The Cross Myth

[Elamarna]

Herlock, only just came across your thread, I will need time to read it in depth, before commenting, but initial impression is good.

Now how and where do I link this into Inside Bucks Row, because it's probably going to be linked.



Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, only just came across your thread, I will need time to read it in depth, before commenting, but initial impression is good.

Now how and where do I link this into Inside Bucks Row, because it's probably going to be linked.



Steve

Thank you Steve

[John Wheat]

There is only one problem with Cross being the Ripper and that one problem is a complete lack of evidence in any way shape or form.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is only one problem with Cross being the Ripper and that one problem is a complete lack of evidence in any way shape or form.

Simply put but totally true John.

[Geddy2112]

There is only one problem with Cross being the Ripper and that one problem is a complete lack of evidence in any way shape or form.

Always with the worlds of wisdom, however surely there are more than one problem with Cross being the Ripper

[Enigma]

Considering the only reason Cross in a suspect is that he discovered a body of someone who had been killed, the logical conclusion is that if that is the case, no-one would report finding a body lest they be considered a murderer. Do we then accuse everyone else who discovered Ripper victims too? Obviously he was an innocent going about his usual routine.

[BooksbyBJThompson]

I'm still waiting on Edward Stow, in at least one of his video diatribes, to present even one piece of DIRECT circumstantial evidence that Charles was Jack, beyond the guy merely walking on or near streets where the other murders occurred, like every other Whitechapel, Spitalfields work commuter walked.

To date, his speculation that Charles' mother was a dominant woman and lived near Berner Street are neither direct.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You’ll have a long wait Barbara. There’s no evidence for his guilt.

[Geddy2112]

I'm still waiting on Edward Stow, in at least one of his video diatribes, to present even one piece of DIRECT circumstantial evidence that Charles was Jack, beyond the guy merely walking on or near streets where the other murders occurred, like every other Whitechapel, Spitalfields work commuter walked.

To date, his speculation that Charles' mother was a dominant woman and lived near Berner Street are neither direct.

This is not a nailed on definition, however to summarise circumstantial evidence needs to be recordable and only apply to a small cohort or even better an individual. To take that position on Cross' routes to work and the time he would have been at any point of that route we would have to be able to 'record' aspects of that claim for it to be used as circumstantial evidence against Cross, also that recording would have to apply to a very small number of people and I suspect in a 'beyond reasonable doubt' uniquely to Cross himself.

So for example Victim X was murdered on Wentworth Street at 3:00am on a Friday morning, 24th Aug 1888. Let's see if we can make this apply to Charles Cross.

Do we know what time he left home on any given morning - NO

Do we know his exact routes to work on any given morning - NO

Do we know his average walking speed so we can determine if he was in Wentworth Street around 3:00am - NO

So in other words we can't record any of those three data points and apply them to Charles Cross so we can't safely use it as circumstantial evidence against him. Or on the flip side..

Do we know what time he left home on any given morning? - Yes he leaves at 2:45am every morning.

Do we know his exact routes to work on any given morning - Yes, we know he walks the full length of Wentworth Street because he has a couple of mates there who he 'knocks up' as a favour to make sure they get to work on time.

Do we know his average walking speed - Yes, judging on what time he wakes his two mates up on route we can use basic maths and the known addresses of his mates to work out his average walking speed which actual puts him on Wentworth Street between 2:55am and 3:05am. Damn so this is looking bad for Charlie surely - Not really.

Does any of the other people we have interviewed have known routes to work, and times of passing through Wentworth Street? - Yes, there are at least 16 men that could have walked along Wentworth Street at a time to make it possible for them to commit the murder of victim X.

Ah bugger that means even though we can put Charles Cross in Wentworth Street at the correct time to commit the murder we can also place another 16 suspects there at a similar time. So again we can not use this against Cross as circumstantial evidence because the 'evidence' also applies to at least 16 other men.

[Geddy2112]

I'm still waiting on Edward Stow, in at least one of his video diatribes, to present even one piece of DIRECT circumstantial evidence that Charles was Jack, beyond the guy merely walking on or near streets where the other murders occurred, like every other Whitechapel, Spitalfields work commuter walked.

