The Cross Myth

[BooksbyBJThompson]

Great stuff, Abby!

FYI: As it stands, I have zero attachment to any of the known suspects.

I'm with you on all your points, and yes, they throw Charles into the line-up with the handful of better suspects.

Re: Charles, I did take a close look at him as well, long before I knew there was an online Lechmerian parade.

I should say I come at serial kill cases from a different angle. I never focus on the flimsy, errant or missing evidence. I look for the predatory behaviour, which must be present in such killers.

But from what we know, and that's little, Charles doesn't act like what we know from serial killers immediately post-kill - hyperactivity to include fast talking, irratic body movements, often a foul odour, (dilated eyes, sweat, likely Paul couldn't have seen). If any of the visual, auditory, or olfactory clues had been present, Robert Paul would have noticed, and most likely mentioned. If Charles had just killed, his bloodlust behaviour would be on overdrive. No serial killer in predator mode can "come down" from the high that fast.

The standing, no acting at all, finding a prostrate woman in the near pitch black. I would have stood there myself trying to focus my eyes, proving to myself I was seeing what I was seeing, and trying decide what to do, as Robert walks up. And as for not wanting to move the woman, hell to the yes! I wouldn't have touched her. My goal would have been to find a Bobby on the beat, as the two had done.

This is why I return to Edward Stow's videos, with an open mind, as I have done with all those who have a Jack horse in the race.

But finding a body on one's commute route to work, misremembering what was said to a cop afterwards, and giving your step dad's name in a murder case where that step dad was a cop - none faze me at all simply because the predatory behaviour during and post is not there.

Hence, waiting for Stow to reveal to me the grand ah-ha Lechmere moment. I get my patience from my cop dad. I can wait.

[BooksbyBJThompson]

I think it's simpler than that...

Totally with you, Geddy. Especially with the name choice.
In London, which name is easier to be recognized, spelled correctly, understood, and possibly more respected in the East End, considering the immigrant influx? Cross, naturally!

And in official proceedings, especially if I were still a dependent under that name, of course I'd use Cross (I did forget to mention that as you rightly pointed out).

To me, the whole Lechmere case falls apart, and not from honest trying on my part. There is simply not the right behaviour.

More so, his clumsy, what could be suspect-pointing behaviour, is the type seen in people who don't know how to behave, having witnessed such a shocking event. It is literally this emotional "clumsiness" which makes them look guilty, which to the uninformed, like Stow's fans, true believers.

[Geddy2112]

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).

Can't really fault that appraisal.

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.

Well he certainly is not on the same level as Van Gogh who probably was not in London at the time, and of course he was at the scene of Polly's murder not long after it occurred. So in essence that makes him better than most suspects. He can be placed at a crime scene within say 15 mins or less of the crime. However so can others in the JtR crimes and most certainly can be in other murders throughout history.

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.

This is the bit that gets me a touch. If Robert Paul did not come up that street a few minutes or less after Cross would we be talking about him as a suspect today, after all then all he becomes is a first finder same as the other four. So is it Robert Paul's presence that makes him guilty, it kind of appears that way. I also do consider he did raise the alarm by stopping Paul and heading off for a PC. In fact if you consider what the other four first finders did then they appear to have taken similar actions.
Today's world, well define 'today's' if I'm allowed this to be the last 40 years or so then I did indeed find a woman who had recently been murdered and not once was I considered a suspect. I did a similar thing to Cross, I shouted of my friend and we both went to a house to phone the police/ambulance. Maybe they thought since I was only 14 or 15 I could not have been a killer, it turned out the real killer was only 12 at the time of the murder.

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.

I consider the discrepancy of his and Mizen's accounts down to a simple misunderstanding as has as you elude later to be over egged. The word wanted can mean a situation wants someone not just a person wants someone else. A policeman is wanted in Bucks Row, means or could mean there is a situation in Bucks Row that is serious enough it needs a PC to attended. Of course Mizen got to Bucks Row and there was a PC already there so he must have assumed Cross meant a PC had wanted him. Remember the jury/coroner questioned Cross on this point and accepted his version. Mizen was also there that day and did not question Cross' version.

The name issue is absolute BS. He gave his legal name, home and work address in Court. He gained no advantage by using it and it's fair to assume he used this name in everyday use. We have no records of him ever using Lechmere in everyday use.

The routes to work is sadly as well garbage. No one knows his routes to work, no one knows what time he left home on a given morning and no one knows his average walking speed so it's impossible to state with accuracy that he was when and where a murder happened. Even if you could state these three data points they would invariably match 100s if not 1000s of other men so can't be used as circumstantial evidence against him. The rest of your paragraph is pure speculation and plenty of 'what if's' which I believe you later refer to as 'over egging the pudding.'

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.

