The Cross Myth

[Lewis C]

It does concern location agreed. However any point starting or containing the phrase 'his routes to work' (like Abby's did) can be disregarded as evidence simply because we do not know what his exact routes to work were and of course the other two data points. So even if we did know for sure he walked along Hanbury Street every single morning, we would have to know timings of that walk to make it evidence against him. Obviously if he walked along Hanbury Street at 3:55am every morning and the murder happened at 4:40am then we know he could not have done the murder in question. The route and timings are therefore linked to be evidential. Of course I know you know that. Apologies.
Like you said 'if' he took a direct route. However we simply do not know. Then you say 'but I think' so again you are not sure, and no body can be. Putting someone within 3 or 4 blocks really is not good enough. I'm not sure anyone will have been able to murder someone with a knife from a distance of 3 or 4 blocks. However I understand we can assume he was in the vicinity.
So yes his 'likely' routes would have taken him 'near' the murder sites but I think that is as good as we can get. And of course the same would apply to many other individuals so it can't be used as circumstantial evidence against Cross.

But again, Abby isn't arguing that he killed on the way to work, but that he may have collected information and become familiar with/to some of the victims on the way to work. Each victim was killed at a particular place and time, but each of them was likely at other locations in the general area at other times in the days and weeks prior to their murders. So it is in these days and weeks prior to their murders that Cross may have seen some of the victims on his way to work. But yes, Cross is different from hundreds of others in this regard only because he found a body.

A question for anyone that wants to address it: if it could be proven that Stride was not a Ripper murder, would Louis Diemshutz be as good a suspect for her murder as Cross is for Nichols' murder?

[Geddy2112]

But again, Abby isn't arguing that he killed on the way to work, but that he may have collected information and become familiar with/to some of the victims on the way to work. Each victim was killed at a particular place and time, but each of them was likely at other locations in the general area at other times in the days and weeks prior to their murders. So it is in these days and weeks prior to their murders that Cross may have seen some of the victims on his way to work. But yes, Cross is different from hundreds of others in this regard only because he found a body.

Hi, I actually do not think initially Abby meant that - '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...'

Abby can't know what his routes to work were so even can't state what you are saying. Also how can they say his routes to work brings him near the victims wheel house? Without knowing the routes to work. I apologise if I'm not being clear here but any point that contains the phrase 'his routes to work' whatever the meaning is can't be accurate because we do not know his routes to work. It's like saying his time for leaving home gives him the opportunity to murder in Bucks Row, the fact is we do not know his leaving home time so we can't say with any accuracy he had the opportunity to murder in Bucks Row.

A question for anyone that wants to address it: if it could be proven that Stride was not a Ripper murder, would Louis Diemshutz be as good a suspect for her murder as Cross is for Nichols' murder?

I'm not sure the 'Ripper' element is important or not, however I've read a few folks think he is a suspect. I've seen your question and I'll raise you this...

If Robert Paul did not exist would anyone even consider Charles Cross to be the Ripper?

(To be honest I could narrow that down to if Robert Paul's 'Remarkable Statement' did not exist would anyone consider Cross as the Ripper?)

[Abby Normal]

But again, Abby isn't arguing that he killed on the way to work, but that he may have collected information and become familiar with/to some of the victims on the way to work. Each victim was killed at a particular place and time, but each of them was likely at other locations in the general area at other times in the days and weeks prior to their murders. So it is in these days and weeks prior to their murders that Cross may have seen some of the victims on his way to work. But yes, Cross is different from hundreds of others in this regard only because he found a body.

A question for anyone that wants to address it: if it could be proven that Stride was not a Ripper murder, would Louis Diemshutz be as good a suspect for her murder as Cross is for Nichols' murder?

hi lewis
not to me. whether she was a ripper victim or not, eventhough diemshitz discovered her body, he wasnt seen hovering near her dead body, he was first seen raising the alarm and and alerting everyone of her. alot less odd and suspicious to me.
but thats just me.

[Enigma]

A question for anyone that wants to address it: if it could be proven that Stride was not a Ripper murder, would Louis Diemshutz be as good a suspect for her murder as Cross is for Nichols' murder?

This goes back to what I said at post #36. Do we consider all those who found the victims to potentially be the Ripper? The only difference in the case of Cross is that he was observed in the act of discovering body which is hardly evidence of guilt.

In Diemshutz's case we only have his word of what transpired up to when he discovered Stride's body. There is nothing to corroborate his version of events prior to him announcing the discovery in the Club. Not that I consider him guilty either, or doubt what he said was true.

I'll stick to JtR being Mr Unknown until some evidence comes to light which convinces me otherwise.

