Tweet
I wrote this a while ago intending to submit it as a dissertation but I thought that I’d just post it here.
…
It was only relatively recently that I arrived at the conclusion that something a bit strange; unique even, was occurring in ripperology. I was certainly slow to pick up on it but that can be put that down to the fact that I take no part in social media which is where much of this ‘strangeness’ was and is occurring. The subject that we are all interested in has always had people favouring this or that suspect and debates continue over the likelihood of X being the ripper or of how Y is a much likelier suspect than Z. I have my own list of ‘likeliest’ suspects, as I assume do most people, but I wouldn’t risk a significant amount of my own money against any one of them being guilty. What we are now seeing though is a named suspect with what appears to be almost a propaganda machine behind him with some ‘supporters’ talking as if the case is now solved. We have a ‘suspect’ who is supported with the zeal that a fan supports a football team. I get occasional messages where someone will say to me: “you will never guess what they are claiming points to his guilt now”? People have even suggested, for example, that the fact that Cross attended the inquest in his working clothes was somehow indicative of guilt. We are in a constant state of “whatever next?” Why has such an extraordinary amount of time and effort gone into trying to make this person, against whom there is not a smidgeon of evidence, look like a suspect and why have so many people looked at this effort and accepted him a good suspect? So much so that they talk of him almost as if he had been caught on CCTV killing Polly Nichols. Is it simply a case of wanting to be on a ‘winning’ side? Or is it, as in the case of The Five, a situation where a group of newcomers to the subject leap on the chance to denigrate people who they regard the ‘old guard’? To put the boot in as it were? Let’s take a look at this alleged ‘suspect’ and try a see if there’s anything there behind all of the bluster and the almost religious zeal.
We all tend to look for at least some of the usual characteristics in a potential suspect without expecting anyone to tick all (or even most) of the boxes. We know them well. An experience of childhood trauma, abuse or neglect, violent behaviour from a young age onwards (like the ill treatment or torture of animals for example), criminality of any kind, an issue with women in general or prostitutes specifically (or even just a connection to prostitutes). Knife use, medical/anatomical knowledge, an unsettled personal life or maybe even a reason for the cessation of the murders (the reader can choose at which point they feel that these murders ceased). Maybe issues connected to drink or drugs. Charles Cross ticks none of these boxes although of course it has to be stated that this fact alone cannot be used to eliminate him. Being fair and balanced has to work both ways and we have to acknowledge the gaps in our knowledge about this man’s private life (as is the case with many other suspects too for that matter) so he may indeed have ticked some of those boxes but we just don’t know it given the level information that we currently have. All that we can say then is that there is absolutely nothing about Cross as a person or about his life in general that we are currently aware of that gives us the slightest cause for suspicion about him. This leaves us with no choice but to look closer at his words and actions; what he both said and did on August 31st in Bucks Row and just after, taking care at all times to acknowledge what is fact and what is conjecture.
Hold on, I hear some of you say - why are you calling him Charles Cross when his birth name was Charles Lechmere? Well, I’m just following the evidence. At the inquest he gave his name as Charles Allen Cross. If he was the same man who knocked down and killed a child with his cart (which seems likely) then he also used the name Charles Cross in 1876. As far as I’m concerned, and as far as the evidence tells us, Charles Cross was the name that he wished to be known by; it was the name that he used in 1888 and as the man is innocent until proven guilty I am simply respecting his wish. After all, I wouldn’t insist on using a woman’s maiden name if it was made clear that she wished to be known by her married name (or indeed vice versa) would I? So for me, in 1888 at least, he was Charles Allen Cross.
The first detail of this event is one that at first might appear trivial to some but it has had far reaching consequences in regard to how Cross is perceived as a suspect. It is just one word but it is one word that has played a huge part in the convincing of some (including Barrister James Scobie in the documentary The Missing Evidence) that Charles Cross is worth considering as a suspect and I also believe that it has led directly to some becoming convinced of his guilt. That word is ‘about.’ The majority of reports state that Cross said that he had left his house to go to work at ‘about 3.30’ that morning; so he was estimating the time. None of us know what allowed him to get up in time to get to work roughly on time every morning. It’s possible of course that he might have been ‘knocked up’ in the absence of alarm clocks and although the Constable’s that performed this task were on a timed beat no one could have expected them to arrive at exactly the same time every day; they had other duties of course. It’s also a fact that workers weren’t requesting an alarm call at The Ritz, so that someone requiring the service would have to make do with a Constable’s closest time of passing his house, leaving him having to estimate how long had passed between being knocked up and his leaving the house. So when did Cross actually leave his house? There is only one honest answer to this question and that is that we don’t know; we can’t possibly know. It is reasonable, of course, to assume that Cross would not have been too far out in his estimate, so 3.15 for example would have been unlikely so I would suggest that it would be reasonable to allow for a plus or minus of five minutes which would have meant that it is very likely that he left his house at some point between 3.25 and 3.35. Now a reader might say “but if he left his house at 3.25 then he would have had enough time to have killed Polly Nichols and there would have been an unaccounted for gap.” To which the only answer could only be “absolutely correct” of course. This has never been disputed because, as far as I’m aware, no one has ever suggested insufficient time as a means of eliminating him as a suspect. Cross could have left his house at 2.00 for all that we know. The problem arises, as we all must realise, when it is stated as a fact that there was an unexplained gap of time for Cross that morning. Not that their ‘might’ have been a gap of time or that the possibility of a gap existed but that there definitely was one. If this had been the case then no one could fail to view Cross with at least some suspicion whether an armchair detective or a highly respected Barrister. Alarm bells would ring for us all. So was there provably a mysterious gap….absolutely not; we don’t require a detective or a barrister to tell us that. Just rewind to the beginning of this particular paragraph because it’s that word ‘about’ that is what it is all….about. A word that was omitted from the book Cutting Point (in the section specifically dealing with the ‘gap’) and from the documentary The Missing Evidence (in the section specifically dealing with the ‘gap’) Perhaps the documentary should have been called The Missing Word instead?