I would suggest very pale washed out white flags and they have been explained away many many times for over a decade, unfortunately some folk will not accept these explanations and Holmgren in particular will then twist the meaning slightly to suit his narrative. As an example he thinks (wrongly) Paul was certain he felt a slight movement in Polly's chest and assumes (wrongly again) that this was agonal breathing and means she was recently killed. You yourself have used the 'recently killed' phrase here, what does that mean? It's surely relative. My father recently died but it was two months ago. However he was 90 years old so I guess two months is 'recently' if we are talking about an age of 90. However two months is not a few mins as we are talking in the Polly Nichols case but we use the same term - recently. It's rather vague and Holmgren likes that, it's like a mini get out of jail free card. He was once (or twice haha) accused of having lies in his book. They were pointed out to him but he still refused to admit they were lies because he forgot to put a word in (the about) and hence it was not a lie because he did not wish to deliberately deceive which again is a great get out of jail free card because he can never prove he did intentionally forget to put the word 'about' in his book, but since he forgot twice, and once on his video and once in the evidence bundle supplied to Scobie then on the balance of probabilities the 'about' was deliberately left out and the fact was he had lied in his book.
Sorry got side tracked there. Back to agonal breathing, when this was repeatedly pointed out to him that Paul was not certain as he used the word 'fancied' which means not sure and also that agonal breathing is nothing like a faint breath and that agonal breathing can last for hours then he seems to have dropped the 'agonal breathing' angle and gone with 'chest movement.' He kind of is accepting he is wrong without accepting he is wrong and certainly would never admit it.

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.

So why consider a man to be a suspect if you know the pudding has been over egged. Would it be okay to use a two minute time gap instead of a nine minute one. Would it be okay to suggest the Mizen scam was only half a scam. Would it be okay to state wearing your Carman garb in court was only partly suspicious. Would it be okay to state Cross' routes to work could have passed a few of the murder sites and the time we can guess he might have been passing put him in the frame. Can we say him suggesting to prop the body and Paul refusing (which one paper did report) is not shifty at all but may suggest some callousness.

Where to we draw the line at the egging? How much egging is acceptable in accusing a hard working man of multiple murder? How much speculation and fabrication is okay?

[John Wheat]

A suspect which needs an extreme amount of fabrication to make him look suspicious is not a good suspect at all therefore Lechmere is a terrible suspect.

[Geddy2112]

But from what we know, and that's little, Charles doesn't act like what we know from serial killers immediately post-kill - hyperactivity to include fast talking, irratic body movements, often a foul odour, (dilated eyes, sweat, likely Paul couldn't have seen). If any of the visual, auditory, or olfactory clues had been present, Robert Paul would have noticed, and most likely mentioned. If Charles had just killed, his bloodlust behaviour would be on overdrive. No serial killer in predator mode can "come down" from the high that fast.

Absolutely. I've mentioned this before once or twice haha. If we are to believe the Lechmere Theory we are told the point of the exercise was to open up the abdomen and remove organs. We are also told by Holmgren that he believes the abdominal wounds came before the throat cutting, something the doctor states.

So bearing that in mind our killer Cross is beavering away at the abdomen, he is clearly not finished because he has not totally opened poor Polly up and removed her organs, however, oh no he hears someone approaching and estimates he is only 40 yards away. So in the time it takes Robert Paul to encroach enough on 40 yards to see Cross in the middle of the road Killer Cross has to cover Polly's wounds, cut her throat twice, wipe his knife and hands on a rag, hide said knife and rag about his person, jump up, plot his 'Paul Bluff' and his 'Mizen Scam' jump back to the middle of the road and appear all calm and collected, not knowing if he has blood on his person. I've worked out he would have approx ten seconds, yes a miserly ten seconds to do all of this before Robert Paul clocked him with Paul approaching at a rather slow 3.1mph but of course Paul was running late so might have been moving along a touch faster making the 10 secs slightly less. Does this sound possible to you? He was a carman not bloody Superman.

But finding a body on one's commute route to work, misremembering what was said to a cop afterwards, and giving your step dad's name in a murder case where that step dad was a cop - none faze me at all simply because the predatory behaviour during and post is not there.

Remember he would be the only serial killer in history to find his own victim, the only one to kill 20 mins before clocking on in a street he walked six days a week to work, the only one to stop the first passer-by to alert him to his crimes, the only one to then go and find a PC carrying the murder weapon. Astonishing how unlikely all that is but here we are...

Hence, waiting for Stow to reveal to me the grand ah-ha Lechmere moment. I get my patience from my cop dad. I can wait.

I'm fairly sure it would have happened by now if it was going to happen, like I said we have had bagels, tigers, Nicola Bulley and other random reasons that make Cross a serial killer, something a touch more concrete would be nice. I always used to say to Holmgren on social media, why don't you stop trying to preach to folk and get out there and find something tangible to prove he was a serial killer but he won't because his arrogance and stubbornness already tell him he has done so numerous times... oh well.

[Abby Normal]

Great stuff, Abby!

FYI: As it stands, I have zero attachment to any of the known suspects.

I'm with you on all your points, and yes, they throw Charles into the line-up with the handful of better suspects.

Re: Charles, I did take a close look at him as well, long before I knew there was an online Lechmerian parade.

I should say I come at serial kill cases from a different angle. I never focus on the flimsy, errant or missing evidence. I look for the predatory behaviour, which must be present in such killers.

