

[Geddy2112]

Calling it a "complete non-issue" won't make this unfortunate name issue that Cross has go away. By using "Cross" he kept himself out of the papers. By keeping himself out of the papers, anyone with suspicions of his character would not know he was the person who "found" the body of Nichols.

He gave his address and work address. Also his first two names. How does this keep him out the papers? Where people thick as whale omelettes back then?

[chubbs]

* 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).

It's very misleading of you to put the word 'accidental' in quotation marks (above), as though the young child's accidental death in 1876 may not have been accidental. Sadly for you, it also undermines your judgement on other issues relating to Mr Cross. The 4-year-old child's death WAS accidental. All the eye witnesses at the inquest swore it was an accident and the inquest jury returned a verdict of accidental death.
The accident happened at around 4pm on the shortest day of the year. The weather was drizzly, foggy and dark (sunset in London is around 3pm on that day). 2 very young children came out from behind a stationary carriage and into the path of Charles Cross's horse & cart, which was travelling slowly. Cross shouted a warning and tried to stop, but tragically the younger child went under the rear wheel and died shortly afterwards at the doctor's surgery. No blame whatsoever was attached to Charles Cross.

Playing loosely with the facts, in order to make Mr Cross appear more guilty, actually does the opposite - it further weakens your already flimsy case.

[Geddy2112]

Good points, Fiver, but "Lavender" is merely an anglicisation of Lawende, and they're pronounced almost exactly the same way.

Hi Sam, I've seen this mentioned before in 'retaliation' of Fiver's point. However do you know who decided this 'anglicisation' or are we just guessing that is what he did? Thanks.

[Fiver]

Good points, Fiver, but "Lavender" is merely an anglicisation of Lawende, and they're pronounced almost exactly the same way.

I have always heard Lavender pronounced as LAV-en-dur. From what I can find online, Lawende appears to be pronounced la-Ven-dah. There are distinct differences in which syllable is emphasized and in the pronunciation of the final syllable.

[Geddy2112]

I have always heard Lavender pronounced as LAV-en-dur. From what I can find online, Lawende appears to be pronounced la-Ven-dah. There are distinct differences in which syllable is emphasized and in the pronunciation of the final syllable.

Let's ask Fish.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTdO...=OfficeRockers

[chubbs]

Hi Sam, I've seen this mentioned before in 'retaliation' of Fiver's point. However do you know who decided this 'anglicisation' or are we just guessing that is what he did? Thanks.

For pronunciation, watch the first few seconds of this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt1XfqBcQH8

[Fiver]

It's very misleading of you to put the word 'accidental' in quotation marks (above), as though the young child's accidental death in 1876 may not have been accidental. Sadly for you, it also undermines your judgement on other issues relating to Mr Cross. e.

Putting "accidental" shows one of several possibilities.
* TopHat did not read the sources, but assumed the worst of Charles Cross.
* TopHat read the sources and deliberately attempted to falsify what they said.
* TopHat read the sources, but has such poor analysis skills that he interpreted Cross being exonerated by every eyewitness and the court as meaning Cross probably ran over the child on purpose.

[Geddy2112]

For pronunciation, watch the first few seconds of this...

Yes but that is Polish not English. So by Anglicising his name he wanted it to sound like Polish, is that what you are saying? However I was not strictly referring to the pronunciation I was asking who decided that he 'Anglicised' his name by changing it's spelling. Where did that notion come from?

[Geddy2112]

Putting "accidental" shows one of several possibilities.
* TopHat did not read the sources, but assumed the worst of Charles Cross.
* TopHat read the sources and deliberately attempted to falsify what they said.
* TopHat read the sources, but has such poor analysis skills that he interpreted Cross being exonerated by every eyewitness and the court as meaning Cross probably ran over the child on purpose.

Let's ask TopHat at what time he thinks Charles Cross left home that Aug morning... That will show his true colours.