Sorry me again, he actually does worse than that and produces rather tenuous links to why Cross is Jack. We have had some amazing claims.

It was the fault of an escaped tiger.

He was influenced by the waxworks in the West End, which i) I doubt he would pay nearly a days rent money to attend ii) It was for Gentlemen which a scruffy east end carman was certainly not iii) I think he was about 24 when the Waxworks closed so why did he wait all those years for the influence to kick in?

People are buried next to each other in a grave yard because they knew each other in real life. (This was in an attempt to debunk Kosminski.)

Bagel shops.

Nicola Bulley

Killer Cross could not escape Bucks Row because he would have ran into PC Neil or PC81GER so stopped to bluff it out. Inconveniently for this theory is that Cross and Paul did 'escape' Bucks Row minutes later without seeing or hearing a soul until they bumped into PC Mizen.

He wants the Doveton Street drains digging up because he thinks there is human flesh still down there 130 years later.

It's impossible and in the nutty column that Robert Paul could kill Polly after PC Neil's beat at 3:15am and go around the back of the Board School and reappear in Bucks Row 'behind' Cross because of timings. Simple Primary School Maths proves even at a slow walking speed of 3.1mph he could have done it with 9 mins to spare.

....there are more tenuous links and outrages claims but you get the picture.

[Lewis C]

I'm still waiting on Edward Stow, in at least one of his video diatribes, to present even one piece of DIRECT circumstantial evidence that Charles was Jack, beyond the guy merely walking on or near streets where the other murders occurred, like every other Whitechapel, Spitalfields work commuter walked.

To date, his speculation that Charles' mother was a dominant woman and lived near Berner Street are neither direct.

BJ, I think his case largely comes down to 3 things:

1. At the inquest, he used his step-father's surname rather than the surname that's on his birth certificate.

2. His account of what he said when he talked to PC Mizen is slightly different from Mizen's account.

3. Cross said he left home at about 3:30 and Paul said he entered Buck's Row at 3:45, which is a longer interval than what there should have been if Cross didn't stop. It is ignored that the testimony of 3 other witnesses points toward Paul being off on his timing.

[BooksbyBJThompson]

Ah bugger that means even though we can put Charles Cross in Wentworth Street at the correct time to commit the murder we can also place another 16 suspects there at a similar time. So again we can not use this against Cross as circumstantial evidence because the 'evidence' also applies to at least 16 other men.

Like I said earlier, your 16 plus half the residents of the East End. Doubtful you could sneeze in that labyrinth and not have your DNA present at every murder scene.

In a court room, Stow's "facts" would land in the Opening and Closing statements where statements of proof are not tested.

In direct and cross-examination, thrown out.

[BooksbyBJThompson]

BJ, I think his case largely comes down to 3 things:

1. At the inquest, he used his step-father's surname rather than the surname that's on his birth certificate.

2. His account of what he said when he talked to PC Mizen is slightly different from Mizen's account.

3. Cross said he left home at about 3:30 and Paul said he entered Buck's Row at 3:45, which is a longer interval than what there should have been if Cross didn't stop. It is ignored that the testimony of 3 other witnesses points toward Paul being off on his timing.

1) I can't blame the guy for using his stepfather's surname while the Whitechapel killer was at large. He was probably thinking of his family and any media/killer backlash. And he may have always used that name in any official proceedings, thinking that since Cross was once a cop it would carry more weight. Supposedly, he used Cross when being hired as a carman.

2) I can't prove it, of course, but I think whatever the two men said to Mizen wasn't said as an emergency, that Mizen DID continue to knock-up doors for a while. Afterwards, he would not want to publicly admit said once he knew it was a case of murder. Hence, both parties here are at fault, Cross and Paul first for fear if they said it looked like a corpse they would be dragged back to the scene as witnesses and risk a day's pay or be fired.

3) Exact time known by the working poor then - non-existent.

[Geddy2112]

1) I can't blame the guy for using his stepfather's surname while the Whitechapel killer was at large. He was probably thinking of his family and any media/killer backlash. And he may have always used that name in any official proceedings, thinking that since Cross was once a cop it would carry more weight. Supposedly, he used Cross when being hired as a carman.