So we can reasonably suggest that, if he was being truthful, Charles Cross left home some time between 3.25 and 3.35. The next question to consider concerns how long it would have taken him to walk from his house at 22 Doveton Street to Bucks Row? The honest answer? It’s the same again I’m afraid, we just don’t know and so we can only estimate based on modern day recreations. Christer Holmgren walked the route and arrived at a walk time of seven minutes. In 2014 researcher David Barrat also walked the route telling us that he went, “down Wickford Street, into Cephas Street, then across Cambridge Heath Road, through Hedlam Street, across Collywood Street, into Ceron Street then Brady Street and finally into Durward Street. Walking at a brisk pace brought me to the barrier at 6 mins 44 seconds, so I would probably have got to the murder site at about 7 mins, very close to Christer's timings in the documentary.” So no real issue with the 7 minute estimation then. David described this walk as being undertaken at a brisk pace which he further described as a “decent aerobic workout.” For the sake of thoroughness he then did the walk at a slower, steadier pace but by no means at tortoise speed. This walk took David 9 minutes and 50 seconds to complete. So how can we decide how long Charles Cross would have taken? How fast was his normal walking speed compared to David’s or Christer’s? How tall was he and how long was his stride length compared to David’s or Christer’s? What was his fitness level compared to David’s or Christer’s? We can answer none of these questions therefore we cannot state the duration of his walk with anything approaching certainty. Or at least we shouldn’t if we are aiming for an accurate and fair representation of what occurred that night. The best that we can say is that it would have taken between 7 and 10 minutes although it’s fair to say that 7 minutes is probably likelier than 10 considering that he was going to work. So it could have been 7 minutes or 7 and a half minutes or 8 minutes or 8 and a half minutes or even 9. We just don’t know and all are eminently possible and we should be wary of any attempt to skew an estimation one way or another simply because it favours a particular viewpoint.
So the truth (and we can all agree that this is of paramount importance) is that we cannot possibly know what time Charles Cross arrived in Bucks Row that morning. Any claim to the contrary would be to perpetuate a very obvious falsehood. Boring maybe, but true. We have an estimate time that he left the house plus an estimated journey time and you cannot create a ‘known’ from two ‘unknowns.’
In Robert Paul’s statement to Lloyd’s Weekly published on September 2nd he said, “It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row.” How does he come to be so exact? We have no way of knowing how he had arrived at the time so how much confidence should we place in this statement? All that we can do is to look at the rest of this statement and the various versions of his inquest testimony and compare them to what others said, for us to make a judgment. According to Paul, in the Lloyd’s Weekly statement, after checking the body he, “…went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not.” Notice the use of ‘I.’ Where is Cross in this scenario? Paul appears to almost airbrush from the story the man that actually discovered the body. It hardly creates the impression particularly reliable witness does it. In the Illustrated Police News (reporting on Paul’s inquest testimony given two weeks later) tells us that he left home that morning at “about a quarter to four…” There is that word ‘about’ again. The ‘exactly’ probably disappeared after Paul had more time to think about it. The Times inquest report confirms that Paul was indeed estimating the time. Strong is the desire in some to have Cross leaving his house at exactly 3.30 and Paul reaching Bucks Row at exactly 3.45 because it helps to create the impression of a gap, but to do this we have to turn one unknown into a known and then favour one man’s estimated time over the stated times of three Constable’s on timed beats. Dr. Llewellyn’s name is also used in attempts to shape the evidence but we know that Llewellyn said that he: “was called to Buck's-row about four o'clock.” It should surprise no one how often we here the word ‘about’ or ‘around’ in this case because people often resorted to estimations. He was alerted by PC.Thain who was originally seen by PC. Neill and called to give assistance. Thain said that this was at 3.45 so that by the time that he went for Dr. Llewellyn it was possibly around 3.46. A 5 minute walk would have had him knocking at the Doctors door at around 3.51 (or…around 4.00, as Llewellyn said at the inquest) Bearing in mind again that most clocks weren’t synchronised so that, as an example, PC. Neill’s 3.45 might have been 3.50 by Dr. Llewellyn’s watch.
It cannot be overstressed about the problems of timekeeping in the Victorian period. We find many questions on timings in this case and research has shown how Victorians struggled, even when using the railways, with different clocks showing different times and when we combine this with the knowledge that not everyone owned watches or clocks it becomes of paramount importance that we make allowances when it comes to stated times. Might Robert Paul have seen a clock on his way to work which was five minutes fast? Possibly. Might he have known how long it took him to walk but he was five minutes out in the time that he’d set out? Absolutely. To assume that all clocks and watches were accurate and that they were all synchronised is to find fertile ground for mystery and falsehood.
So, we have Cross leaving his house at an estimated time. We have Paul (in his sworn statement) arriving at an estimated time and none of the police times causing us any issues at all. So what time did the Coroner believe that the body was found? During his summing up he stated, “The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data.” So before 3.45 but not much before. It sounds about right to me but of course this doesn’t suit those actively seeking to create a suspicious gap of time. Their highly individualistic take on the English language assumes that ‘not much before can only mean a minute or so but sadly that same English language scuppers their very obvious ploy. Look at what Baxter said again, “The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data.” Those looking for a gap use Paul’s ‘exactly 3.45’ and the time that Llewellyn was informed (even though it was an approximate time). So how can two sources be describes as ‘so many independent data’? Clearly they cannot. His statement makes sense however if he was using the three Constables, Charles Cross and Robert Paul combined to give an overall estimate. Baxter is very obviously saying that the body was found at around 3.40 - 3.41 because PC. Mizen stated that the two had met him at 3.45 and Paul had said that no more than 4 minutes had elapsed between there setting out and their meeting with the Constable. So we know clearly what Baxter was talking about and it was an approximation of 3.40 - 3.41.
There is no other way of putting it but the ‘gap’ is a very deliberate invention. If someone asks - could there have been a gap then the answer is yes, it’s possible. If someone asks - was there provably a gap then the answer is a conclusive no and that is a vital distinction that has to be made but it isn’t always done, leading to a false impression that is often created. Those supporting Cross have attempted turn this gap into a fact to make Cross look suspicious. Remove it (as we have to) and what remains? A man that found a body just like so many others have done.