[Geddy2112]

not to me. whether she was a ripper victim or not, eventhough diemshitz discovered her body, he wasnt seen hovering near her dead body, he was first seen raising the alarm and and alerting everyone of her. alot less odd and suspicious to me.
but thats just me.

Which of the first finders was seen hovering near a dead body?

[Geddy2112]

Do we consider all those who found the victims to potentially be the Ripper? The only difference in the case of Cross is that he was observed in the act of discovering body which is hardly evidence of guilt.

In Diemshutz's case we only have his word of what transpired up to when he discovered Stride's body. There is nothing to corroborate his version of events prior to him announcing the discovery in the Club. Not that I consider him guilty either, or doubt what he said was true.

Hi Enigma, spot on. So the thing, according to Team Lechmere that makes Cross look guilty is the presence of Paul, when really it should be the opposite because he collaborates Cross' version of events which has Cross as not guilty. It's astonishing how Team Lechmere take what really is a sign of innocence and make it into a sign of guilt.

[Enigma]

Hi Geddy, well expressed. I fully agree. There is illogical reasoning by those who consider Lechmere/Cross to be a viable suspect because he was seen close to a dead body and observed to be not doing anything suspicious. They say he must be suspect whilst those who found bodies when alone are not under suspicion. I should have thought logically the opposite applies since the latter have no corroboration to their stories. Having said that, I don't think any other first finders are JtR either.

In the normal course of events, Cross would have walked the same route daily to work. He soon would have found the most most direct and quickest route. We are all creatures of habit. Only unusual circumstances would cause one to change the best route. One could imagine that he and Paul may even have known each other by sight if they habitually took part of the same route at around the same time each day.

Place oneself in his position. It was dark, he was eager not to be late. He sees something lying in the street. Initially he is unsure what the object is. He approaches and discerns it is a woman. He is unsure if if she is drunk, asleep or dead. He is uncertain what to do. At this point Paul sees him and comes up and together they examine Nichols. End of story.

Regards, Gazza.

[Fiver]

A question for anyone that wants to address it: if it could be proven that Stride was not a Ripper murder, would Louis Diemshutz be as good a suspect for her murder as Cross is for Nichols' murder?

Diemshutz found a body, called it to the attention of people nearby, and then went to the police. This is exactly the same as Cross, so they are as good of suspects.

[Geddy2112]

....End of story.

Absolutely, but over a decade later here we are. Even in this very thread of late we have folk stating things that we have no evidence ever happened. The speculation just never stops. But we are in the wrong for 'defending the innocent.'

[Sam Flynn]

Which of the first finders was seen hovering near a dead body?

Not Crossmere, that's for sure.

[Geddy2112]

Not Crossmere, that's for sure.

I'm not sure any were. This is the problem though. Comments which are clearly wrong or inaccurate or add bias to guilt (or innocence) are used and often repeated thus prolonging the inaccuracies or bias.

[Lewis C]

I'm not sure the 'Ripper' element is important or not, however I've read a few folks think he is a suspect. I've seen your question and I'll raise you this...

If Robert Paul did not exist would anyone even consider Charles Cross to be the Ripper?

(To be honest I could narrow that down to if Robert Paul's 'Remarkable Statement' did not exist would anyone consider Cross as the Ripper?)

The reason I made a point of specifying that Stride wasn't a Ripper murder is that Eddowes is almost certainly a Ripper murder, and I believe that Diemschutz has an alibi for the Eddowes murder. So the only way in which there could even be a remote chance of Diemschutz being Stride's killer is if Stride wasn't a Ripper murder. The only people I know of that think Diemschutz is a Ripper suspect believe that he was part of a trio that committed the murders, and that he killed Stride while someone in cahoots with him killed Eddowes.

Without Paul, Cross probably wouldn't be a suspect. In that case, Cross wouldn't have been seen near the body, and I think the time gap argument also depends on Paul's existence.

Thank you to all who responded to this.

[Geddy2112]

Thank you to all who responded to this.

A few theories over the years say it was a gang of masons or just a gang. Maybe that makes some sense of it all. For one reason or another, probably the lack of accurate evidence, timings and witness statements they really are an 'odd bunch' of murders.

Have a great Easter!!!

[BooksbyBJThompson]

Stride was a blind-rage-in-the-moment attack, for committing said while the club is still full of people makes premeditation ruled out.

[Geddy2112]

Stride was a blind-rage-in-the-moment attack, for committing said while the club is still full of people makes premeditation ruled out.

It was a rather busy 'scene' compared to the others for sure. No wonder a lot of folk on split on if this was a Jack the Ripper murder or not.