Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Herlock Sholmes]

If bodies bled out as fast as Christer Holmgren claims, then PC Neil is the prime suspect for murdering Nichols.

And Alice Mackenzie was a freak of nature.

[Fiver]

It's also possible that PC Neil committed the murder, hid round the corner, then reappeared in order to 'discover' the body, once Cross & Paul had gone off to find a copper. This scenario is more likely than yours, because it gives the murderous policeman time to get rid of his weapon. Why have you opted for the less likely of the two suspects?

If bodies bled out as fast as Christer Holmgren claims, then PC Neil is the prime suspect for murdering Nichols.

[Fiver]

It's not an invention. It's a possible, and plausible, explanation for the sequence of events. It is plausible that Cross never intended to go to the inquest, until Paul publicly told everyone about the mystery man who found the body. We don't know, I accept that - but it doesn't negate that the possibility is there.

Possible? Yes.
Probable? No.

Neither Robert Paul nor PC Mizen knew who Charles Cross was. Charles Cross could have chosen to not go to the police and nobody would have ever known who he was. Contacting the police was the action of an innocent man or of a very stupid murderer.

[Fiver]

There's ample proof Cross is a very good SUSPECT, in my opinion the prime suspect. We will likely never know who Jack was. All we're doing is ranking suspects. As I've said already, a modern-day investigation would never rule out Cross with the information that we have. This ruling out of Cross carries far more subjective presumption than from those who are saying he's a high-ranking suspect.

A modern day investigation would almost certainly rule Cross out as a suspect.

* The police said the killer could have easily escaped undetected. Cross and Paul did "escape" Bucks-row completely undetected.
* Cross touching Paul did not leave unexplained bloodstains on Paul's clothing.
* Paul, who was initially frightened of being mugged, did not notice bloodstains on Cross' hand or clothes, nor did he see anything odd in Cross' behavior.
* PC Mizen, who had a lantern, did not notice bloodstains on Cross' hand or clothes, nor did he see anything odd in Cross' behavior.
* Cross chose to contact the police - neither Mizen nor Paul knew who he was.
* Robert Paul's testimony about what was said supported Charles Cross, not PC Mizen.
* The police supported Cross' timing on when the body was found. That's based on the testimony of the first three police on site and the police reports. The Time Gap is a myth.
* There is no evidence of violence or criminal behavior by Cross.
* Cross had no knowledge of anatomy.
* The idea of hiding bloodstained clothing and trophy organs in a house full of small children is laughable.
* The timing of the Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes murders make it wildly unlikely that Cross killed them.

[Herlock Sholmes]

’plausible’

A question - do you think it sounds plausible that a man sets out for work as he does for 6 days a week giving himself just enough time to get there but when he’s halfway there he bumps into a woman, whips out the big knife that he just happens to have on him, kills her and mutilates her knowing that he’s due at work in around 15 minutes with around 15 minutes of walking left to do. He does this in the dark and so cannot be certain that he doesn’t have blood on him, so as he naturally wouldn’t have wanted anyone to have seen him with wet blood on him on the day that a murder had occurred on his route, not only does he have 15 minutes to walk to work he has to get to a light, check himself over, perhaps wipe away some blood, and then get to work. But it’s worse than that because he hears a man approaching, and there he is with a bloodied knife and possibly blood on him, so does he do what all serial killers do and flee into the darkness? Of course not, he stands waiting for a complete stranger to show up who, for all that Cross knew, might have stood there yelling “murder, police!” Or he might even have said “there’s a beat Constable’s due in a couple of minutes or so, let’s wait for him.” Both would spell utter disaster for Cross. The worst alternative, he leaves, Paul sees the body, approaches it and checks her out, he tries to adjust her collar and feels blood. She’s been killed with a knife. By this time Cross is 100 yards away and in another street with almost no chance of this stranger chasing a knife-wielding maniac through those dark streets. Way up those two options. There’s just no competition. The real murderer would have fled. He real murderer did flee.

Surely you can’t think that, looking at the facts, a guilty Cross is plausible?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's not an invention. It's a possible, and plausible, explanation for the sequence of events. It is plausible that Cross never intended to go to the inquest, until Paul publicly told everyone about the mystery man who found the body. We don't know, I accept that - but it doesn't negate that the possibility is there.

But unless we have proof of that it shouldn’t be used. It’s like saying..


Statement - “well if Cross carried a knife to work that would make him a likely killer.”

Response - “But there’s no evidence for that.”

Justification - “well anything is ‘possible’ so we can’t use it against him.”

Just because something isn’t physically impossible doesn’t make it a valid point. The natural assumption should be that Cross went to the police and he was requested at the inquest.

[Geddy2112]

Robert Paul expressed concern about the dangers he needs to avoid.

I have often thought Robert Paul claiming it was a dangerous area (not that an individual was dangerous or suspicious) was odd. Since he continued to walk that way to work. Or come to think about it do you (or anyone else) think Robert Paul may have been tooled up and carrying a knife?

Food for thought... I've often thought Robert Paul was more suspicious than Cross.

[Geddy2112]

There's ample proof Cross is a very good SUSPECT, in my opinion the prime suspect. We will likely never know who Jack was. All we're doing is ranking suspects. As I've said already, a modern-day investigation would never rule out Cross with the information that we have. This ruling out of Cross carries far more subjective presumption than from those who are saying he's a high-ranking suspect.