It’s perhaps strange, but if Cross had indeed committed this murder then he would have had to have left his house when he said that he did ‘about 3.30.’ What are the alternatives? That he left home much earlier but left it until twenty minutes before being due at work before taking his victim to a spot that he passed at around the same time six days a week? I don’t think that anyone could support a proposition that was so obviously unlikely. That he left home earlier and stood in Bucks Row on the off chance of a victim turning up? I think that we could all agree that this can safely be dismissed too. So it can only have been that he hadn’t intended to kill that morning but when he saw Nichols he couldn’t help himself and luckily for him he just happened to have his knife on him. So if Cross left his house at say 3.26 and got to Bucks Row at 3.34 and the murder took around two minutes (accepted by all) then we would have a huge question, “why the hell was he still there when Paul arrived around 6 or 7 minutes later (or 11 minutes if we, like pro-Cross theorists, accept Paul’s time)? So the earlier that Cross got to Bucks Row it makes him even less likely to have been the killer.
All of this brings us to our next point. Why would a guilty Cross, bloodied knife secreted somewhere about his person and with the darkened streets ahead of him, elect to stand around and wait for a complete stranger to show up; one over whom he had absolutely no control? The answer of course is an obvious one, he wouldn’t have. It would hardly have taken a criminal genius to realise the enormous and potentially fatal risk of remaining in situ due to the certainty of a meeting with a Constable at some point in the very near future and this was a man concealing a bloodied knife and who very possibly might have had blood on him as he’d have had no opportunity to check himself over and then have a clean up. Cross had ample opportunity to escape so why would he not take it? There would have still be time for Paul to reach the body, stop, perhaps check it over, perhaps discover the wounds before doing what? Is it likely that he’d have chased through those dark streets after a maniac with a big knife (even given the extremely unlikeliness of ever finding which way he went and then catching up with him) There was also two other possibilities of course, that Paul wouldn’t see the body or that he would see the body but not want to get involved and so just hurried on to work. Whatever the alternative, staying where he was, knife in pocket, would have been an act of almost suicidal stupidity. Of all of the men and women over the years who, while outdoors, discovered the body of a victim of a serial killer, how many of them turned out to have been that serial killer? At this point in time the count is precisely zero. So as it currently stands Charles Cross isn’t just a rarity, he appears to have been entirely unique in the annals of serial murder. Really? We might also ask how many serial killers do we know who killed a victim outdoors no more than twenty minutes before he was due to clock on at work. Again, so far it’s a none. So we can add another level of unlikelihood. And then, how many serial killers have killed at a spot that they passed at the same time six days a week? Again, as far as we know, it’s another zero. Surely this is an important question - How many unlikely’s does a suspect have to achieve before we admit that enough is enough? And if we can change an ‘unlikely’ or two for an ‘entirely unique’ then where do we stand. When do we all get the message?
There was another issue which needs confronting. That a guilty Cross finished his work and then went to the middle of the road to wait for whoever was the first person to arrive isn’t worth a moments consideration of course, so he could only have moved to the middle of the road after hearing Paul approaching. It also appears certain that we can dismiss the idea of Paul somehow sneaking up on Cross in that dark, echoing street. Robert Paul was trudging to work and we know that he didn’t suddenly appear from a side-street. We also know that when lighting is poor and shadows are present it’s often the case that Person A can see Person B but Person B cannot see Person A. Or vice versa. It’s also the case that one person cannot be certain that he or she is visible or not; or at what point they become visible. Why then would Cross take the huge, potentially suicidal risk of walking from the body to the middle of the road (where Paul first saw him - and certainly not ‘crouching over the body’ as some like to falsely suggest) when he could not have known whether Paul could see him doing so or not? The consequences would have been obvious if Cross had said that he hadn’t been near the body and yet Paul went on to explain that when he first saw him he was walking away from the body to the middle of the road. He might just as well have saved time by applying the noose himself. No, we have to apply reason and common sense. Cross never went over to the body until Robert Paul arrived. This is what the evidence tells us and this has to be favoured over imaginative fiction.
As we can see, simple common sense and reason tells us that by waiting for the arrival of a complete stranger over whom he had no control or influence Charles Cross was behaving exactly as an innocent man would behave in that situation. The title ‘Phantom Killer’ is one that is often used to describe a killer who fled the scene before Cross arrived. Clearly this is a term of derision but it exposes a very real level of desperation in those seeking to propose Cross as our killer because they are basically saying that a Mr X that we can put a name to is a more likely suspect than a Mr Y that we cannot name. The following question is therefore an obvious one, which one is the likelier ripper - a named Mr X who acts like a witness and sticks around to talk to a stranger or an unnamed Mr Y who flees the scene acting as serial killers always do…without fail? So Charles Cross or our Phantom Killer? I’ll go with the Phantom Killer every day of the week. He was our killer. Cross found the body, like hundreds of thousands of other people have done over the course of history.
Not only have strenuous efforts been made to create a gap to make Charles Cross appear suspicious we have also seen an effort to make it appear that the medical evidence points to Cross over and above any other suspect when it really does nothing of the kind. All that the medical evidence tells us is that Polly Nichols hadn’t been dead for long by the time that Charles Cross found her body. That’s all. No specific time has been stated or suggested by any doctor or medical expert and not one has, or will, come forward to say that the medical evidence favours Cross as the killer over someone who killed Polly Nichols just before he found her body…because this isn’t what the evidence tells us. The evidence certainly doesn’t eliminate Cross of course but it certainly doesn’t favour him over someone killing Polly a short time before his arrival.
We might at this point ask a very obvious question of Cross the ripper. If he could cunningly came up with the Mizen Scam why couldn’t he have spotted the childishly obvious “I saw something on the ground in the shadows up ahead and then someone stood up and ran away. I’m pretty sure it was a man. I then went over and found…etc” It would hardly have taken a Professor Moriarty to come up with this kind of story. He could even just have said that he’d heard someone running away but no, apparently this was just too ingenious a lie for our Carman. He was only occasionally devious. Devious when it suits those favouring his guilt.
Much has been made of the fact that, at the inquest, our ‘suspect’ didn’t use his birth name, which some see as suspicious or even as indicative of guilt. Too much time and far too many words have been wasted on this issue as some see it as a kind of “aha!” moment when it’s nothing of the kind. Put simply, the only way that Cross, giving his stepfather’s name rather than his birth name, would have been acting suspiciously would have been if it could be shown that he was trying to avoid police attention - which he clearly wasn’t. He gave his place of work, his correct forenames and his correct address. As a piece of supposed subterfuge a researcher would be hard pressed to find a worse one in the annals of crime. No, we have to let common sense prevail and accept that this is another non-issue which has been magnified to create an aura of suspicion against the man who found Polly’s body.
