Cross' Family Shenanigans

[Geddy2112]

In an attempt to draw the focus away from the 'Is Bury the best suspect' thread we have this one. A couple of issues mentioned over there that hopefully could be addressed here.

1) Cross' father's alcoholism.

2) Cross' alleged difficult and abusive childhood.

3) Cross' alleged sexual abuse of his eldest daughter.

[Enigma]

None of which make him anything other than a witness.

[John Wheat]

In an attempt to draw the focus away from the 'Is Bury the best suspect' thread we have this one. A couple of issues mentioned over there that hopefully could be addressed here.

1) Cross' father's alcoholism.

2) Cross' alleged difficult and abusive childhood.

3) Cross' alleged sexual abuse of his eldest daughter.

Hi Geddy2112

I'm just wondering what the evidence is for any of this? Im guessing there isn't any.

Cheers John

[Fiver]

In an attempt to draw the focus away from the 'Is Bury the best suspect' thread we have this one. A couple of issues mentioned over there that hopefully could be addressed here.

1) Cross' father's alcoholism.

Thomas Cross' cause of death was Fatty degeneration, Dropsy, and Uroemia. It does not mention what organ or organs were suffering from fatty degeneration, but steosis is not confined to the liver. In the liver it is caused by alcoholism, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and hepatitis. In other organs it can be caused by obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and apnea.

Dropsy (edema) is caused by problems with the heart, liver, kidneys, or veins. There is no direct tie to alcoholism.

Uroemia is kidney failure. Causes are diabetes, high blood pressure, injuries to the kidney, and genetic defects. There is no direct tie to alcoholism.

Based on those symptoms, hypertension and diabetes are the most likely, followed by obesity and hepatitis.

There is no evidence that Thomas Cross was an alcoholic, let alone an abusive one.

[Fiver]

2) Cross' alleged difficult and abusive childhood.

Charles Allen Cross did have difficulties in childhood. His father abandoned the family before Charles second birthday, possibly before Charles was born. He likely started working as a teen. He was 19 when his sister died, 20 when his stepfather died.

That's not any easy childhood, but many faced as bad or worse.

There is no evidence that Charles was abused as a child.

[Fiver]

In an attempt to draw the focus away from the 'Is Bury the best suspect' thread we have this one. A couple of issues mentioned over there that hopefully could be addressed here.

3) Cross' alleged sexual abuse of his eldest daughter.

Mary Jane Lechmere was Charles' second daughter. She started living with her grandmother before she turned 6, but her older sister Elizabeth, as well as younger sisters Louisa and Emily continued to live with their parents. Nor did Mary Jane seem estranged from the rest of the family - she and her father were witnesses at her older sister Elizabeth's wedding. Her father and her younger sister Louisa were witnesses at Mary Jane's wedding.

There is no evidence of abuse of Mary Jane or her siblings.

[Fiver]

I have two vague possibilities in my 'devil's advocate' list...
(i) She helped look after her grandma's ageing and possibly ailing bigamous third husband (who died in 1889, IIRC);
(ii) She was useful in helping her grandma set up the family's cats' meat business (which we only start hearing about a couple of years later, but was likely begun earlier than that).

But my instinct -- like yours! -- is to say that the eldest daughter probably stayed with Gran for her own protection. I don't read a 'paragon' vibe in this family, at all, anywhere, ever.

Bests,

Mark D.

Lets drag this into an appropriate thread. For starters, what kind of world do you live in that you consider that only a paragon family doesn't engage in incest, child abuse, and alcoholism?

[Fiver]

I have two vague possibilities in my 'devil's advocate' list...
(i) She helped look after her grandma's ageing and possibly ailing bigamous third husband (who died in 1889, IIRC);

Mary Jane, the Lechmere's second daughter, was living with her grandmother before she turned six. Her grandmother's third husband, Joseph Forsdike was 65 and appears to have still been well enough to work. I doubt a 5 year old would have been much help if his health had already been failing.

Still, it's more credible than the theory you favor.

[Fiver]

I have two vague possibilities in my 'devil's advocate' list...

(ii) She was useful in helping her grandma set up the family's cats' meat business (which we only start hearing about a couple of years later, but was likely begun earlier than that).

Mary Jane Lechmere was living with her grandmother in 1881, before she turned 6. Maria Louisa Forsdike was working as a dressmaker and Mary Jane was listed as attending school. Maria Louisa Forsdike is first listed as being a horse flesh dealer in 1891, by which point her granddaughter would have been old enough to help.

[Geddy2112]

I'm just wondering what the evidence is for any of this? I'm guessing there isn't any.

Hi John, not that I'm aware of. However we have Mark and Newbie making the claims without showing any evidence to back up their claims.

[Enigma]

In an attempt to draw the focus away from the 'Is Bury the best suspect' thread we have this one. A couple of issues mentioned over there that hopefully could be addressed here.

1) Cross' father's alcoholism.

2) Cross' alleged difficult and abusive childhood.

3) Cross' alleged sexual abuse of his eldest daughter.

We have three points made. The first is stated as a fact, the remaining two are merely alleged. This does not make for a strong argument in favour of the proposition.

[Geddy2112]

We have three points made. The first is stated as a fact, the remaining two are merely alleged. This does not make for a strong argument in favour of the proposition.

Indeed, but surely if someone is to make an alleged accusation they should have some evidence to back it up.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Again, to sustain the ‘Cross was the killer’ fantasy, lies have to be told and this is what is occurring. Flat out dishonesty. Is there a barrel left in existence whose bottom hasn’t been thoroughly scraped in the effort to turn a clearly innocent man into a killer? We are now talking about the guy’s granny, about a connection to the cat’s meat business we have Christer wanting to attribute every murder in London over 20 years to Cross (simply to invent an answer to the ‘why did he stop after Kelly’ question. We have even had people claiming that the fact that Cross attended the inquest in his work clothes is indicative of guilt. The only difficulty we have is in finding a worse suspect than Cross…..but hey, the circus is in town and the clowns are telling us that he was guilty because “he was there, he was there, he was there!?

And what else do they have? Oh yeah “he was there, he was there, he was there!”