That's the problem there isn't any proof. Not one single strand of evidence proves Cross is a killer. In fact I'm not seeing much if anything that even remotely points him to being a 'suspect.' I've asked Stow, Holmgren and many other Team Lechmere members for one single fact that proves Cross is guilty or in your case a 'very good suspect.' It's never ever been answered.

Who decides this 'suspect' status? Who is the authority on such actions?

We are not talking a modern-day investigation though are we? Otherwise we would have DNA, finger prints, blood typing, CCTV etc etc and if we did then I'm 99.9999% sure Cross would not be talked about in 'suspect' circles. You can't have it both ways, you want to class him as a suspect in a modern day situation then you have to have all the modern day bells and whistles that would quickly clear him.

He was spoken to by the Police, he was quizzed in the inquest. Do you not think Baxter would have suspected him if he'd felt the need to? End of the day Cross did not hang, therefore the Police at the time did not consider him a suspect. 'Modern-day' is completely irrelevant. It's another little piece of fabrication to try and finger an innocent man. I wonder what Team Lechmere will pull out of the top hat next....

[chubbs]

It's not an invention. It's a possible, and plausible, explanation for the sequence of events. It is plausible that Cross never intended to go to the inquest, until Paul publicly told everyone about the mystery man who found the body. We don't know, I accept that - but it doesn't negate that the possibility is there.

It's also possible that PC Neil committed the murder, hid round the corner, then reappeared in order to 'discover' the body, once Cross & Paul had gone off to find a copper. This scenario is more likely than yours, because it gives the murderous policeman time to get rid of his weapon. Why have you opted for the less likely of the two suspects?

[TopHat]

Exactly Geddy. And they rely on stuff like…just because Paul spoke to Lloyd’s then this must have been the reason why Cross turned up at the inquest. It’s just an invention. Just because one thing happens before another it’s assumed that the one thing is the result of the other. Can we be sure that Paul would have showed up at the inquest if he hadn’t, by chance, run into the Lloyd’s reporter? No. Does this make Paul suspicious? No.

It's not an invention. It's a possible, and plausible, explanation for the sequence of events. It is plausible that Cross never intended to go to the inquest, until Paul publicly told everyone about the mystery man who found the body. We don't know, I accept that - but it doesn't negate that the possibility is there.

[TopHat]

I would love a member of Team Lechmere to prove to me beyond a reasonably doubt 'Lechmere dunnit' but alas here we are... tens of thousands of posts later over the various forums and Facebook pages, YouTube videos etc and still not one shred of evidence to prove Charles Allen Cross is a multiple murderer, not one.

There's ample proof Cross is a very good SUSPECT, in my opinion the prime suspect. We will likely never know who Jack was. All we're doing is ranking suspects. As I've said already, a modern-day investigation would never rule out Cross with the information that we have. This ruling out of Cross carries far more subjective presumption than from those who are saying he's a high-ranking suspect.

[scottnapa]

Another point on this question of why Cross and Paul never saw each other before: Maybe one did see the other a time or two but didn't remember it, because people don't remember every stranger that they see briefly that they have little reason to pay attention to.

Allow me to explain the purpose of my question. I seemed to me it would likely that Cross and Paul might meet because they’re going in the same direction,

Robert Paul is an honest man walking to work at night in a sketchy part of town,
He is not walking with his head down. The eyes and ears are very actively scanning potential threats in the semi-darkness. Every person that comes close to Paul on his route, needs to be judged as a thief or an honest man. Robert will study people’s faces, their hands, their shoes (undercover police!) for clues of purpose. I imagined, in the course of months, Paul may find some honesty in the faces of men on similar routes. These people are not his friends but they are in his class and have a similar purpose. As one does when you or I see a familiar face on the metro or at the gas station. The familiar face is safer than a stranger and that face is catalogued in our brains as a good thing. The nonverbal bond has value. If I see someone I recognize but do not know… I am very apt to help them, if they have a flat tire at the side of the road, for example.

Robert Paul expressed concern about the dangers he needs to avoid. I postulated that, in the course of a year, Paul interacts with five or six honest men he meets on the road and that would be beneficial.

Paul, in the moment Cross calls him over, has to decide if this stranger is an honest man or a thief.
It seems to me that there was something about Cross, likely the alarmed tone heard in his voice that caused Paul to deem this is an honest man and so, looked at the body.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I would love a member of Team Lechmere to prove to me beyond a reasonably doubt 'Lechmere dunnit' but alas here we are... tens of thousands of posts later over the various forums and Facebook pages, YouTube videos etc and still not one shred of evidence to prove Charles Allen Cross is a multiple murderer, not one.

Exactly Geddy. And they rely on stuff like…just because Paul spoke to Lloyd’s then this must have been the reason why Cross turned up at the inquest. It’s just an invention. Just because one thing happens before another it’s assumed that the one thing is the result of the other. Can we be sure that Paul would have showed up at the inquest if he hadn’t, by chance, run into the Lloyd’s reporter? No. Does this make Paul suspicious? No.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Cross wasn't even the cuts man. He was a just member of the audience who got into the ring after the fight was over.

[Geddy2112]

It's time for you to prove your assertion.

I would love a member of Team Lechmere to prove to me beyond a reasonably doubt 'Lechmere dunnit' but alas here we are... tens of thousands of posts later over the various forums and Facebook pages, YouTube videos etc and still not one shred of evidence to prove Charles Allen Cross is a multiple murderer, not one.