Another issue that is regularly used to try and narrow down the time of death in favour of a guilty Cross is Robert Paul’s suggestion that he may have detected movement from the body. In the The Times report of the inquest it is said of Paul that: “While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement.” This is hardly evidence that a woman who had possibly been strangled, and who had definitely had her throat cut down to her backbone followed by some abdominal mutilations, was still alive. The use of the word ‘fancied’ clearly implies uncertainty and in most reports Cross states that Paul told Mizen that the woman was dead and Paul testified after Cross so he had ample opportunity to point out any error, but he didn’t. And in his Lloyd’s Weekly statement Paul again stated that he believed that the woman had been dead. It appears therefore that Paul imagined some slight movement as he was in the act of pulling her skirts down. And then realised that he must have been mistaken.
The final issue is regarding one of those situations that we regularly find in true crime cases, two conflicting testimonies. Such discrepancies, though commonplace, are fertile ground for anyone wishing to view a situation in a suspicious light and so caution and common sense is required more than ever. I am talking of course about the conversation that was had between Charles Cross, Robert Paul and PC. Jonas Mizen a very few minutes after the discovery of the body. In The Times we have Mizen saying that Cross simply said he was wanted by a policeman, and did not say anything about a murder having been committed. The Times though reports Cross as stating that: “They went to Baker’s-row, saw the last witness, and told him there was a woman lying down in Buck’s-row on the broad of her back. Witness also said he believed she was dead or drunk, while the other man stated he believed her to be dead.” In his Lloyd’s interview Robert Paul complained that Mizen continued with his ‘knocking up’ duties so it’s perhaps not difficult to see how words may have been misheard or misinterpreted. Mizen might have only heard Cross saying that the woman was lying in Bucks Row along with the word ‘drunk’ instead of ‘dead or drunk’ especially if he wasn’t paying full attention. The fact that Mizen thought that Cross had told him that he was wanted by a policeman was almost certainly a simple misinterpretation of Cross telling him that he was ‘wanted in Bucks Row’ or that ‘his presence was required,’ and when Mizen arrived in Bucks Row and saw PC. Neill there it merely confirmed his misinterpretation of what Cross had actually said. The main thing that we have to remember of course is that if Cross lied then Paul must have been in on the lie too because he was standing there next him and this, of course, is where the now famous Mizen Scam comes in. If you need to subvert some evidence that doesn’t favour your theory a little creative fiction is required.
The Mizen Scam was created to defend something which according to its creator didn’t require defending in the first place - the suggestion that it wasn’t at all suspicious for a guilty Charles Cross, bloodied knife tucked away somewhere on his person and with every opportunity of a choice of easy escapes, to stand and wait for the arrival of a complete stranger. We know this would have ended with a potentially disastrous meeting with a Constable so the ‘scam’ provides a way for Cross to get past this meeting without the risk of being detained; the thinking being that if Cross claimed to have been sent by a Constable in Bucks Row then Mizen would assume that he’d already been exonerated by that other officer. If it was reasonable for him to pass up the chance of escape in the first place then why the need for a scam? Good question - maybe it might better be described as a back up but can we really believe that Cross came up with it as Paul was approaching which allowed him calmly to stay put? Or did he just stay put for no reason and then come up with the scam as he was walking with Paul? Either way the very obvious question is this - how could Charles Cross have had even the slightest level of confidence that he would be able to speak to a Constable alone when he had a complete stranger with him over whom he had absolutely no influence? The answer is as obvious as it is simple of course. He wouldn’t have. A bit of imagination in crime solving is necessary but it has to be within reason. The Mizen Scam is a bit of imagination which doesn’t fit the evidence in any way. We can safely dismiss it for what it is - a construct to keep Cross ‘in the game.’
So what is left that can be construed as ‘suspicious’ behaviour by this man on his way to work? There is of course, the issue of ‘the prop’. Robert Paul suggested that they give Polly a prop, which meant sitting her up, but Cross said no to this. How does this make Cross appear guilty I hear you ask? Well, the suggestion is that he felt that this might have resulted in the throat wounds being revealed (which the two hadn’t seen due to the darkness) Of course one has to suggest that not hanging around and calling over a complete stranger would have been a far safer option for the concealment of wounds from Paul, in fact I would go so far as to call that particular option entirely foolproof, but we can move on. Firstly, is an unwillingness to handle a corpse (or possible corpse) such a strange thing? How many of us might have been equally reluctant? It’s a simple fact of life that many people react differently when faced with a dead body. Secondly, as the two weren’t absolutely certain that she was dead how could they have known that she wouldn’t just wake up. Cross may have been concerned that she might have woken up and started screaming when she saw two strange men leaning over her as she lay in the street? What kind of false accusations might a drunken woman have thrown around? Lastly of course, although it might sound callous, the priority of these two men was to get to work on time. This was 1888. A boss in a foul mood could sack someone for the most trivial of transgressions with no hope of tribunals or compensation and there would have been no signing on and little or no chance of walking straight into another job. Families to feed, bills to pay. Eviction, starvation, the workhouse. Times were so different then so it’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking how callous it appeared to put getting to work in front of helping a woman lying in the street but a woman (or a man) lying in the street would come a very distant second to those other considerations. Cross’s refusal was entirely understandable and I suspect that Paul would have needed little convincing to leave her and move on to work, with the intention of informing a PC on the way being enough for him to have considered that he’d ’done his bit.’
So let’s take a breath, step back, look at and sum up Charles Cross as a suspect.
Does he tick any of the usual boxes that are employed to assess suspects? We must surely agree that the answer to that is no.
Does the evidence prove that there was a suspicious gap of time which surely accounts for 75% of the case against him and was the only reason that James Scobie gave him the time of day in the first place? Clearly the answer is a resounding no.
Was he discovered anywhere that he shouldn’t have been and engaged in anything that he shouldn’t have been engaged in? Again it’s another no. He was on his way to work.
Was there anything at all suspicious about his behaviour in Bucks Row? No, he acted entirely like a man who found a body on his way to work.
Was there anything to raise any alarms about his exchange with PC. Mizen? Absolutely not. He couldn’t have lied because he had a complete stranger standing next to him who he certainly couldn’t have relied on to support any lie. So the very minor misunderstanding was exactly that. A very minor misunderstanding.
When someone walks like a witness, talks like a witness, looks like a witness and acts like a witness we are left with no choice but to admit that this is exactly what they were…a witness. Charles Cross was fairly obviously an innocent man.