I think it's simpler than that, I think we fall into Team Lechmere's 'over egging the pudding' stance at times. We know he was known as Cross as a teenager, he will have started work as a teenager and it was probably him in the 1871 RTA, so it's fair to assume he used Cross on a day to day basis. Easier to stay as Cross at work than to explain why he wanted it to be Lechmere. On the flipside, easier to use Lechmere on official documents so he did not have to explain the Cross name.

2) I can't prove it, of course, but I think whatever the two men said to Mizen wasn't said as an emergency, that Mizen DID continue to knock-up doors for a while. Afterwards, he would not want to publicly admit said once he knew it was a case of murder. Hence, both parties here are at fault, Cross and Paul first for fear if they said it looked like a corpse they would be dragged back to the scene as witnesses and risk a day's pay or be fired.

Again I think it's a pure and simple misunderstanding of the term wanted, ass in the situation anted Mizen not a person. Of course when he got to Bucks Row and found a PC there he assumed Cross meant 'wanted by a PC.' In other words Team Lechmere making a mountain out of a molehill.

[Abby Normal]

I'm still waiting on Edward Stow, in at least one of his video diatribes, to present even one piece of DIRECT circumstantial evidence that Charles was Jack, beyond the guy merely walking on or near streets where the other murders occurred, like every other Whitechapel, Spitalfields work commuter walked.

To date, his speculation that Charles' mother was a dominant woman and lived near Berner Street are neither direct.

hi books
full disclosure..im a pretty open minded and objective guy amd i think a handful of suspects are the least weak.. bury, chapman, kelly, hutch druitt and koz. imho all the suspects are weak and none of them have any direct evidence against them, circumstantial or otherwise, except for maybe koz and the possible id (eyewitness evidence).

however i know im in the minority but i dont think lech is a ridiculous suspect, comparitively speaking. imho hes not on the stupid level of a maybrick, van gogh royal conspiracy etc. ive got him in my possible but long shot category.

i was one of his harshest critics in the beginning but ive warmed to him a bit over the years. for me any suspicion starts with the fact that he was seen near a recently killed victim before raising any kind of alarm or doing anything really. ive studied alot of true crime and ive never heard of an innocent witness in this circ. so to me its odd, and yes suspicious. and in todays world anyone who finds a body is de facto a person of interest until they are cleared. we have no evidence that lech was cleared. he is clearly in tje frame for possibly being pollys killer.

one of tje reasons ive warmed to him is i had a personal experience when i pretty much caught a violent criminal in the act of beating and robbing someone and he bluffed it out acting like he was helping the downed person and as i stumbled upon the scene yelled at me to go get help/ a cop. which i did. when i returned with a cop tje dude had bolted and turned out he was the perpetrator. yes i know most in lechs shoes if guilty would bolt but not invariably.

from there you have the discrepency with mizen over what was said, the name issue and the geographical stuff. his route to work brings him near some of the victims around near where they were found. now imho if lech was the ripper, i dont think he necessarily killed going to work, i think he did on times he wasnt working. whats important to me is his route to work brings him near the victims wheel house... did he see them before on his route to work, did they solicit him in tje past, was he keeping mental notes on tjem for a future target. and lets face it, his proximity, route to work, geographical stuff is better than all the other suspects hands down.

now that all being said i dont think lech was the ripper. the mizen scam was probably a misunderstanding on what was said, the name issue makes sense because it was in relation to him on his way to work where he was known as cross, and more than likely he was just a bloke on his way to work who found a body. but. but these are potential yellow flags that do need to be explained away, but they also make sense if he was the killer.

yes the lechmerians over egg the pudding, yes they mislead, yes they have a cult like following on social media, but i cant throw the baby out with the bath water, just like i cant do with koz just because i think anderson was a bloviating face saving bragart.
but thats just me. so I guess Im a lech apologist lol. heck there arent even any lechmerians on here any more! Any way sorry for long post but thought you might want to see a different opinion on the matter.