But from what we know, and that's little, Charles doesn't act like what we know from serial killers immediately post-kill - hyperactivity to include fast talking, irratic body movements, often a foul odour, (dilated eyes, sweat, likely Paul couldn't have seen). If any of the visual, auditory, or olfactory clues had been present, Robert Paul would have noticed, and most likely mentioned. If Charles had just killed, his bloodlust behaviour would be on overdrive. No serial killer in predator mode can "come down" from the high that fast.

The standing, no acting at all, finding a prostrate woman in the near pitch black. I would have stood there myself trying to focus my eyes, proving to myself I was seeing what I was seeing, and trying decide what to do, as Robert walks up. And as for not wanting to move the woman, hell to the yes! I wouldn't have touched her. My goal would have been to find a Bobby on the beat, as the two had done.

This is why I return to Edward Stow's videos, with an open mind, as I have done with all those who have a Jack horse in the race.

But finding a body on one's commute route to work, misremembering what was said to a cop afterwards, and giving your step dad's name in a murder case where that step dad was a cop - none faze me at all simply because the predatory behaviour during and post is not there.

Hence, waiting for Stow to reveal to me the grand ah-ha Lechmere moment. I get my patience from my cop dad. I can wait.

hi books
re tje post predatory behavior stuff. very interesting. never thought of it like that before. paul certainly gives no indication that lech was acting strangely or suspiciously. but yes i remember now in other cases many witnesses who ended up reporting someone, usually their sig other, saying they were sweating, pacing, agitated etc. after they came home from a murder.

great point.

[BooksbyBJThompson]

.
Where to we draw the line at the egging? How much egging is acceptable in accusing a hard working man of multiple murder? How much speculation and fabrication is okay?

And in today's investigative world, all these 'suspicious acts" would simply be noted in the case file, and the detective(s) move on. They in no way shape or form force a cop to stop searching for other more direct evidence, suspects. To do so would have your a$$ on the carpet by your superiour.

Stow, Holmgren, are literally doing the exact opposite of what an investigator is trained to do.

Until such time as there is corroborative evidence to back up such suspicions, no action is taken. And in the case of Charles, no other evidence appeared, and he was undoubtedly given an in-house pass by the CID, as should be done by Ripperologists today.

[BooksbyBJThompson]

hi books
re tje post predatory behavior stuff. very interesting. never thought of it like that before. paul certainly gives no indication that lech was acting strangely or suspiciously. but yes i remember now in other cases many witnesses who ended up reporting someone, usually their sig other, saying they were sweating, pacing, agitated etc. after they came home from a murder.

great point.

The best way to find what you're looking for is to NOT look the direction everyone else is.

Or as veteran cops say, "We don't look at where the bullet hit. We look at the direction from where it came."

i.e. Look to predatory behaviour. If it's not there, look elsewhere. It must be there.

[Lewis C]

The routes to work is sadly as well garbage. No one knows his routes to work, no one knows what time he left home on a given morning and no one knows his average walking speed so it's impossible to state with accuracy that he was when and where a murder happened. Even if you could state these three data points they would invariably match 100s if not 1000s of other men so can't be used as circumstantial evidence against him. The rest of your paragraph is pure speculation and plenty of 'what if's' which I believe you later refer to as 'over egging the pudding.'

Hi Geddy. Abby's geographical/routes to work argument is rather different from the one Stow and Holmgren make, and it looks to me like you're replying to the Stow/Holmgren argument rather than Abby's. With Abby's argument, it doesn't matter what street or what time Cross walked to work, because Abby's argument is that Cross could have just been gathering information on his way to work, and that if he were the killer, he would likely have killed at other times. The only problem I have with it is that there are hundreds if not thousands of other men that walked through Ripper territory on their way to work, and any of them could have been doing the same thing. And there are several suspects that lived in that area that could have been doing the same thing while not on their routes to work, and many others that we don't think of suspects that could have done that.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Geddy. Abby's geographical/routes to work argument is rather different from the one Stow and Holmgren make, and it looks to me like you're replying to the Stow/Holmgren argument rather than Abby's. With Abby's argument, it doesn't matter what street or what time Cross walked to work, because Abby's argument is that Cross could have just been gathering information on his way to work, and that if he were the killer, he would likely have killed at other times. The only problem I have with it is that there are hundreds if not thousands of other men that walked through Ripper territory on their way to work, and any of them could have been doing the same thing. And there are several suspects that lived in that area that could have been doing the same thing while not on their routes to work, and many others that we don't think of suspects that could have done that.

hi lewis
yes thats basically what im saying. thank you. his route to work and the times when hes actually going to work he is rubbing elbos with the victims and their go to areas. it puts him in their general areas at the time they are out and about.
as you can tell proximity to victims, crime scenes etc is a bigee for me.
did he run into them before? was he solicited before? does he know who they are even? is it a familiarity breeds contempt thing. or making notes for future target.
so on the nights of the murders hes not neccessarily going to work(although thays still possible i guess) he out on the prowl and possibly under the guise of going to work.

my problem with the "hundreds, if not thousands of other men" argument is... how many of them was seen alone with recently murdered victim, how many of them discovered a body, how many of them have an actual physical connection to the case?

but im not gonna debate too hard either way, because as you know, i think lech was probably just a dude who found the body. cheers