…
It was only relatively recently that I arrived at the conclusion that something a bit strange; unique even, was occurring in ripperology. I was certainly slow to pick up on it but that can be put that down to the fact that I take no part in social media which is where much of this ‘strangeness’ was and is occurring. The subject that we are all interested in has always had people favouring this or that suspect and debates continue over the likelihood of X being the ripper or of how Y is a much likelier suspect than Z. I have my own list of ‘likeliest’ suspects, as I assume do most people, but I wouldn’t risk a significant amount of my own money against any one of them being guilty. What we are now seeing though is a named suspect with what appears to be almost a propaganda machine behind him with some ‘supporters’ talking as if the case is now solved. We have a ‘suspect’ who is supported with the zeal that a fan supports a football team. I get occasional messages where someone will say to me: “you will never guess what they are claiming points to his guilt now”? People have even suggested, for example, that the fact that Cross attended the inquest in his working clothes was somehow indicative of guilt. We are in a constant state of “whatever next?” Why has such an extraordinary amount of time and effort gone into trying to make this person, against whom there is not a smidgeon of evidence, look like a suspect and why have so many people looked at this effort and accepted him a good suspect? So much so that they talk of him almost as if he had been caught on CCTV killing Polly Nichols. Is it simply a case of wanting to be on a ‘winning’ side? Or is it, as in the case of The Five, a situation where a group of newcomers to the subject leap on the chance to denigrate people who they regard the ‘old guard’? To put the boot in as it were? Let’s take a look at this alleged ‘suspect’ and try a see if there’s anything there behind all of the bluster and the almost religious zeal.
We all tend to look for at least some of the usual characteristics in a potential suspect without expecting anyone to tick all (or even most) of the boxes. We know them well. An experience of childhood trauma, abuse or neglect, violent behaviour from a young age onwards (like the ill treatment or torture of animals for example), criminality of any kind, an issue with women in general or prostitutes specifically (or even just a connection to prostitutes). Knife use, medical/anatomical knowledge, an unsettled personal life or maybe even a reason for the cessation of the murders (the reader can choose at which point they feel that these murders ceased). Maybe issues connected to drink or drugs. Charles Cross ticks none of these boxes although of course it has to be stated that this fact alone cannot be used to eliminate him. Being fair and balanced has to work both ways and we have to acknowledge the gaps in our knowledge about this man’s private life (as is the case with many other suspects too for that matter) so he may indeed have ticked some of those boxes but we just don’t know it given the level information that we currently have. All that we can say then is that there is absolutely nothing about Cross as a person or about his life in general that we are currently aware of that gives us the slightest cause for suspicion about him. This leaves us with no choice but to look closer at his words and actions; what he both said and did on August 31st in Bucks Row and just after, taking care at all times to acknowledge what is fact and what is conjecture.
Hold on, I hear some of you say - why are you calling him Charles Cross when his birth name was Charles Lechmere? Well, I’m just following the evidence. At the inquest he gave his name as Charles Allen Cross. If he was the same man who knocked down and killed a child with his cart (which seems likely) then he also used the name Charles Cross in 1876. As far as I’m concerned, and as far as the evidence tells us, Charles Cross was the name that he wished to be known by; it was the name that he used in 1888 and as the man is innocent until proven guilty I am simply respecting his wish. After all, I wouldn’t insist on using a woman’s maiden name if it was made clear that she wished to be known by her married name (or indeed vice versa) would I? So for me, in 1888 at least, he was Charles Allen Cross.
The first detail of this event is one that at first might appear trivial to some but it has had far reaching consequences in regard to how Cross is perceived as a suspect. It is just one word but it is one word that has played a huge part in the convincing of some (including Barrister James Scobie in the documentary The Missing Evidence) that Charles Cross is worth considering as a suspect and I also believe that it has led directly to some becoming convinced of his guilt. That word is ‘about.’ The majority of reports state that Cross said that he had left his house to go to work at ‘about 3.30’ that morning; so he was estimating the time. None of us know what allowed him to get up in time to get to work roughly on time every morning. It’s possible of course that he might have been ‘knocked up’ in the absence of alarm clocks and although the Constable’s that performed this task were on a timed beat no one could have expected them to arrive at exactly the same time every day; they had other duties of course. It’s also a fact that workers weren’t requesting an alarm call at The Ritz, so that someone requiring the service would have to make do with a Constable’s closest time of passing his house, leaving him having to estimate how long had passed between being knocked up and his leaving the house. So when did Cross actually leave his house? There is only one honest answer to this question and that is that we don’t know; we can’t possibly know. It is reasonable, of course, to assume that Cross would not have been too far out in his estimate, so 3.15 for example would have been unlikely so I would suggest that it would be reasonable to allow for a plus or minus of five minutes which would have meant that it is very likely that he left his house at some point between 3.25 and 3.35. Now a reader might say “but if he left his house at 3.25 then he would have had enough time to have killed Polly Nichols and there would have been an unaccounted for gap.” To which the only answer could only be “absolutely correct” of course. This has never been disputed because, as far as I’m aware, no one has ever suggested insufficient time as a means of eliminating him as a suspect. Cross could have left his house at 2.00 for all that we know. The problem arises, as we all must realise, when it is stated as a fact that there was an unexplained gap of time for Cross that morning. Not that their ‘might’ have been a gap of time or that the possibility of a gap existed but that there definitely was one. If this had been the case then no one could fail to view Cross with at least some suspicion whether an armchair detective or a highly respected Barrister. Alarm bells would ring for us all. So was there provably a mysterious gap….absolutely not; we don’t require a detective or a barrister to tell us that. Just rewind to the beginning of this particular paragraph because it’s that word ‘about’ that is what it is all….about. A word that was omitted from the book Cutting Point (in the section specifically dealing with the ‘gap’) and from the documentary The Missing Evidence (in the section specifically dealing with the ‘gap’) Perhaps the documentary should have been called The Missing Word instead?
So we can reasonably suggest that, if he was being truthful, Charles Cross left home some time between 3.25 and 3.35. The next question to consider concerns how long it would have taken him to walk from his house at 22 Doveton Street to Bucks Row? The honest answer? It’s the same again I’m afraid, we just don’t know and so we can only estimate based on modern day recreations. Christer Holmgren walked the route and arrived at a walk time of seven minutes. In 2014 researcher David Barrat also walked the route telling us that he went, “down Wickford Street, into Cephas Street, then across Cambridge Heath Road, through Hedlam Street, across Collywood Street, into Ceron Street then Brady Street and finally into Durward Street. Walking at a brisk pace brought me to the barrier at 6 mins 44 seconds, so I would probably have got to the murder site at about 7 mins, very close to Christer's timings in the documentary.” So no real issue with the 7 minute estimation then. David described this walk as being undertaken at a brisk pace which he further described as a “decent aerobic workout.” For the sake of thoroughness he then did the walk at a slower, steadier pace but by no means at tortoise speed. This walk took David 9 minutes and 50 seconds to complete. So how can we decide how long Charles Cross would have taken? How fast was his normal walking speed compared to David’s or Christer’s? How tall was he and how long was his stride length compared to David’s or Christer’s? What was his fitness level compared to David’s or Christer’s? We can answer none of these questions therefore we cannot state the duration of his walk with anything approaching certainty. Or at least we shouldn’t if we are aiming for an accurate and fair representation of what occurred that night. The best that we can say is that it would have taken between 7 and 10 minutes although it’s fair to say that 7 minutes is probably likelier than 10 considering that he was going to work. So it could have been 7 minutes or 7 and a half minutes or 8 minutes or 8 and a half minutes or even 9. We just don’t know and all are eminently possible and we should be wary of any attempt to skew an estimation one way or another simply because it favours a particular viewpoint.
So the truth (and we can all agree that this is of paramount importance) is that we cannot possibly know what time Charles Cross arrived in Bucks Row that morning. Any claim to the contrary would be to perpetuate a very obvious falsehood. Boring maybe, but true. We have an estimate time that he left the house plus an estimated journey time and you cannot create a ‘known’ from two ‘unknowns.’
In Robert Paul’s statement to Lloyd’s Weekly published on September 2nd he said, “It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row.” How does he come to be so exact? We have no way of knowing how he had arrived at the time so how much confidence should we place in this statement? All that we can do is to look at the rest of this statement and the various versions of his inquest testimony and compare them to what others said, for us to make a judgment. According to Paul, in the Lloyd’s Weekly statement, after checking the body he, “…went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not.” Notice the use of ‘I.’ Where is Cross in this scenario? Paul appears to almost airbrush from the story the man that actually discovered the body. It hardly creates the impression particularly reliable witness does it. In the Illustrated Police News (reporting on Paul’s inquest testimony given two weeks later) tells us that he left home that morning at “about a quarter to four…” There is that word ‘about’ again. The ‘exactly’ probably disappeared after Paul had more time to think about it. The Times inquest report confirms that Paul was indeed estimating the time. Strong is the desire in some to have Cross leaving his house at exactly 3.30 and Paul reaching Bucks Row at exactly 3.45 because it helps to create the impression of a gap, but to do this we have to turn one unknown into a known and then favour one man’s estimated time over the stated times of three Constable’s on timed beats. Dr. Llewellyn’s name is also used in attempts to shape the evidence but we know that Llewellyn said that he: “was called to Buck's-row about four o'clock.” It should surprise no one how often we here the word ‘about’ or ‘around’ in this case because people often resorted to estimations. He was alerted by PC.Thain who was originally seen by PC. Neill and called to give assistance. Thain said that this was at 3.45 so that by the time that he went for Dr. Llewellyn it was possibly around 3.46. A 5 minute walk would have had him knocking at the Doctors door at around 3.51 (or…around 4.00, as Llewellyn said at the inquest) Bearing in mind again that most clocks weren’t synchronised so that, as an example, PC. Neill’s 3.45 might have been 3.50 by Dr. Llewellyn’s watch.
It cannot be overstressed about the problems of timekeeping in the Victorian period. We find many questions on timings in this case and research has shown how Victorians struggled, even when using the railways, with different clocks showing different times and when we combine this with the knowledge that not everyone owned watches or clocks it becomes of paramount importance that we make allowances when it comes to stated times. Might Robert Paul have seen a clock on his way to work which was five minutes fast? Possibly. Might he have known how long it took him to walk but he was five minutes out in the time that he’d set out? Absolutely. To assume that all clocks and watches were accurate and that they were all synchronised is to find fertile ground for mystery and falsehood.
So, we have Cross leaving his house at an estimated time. We have Paul (in his sworn statement) arriving at an estimated time and none of the police times causing us any issues at all. So what time did the Coroner believe that the body was found? During his summing up he stated, “The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data.” So before 3.45 but not much before. It sounds about right to me but of course this doesn’t suit those actively seeking to create a suspicious gap of time. Their highly individualistic take on the English language assumes that ‘not much before can only mean a minute or so but sadly that same English language scuppers their very obvious ploy. Look at what Baxter said again, “The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data.” Those looking for a gap use Paul’s ‘exactly 3.45’ and the time that Llewellyn was informed (even though it was an approximate time). So how can two sources be describes as ‘so many independent data’? Clearly they cannot. His statement makes sense however if he was using the three Constables, Charles Cross and Robert Paul combined to give an overall estimate. Baxter is very obviously saying that the body was found at around 3.40 - 3.41 because PC. Mizen stated that the two had met him at 3.45 and Paul had said that no more than 4 minutes had elapsed between there setting out and their meeting with the Constable. So we know clearly what Baxter was talking about and it was an approximation of 3.40 - 3.41.
There is no other way of putting it but the ‘gap’ is a very deliberate invention. If someone asks - could there have been a gap then the answer is yes, it’s possible. If someone asks - was there provably a gap then the answer is a conclusive no and that is a vital distinction that has to be made but it isn’t always done, leading to a false impression that is often created. Those supporting Cross have attempted turn this gap into a fact to make Cross look suspicious. Remove it (as we have to) and what remains? A man that found a body just like so many others have done.
It’s perhaps strange, but if Cross had indeed committed this murder then he would have had to have left his house when he said that he did ‘about 3.30.’ What are the alternatives? That he left home much earlier but left it until twenty minutes before being due at work before taking his victim to a spot that he passed at around the same time six days a week? I don’t think that anyone could support a proposition that was so obviously unlikely. That he left home earlier and stood in Bucks Row on the off chance of a victim turning up? I think that we could all agree that this can safely be dismissed too. So it can only have been that he hadn’t intended to kill that morning but when he saw Nichols he couldn’t help himself and luckily for him he just happened to have his knife on him. So if Cross left his house at say 3.26 and got to Bucks Row at 3.34 and the murder took around two minutes (accepted by all) then we would have a huge question, “why the hell was he still there when Paul arrived around 6 or 7 minutes later (or 11 minutes if we, like pro-Cross theorists, accept Paul’s time)? So the earlier that Cross got to Bucks Row it makes him even less likely to have been the killer.
All of this brings us to our next point. Why would a guilty Cross, bloodied knife secreted somewhere about his person and with the darkened streets ahead of him, elect to stand around and wait for a complete stranger to show up; one over whom he had absolutely no control? The answer of course is an obvious one, he wouldn’t have. It would hardly have taken a criminal genius to realise the enormous and potentially fatal risk of remaining in situ due to the certainty of a meeting with a Constable at some point in the very near future and this was a man concealing a bloodied knife and who very possibly might have had blood on him as he’d have had no opportunity to check himself over and then have a clean up. Cross had ample opportunity to escape so why would he not take it? There would have still be time for Paul to reach the body, stop, perhaps check it over, perhaps discover the wounds before doing what? Is it likely that he’d have chased through those dark streets after a maniac with a big knife (even given the extremely unlikeliness of ever finding which way he went and then catching up with him) There was also two other possibilities of course, that Paul wouldn’t see the body or that he would see the body but not want to get involved and so just hurried on to work. Whatever the alternative, staying where he was, knife in pocket, would have been an act of almost suicidal stupidity. Of all of the men and women over the years who, while outdoors, discovered the body of a victim of a serial killer, how many of them turned out to have been that serial killer? At this point in time the count is precisely zero. So as it currently stands Charles Cross isn’t just a rarity, he appears to have been entirely unique in the annals of serial murder. Really? We might also ask how many serial killers do we know who killed a victim outdoors no more than twenty minutes before he was due to clock on at work. Again, so far it’s a none. So we can add another level of unlikelihood. And then, how many serial killers have killed at a spot that they passed at the same time six days a week? Again, as far as we know, it’s another zero. Surely this is an important question - How many unlikely’s does a suspect have to achieve before we admit that enough is enough? And if we can change an ‘unlikely’ or two for an ‘entirely unique’ then where do we stand. When do we all get the message?
There was another issue which needs confronting. That a guilty Cross finished his work and then went to the middle of the road to wait for whoever was the first person to arrive isn’t worth a moments consideration of course, so he could only have moved to the middle of the road after hearing Paul approaching. It also appears certain that we can dismiss the idea of Paul somehow sneaking up on Cross in that dark, echoing street. Robert Paul was trudging to work and we know that he didn’t suddenly appear from a side-street. We also know that when lighting is poor and shadows are present it’s often the case that Person A can see Person B but Person B cannot see Person A. Or vice versa. It’s also the case that one person cannot be certain that he or she is visible or not; or at what point they become visible. Why then would Cross take the huge, potentially suicidal risk of walking from the body to the middle of the road (where Paul first saw him - and certainly not ‘crouching over the body’ as some like to falsely suggest) when he could not have known whether Paul could see him doing so or not? The consequences would have been obvious if Cross had said that he hadn’t been near the body and yet Paul went on to explain that when he first saw him he was walking away from the body to the middle of the road. He might just as well have saved time by applying the noose himself. No, we have to apply reason and common sense. Cross never went over to the body until Robert Paul arrived. This is what the evidence tells us and this has to be favoured over imaginative fiction.
As we can see, simple common sense and reason tells us that by waiting for the arrival of a complete stranger over whom he had no control or influence Charles Cross was behaving exactly as an innocent man would behave in that situation. The title ‘Phantom Killer’ is one that is often used to describe a killer who fled the scene before Cross arrived. Clearly this is a term of derision but it exposes a very real level of desperation in those seeking to propose Cross as our killer because they are basically saying that a Mr X that we can put a name to is a more likely suspect than a Mr Y that we cannot name. The following question is therefore an obvious one, which one is the likelier ripper - a named Mr X who acts like a witness and sticks around to talk to a stranger or an unnamed Mr Y who flees the scene acting as serial killers always do…without fail? So Charles Cross or our Phantom Killer? I’ll go with the Phantom Killer every day of the week. He was our killer. Cross found the body, like hundreds of thousands of other people have done over the course of history.
Not only have strenuous efforts been made to create a gap to make Charles Cross appear suspicious we have also seen an effort to make it appear that the medical evidence points to Cross over and above any other suspect when it really does nothing of the kind. All that the medical evidence tells us is that Polly Nichols hadn’t been dead for long by the time that Charles Cross found her body. That’s all. No specific time has been stated or suggested by any doctor or medical expert and not one has, or will, come forward to say that the medical evidence favours Cross as the killer over someone who killed Polly Nichols just before he found her body…because this isn’t what the evidence tells us. The evidence certainly doesn’t eliminate Cross of course but it certainly doesn’t favour him over someone killing Polly a short time before his arrival.
We might at this point ask a very obvious question of Cross the ripper. If he could cunningly came up with the Mizen Scam why couldn’t he have spotted the childishly obvious “I saw something on the ground in the shadows up ahead and then someone stood up and ran away. I’m pretty sure it was a man. I then went over and found…etc” It would hardly have taken a Professor Moriarty to come up with this kind of story. He could even just have said that he’d heard someone running away but no, apparently this was just too ingenious a lie for our Carman. He was only occasionally devious. Devious when it suits those favouring his guilt.
Much has been made of the fact that, at the inquest, our ‘suspect’ didn’t use his birth name, which some see as suspicious or even as indicative of guilt. Too much time and far too many words have been wasted on this issue as some see it as a kind of “aha!” moment when it’s nothing of the kind. Put simply, the only way that Cross, giving his stepfather’s name rather than his birth name, would have been acting suspiciously would have been if it could be shown that he was trying to avoid police attention - which he clearly wasn’t. He gave his place of work, his correct forenames and his correct address. As a piece of supposed subterfuge a researcher would be hard pressed to find a worse one in the annals of crime. No, we have to let common sense prevail and accept that this is another non-issue which has been magnified to create an aura of suspicion against the man who found Polly’s body.
Another issue that is regularly used to try and narrow down the time of death in favour of a guilty Cross is Robert Paul’s suggestion that he may have detected movement from the body. In the The Times report of the inquest it is said of Paul that: “While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement.” This is hardly evidence that a woman who had possibly been strangled, and who had definitely had her throat cut down to her backbone followed by some abdominal mutilations, was still alive. The use of the word ‘fancied’ clearly implies uncertainty and in most reports Cross states that Paul told Mizen that the woman was dead and Paul testified after Cross so he had ample opportunity to point out any error, but he didn’t. And in his Lloyd’s Weekly statement Paul again stated that he believed that the woman had been dead. It appears therefore that Paul imagined some slight movement as he was in the act of pulling her skirts down. And then realised that he must have been mistaken.
The final issue is regarding one of those situations that we regularly find in true crime cases, two conflicting testimonies. Such discrepancies, though commonplace, are fertile ground for anyone wishing to view a situation in a suspicious light and so caution and common sense is required more than ever. I am talking of course about the conversation that was had between Charles Cross, Robert Paul and PC. Jonas Mizen a very few minutes after the discovery of the body. In The Times we have Mizen saying that Cross simply said he was wanted by a policeman, and did not say anything about a murder having been committed. The Times though reports Cross as stating that: “They went to Baker’s-row, saw the last witness, and told him there was a woman lying down in Buck’s-row on the broad of her back. Witness also said he believed she was dead or drunk, while the other man stated he believed her to be dead.” In his Lloyd’s interview Robert Paul complained that Mizen continued with his ‘knocking up’ duties so it’s perhaps not difficult to see how words may have been misheard or misinterpreted. Mizen might have only heard Cross saying that the woman was lying in Bucks Row along with the word ‘drunk’ instead of ‘dead or drunk’ especially if he wasn’t paying full attention. The fact that Mizen thought that Cross had told him that he was wanted by a policeman was almost certainly a simple misinterpretation of Cross telling him that he was ‘wanted in Bucks Row’ or that ‘his presence was required,’ and when Mizen arrived in Bucks Row and saw PC. Neill there it merely confirmed his misinterpretation of what Cross had actually said. The main thing that we have to remember of course is that if Cross lied then Paul must have been in on the lie too because he was standing there next him and this, of course, is where the now famous Mizen Scam comes in. If you need to subvert some evidence that doesn’t favour your theory a little creative fiction is required.
The Mizen Scam was created to defend something which according to its creator didn’t require defending in the first place - the suggestion that it wasn’t at all suspicious for a guilty Charles Cross, bloodied knife tucked away somewhere on his person and with every opportunity of a choice of easy escapes, to stand and wait for the arrival of a complete stranger. We know this would have ended with a potentially disastrous meeting with a Constable so the ‘scam’ provides a way for Cross to get past this meeting without the risk of being detained; the thinking being that if Cross claimed to have been sent by a Constable in Bucks Row then Mizen would assume that he’d already been exonerated by that other officer. If it was reasonable for him to pass up the chance of escape in the first place then why the need for a scam? Good question - maybe it might better be described as a back up but can we really believe that Cross came up with it as Paul was approaching which allowed him calmly to stay put? Or did he just stay put for no reason and then come up with the scam as he was walking with Paul? Either way the very obvious question is this - how could Charles Cross have had even the slightest level of confidence that he would be able to speak to a Constable alone when he had a complete stranger with him over whom he had absolutely no influence? The answer is as obvious as it is simple of course. He wouldn’t have. A bit of imagination in crime solving is necessary but it has to be within reason. The Mizen Scam is a bit of imagination which doesn’t fit the evidence in any way. We can safely dismiss it for what it is - a construct to keep Cross ‘in the game.’
So what is left that can be construed as ‘suspicious’ behaviour by this man on his way to work? There is of course, the issue of ‘the prop’. Robert Paul suggested that they give Polly a prop, which meant sitting her up, but Cross said no to this. How does this make Cross appear guilty I hear you ask? Well, the suggestion is that he felt that this might have resulted in the throat wounds being revealed (which the two hadn’t seen due to the darkness) Of course one has to suggest that not hanging around and calling over a complete stranger would have been a far safer option for the concealment of wounds from Paul, in fact I would go so far as to call that particular option entirely foolproof, but we can move on. Firstly, is an unwillingness to handle a corpse (or possible corpse) such a strange thing? How many of us might have been equally reluctant? It’s a simple fact of life that many people react differently when faced with a dead body. Secondly, as the two weren’t absolutely certain that she was dead how could they have known that she wouldn’t just wake up. Cross may have been concerned that she might have woken up and started screaming when she saw two strange men leaning over her as she lay in the street? What kind of false accusations might a drunken woman have thrown around? Lastly of course, although it might sound callous, the priority of these two men was to get to work on time. This was 1888. A boss in a foul mood could sack someone for the most trivial of transgressions with no hope of tribunals or compensation and there would have been no signing on and little or no chance of walking straight into another job. Families to feed, bills to pay. Eviction, starvation, the workhouse. Times were so different then so it’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking how callous it appeared to put getting to work in front of helping a woman lying in the street but a woman (or a man) lying in the street would come a very distant second to those other considerations. Cross’s refusal was entirely understandable and I suspect that Paul would have needed little convincing to leave her and move on to work, with the intention of informing a PC on the way being enough for him to have considered that he’d ’done his bit.’
So let’s take a breath, step back, look at and sum up Charles Cross as a suspect.
Does he tick any of the usual boxes that are employed to assess suspects? We must surely agree that the answer to that is no.
Does the evidence prove that there was a suspicious gap of time which surely accounts for 75% of the case against him and was the only reason that James Scobie gave him the time of day in the first place? Clearly the answer is a resounding no.
Was he discovered anywhere that he shouldn’t have been and engaged in anything that he shouldn’t have been engaged in? Again it’s another no. He was on his way to work.
Was there anything at all suspicious about his behaviour in Bucks Row? No, he acted entirely like a man who found a body on his way to work.
Was there anything to raise any alarms about his exchange with PC. Mizen? Absolutely not. He couldn’t have lied because he had a complete stranger standing next to him who he certainly couldn’t have relied on to support any lie. So the very minor misunderstanding was exactly that. A very minor misunderstanding.
When someone walks like a witness, talks like a witness, looks like a witness and acts like a witness we are left with no choice but to admit that this is exactly what they were…a witness. Charles Cross was fairly obviously an innocent man.
Comment