Robert Paul

[Fiver]

But there was a time gap, and Lechmere claims that it was only some 25 seconds. Why should we believe him?

There is no evidence of a time gap and Cross certainly didn't claim there was one, let alone give a precise time.

[Newbie]

Oh! BTW, not only did I concede early this Summer that Lechmere showing up in the courtroom in his work clothes was no longer a valid issue, as expressed in the East London Observer, I went out and proved as to why that is. That was the job of the anti-Lechmere crowd, and now they are giving me no quarters and have declared that I have now gone to the dark side .... oh no!

Really, i'm far more objective than someone, say, like Herlock ... who is so ideologically wrapped up in his biases, and so incapable of countering points, that its almost funny, but certainly a demonstration where people can go in that matter if they are not careful.

[Newbie]

There is no evidence of a time gap and Cross certainly didn't claim there was one, let alone give a precise time.

Cross and Paul walked up Buck's row hand in hand when they encountered Polly Nichols body?

[Newbie]

Its very simple Newbie,
Lech got there a bit more than a minute before Paul,
had time to examine the body and knew that she was dead,
heard Paul's footsteps and was scared of being blamed.

Since he didn't commit the murder, decided to stay and tell the truth, with the one exception involving the lie about approaching the body, as opposed to coming from it. Then the theatrical performance about examing the body, that he quickly abandons, knowing that she's dead.

That would scare the hell out of me if I were Lechmere in that scenario.
How f..ing hard is that as opposed to the nonsense of Lech and Paul having the hearing capacity of old men, except when in court.

[drstrange169]

"Its always beneath people to come up with their reasoning .... or, they refer me to some vague place in Casebook, that I need to search out."

Hard to describe virtually every single thread about Cross on Casebook as "some vague place". Ditto, my article in Ripperologist or Steve Blomer's "Inside Bucks Row", to date the definitive book on subject. Ditto the various facebook groups and the other jtr site musings in this very subject.

By all means disagree with someone opinions, but don't pretend they don't exist, or worse, be too lazy to check before pronouncing definitive statements.

"Lechmere himself definitely says that didn't notice Paul walking behind him, until noticing Paul's footsteps while he was moving towards Polly Nichol's body ..."

Both those claims are not the available evidence, so need no rebuttal.

" ... and yet PC Neil, while examining the body, heard PC Mizen from about triple the distance supposedly separating Lechmere and Paul."

Either you are unaware of the information or you are trying to deliberately misled with the above.

Policemen wore wooden shod shoes giving walking policemen a loud and recognisable sound. Neil knew Mrs Nichols throat was slit. He knew Thain was expected to be at the end of the street shortly. He was actively expecting help.

Cross had not approached the body, didn't even know it was a body. He was not actively looking for help. To compare the two circumstances is the kind of twisted logic that causes so much reaction to Cross's candidacy. But, I guess that's the point isn't it? Make a silly claim and poke the tiger.

" ... The eastern half of Buck's row had great acoustics, being aligned with two story stone buildings with no gaps."

Ah yes, the old echo chamber canard.

Mrs Nichols wore steel shod shoes, yet all the awake and light-sleeping residents and the various nightwatchmen failed to hear her footsteps, "like hammers on the cobblestones". The same residents and nightwatchmen missed Cross and Paul's footsteps. Cross and Paul failed to hear Neil's wooden soles and he their unknown soled shoes. All on this "unusually quite night", where according to Christer Paul could hear Big Ben chime on the other side of the town as he entered Buck's Row!

" ... No prosecutor would accept Lechmere's story at face value."

Given a prosecutor's specific job is not to accept any story at face value, that's a rather pointless sentence.

A Coroner and a jury, who actually saw and heard all the evidence that you and I didn't, did accept Cross's story and as much as you might want to dismiss that, it is still more relevant then unresearched claims made by hobbyists nearly a 150 years later. The police who interviewed and probably investigated him to some degree and who had far more knowledge than you and I did accept his story.


" ... there was a time gap, and Lechmere claims that it was only some 25 seconds ..."

I'd love to see the quote where Cross talks about 25 seconds. The exact time gap is unknown and Cross indisputablely did not give one.

Clearly, instead of making claims about "vague places" that you are too lazy to check, you need to do some serious research into what has been written about this.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You then mean, but don't say, that the evidence points to him being 40 - 50 yards in front of Paul marching along Bath Street and then up Buck's row ... correct? It's kind of important, because if Paul notices Lechmere earlier then the body, it would exonerate Lech .... and the Cross issue would fade away.

What evidence do you have? I hope it is not exclusively based on only part of Lechmere's testimony, editing out one or two important items mentioned by Lech. I hope that you are not merely satisfied with Lechmere telling you that he was just ahead of Paul and that you dropped everything else from consideration; that you are rigorous and analytical in your judgement, even handedly considering all the facts on the issue that we do have.

Well, here are the facts that we have. I ignored Lechmere's stated time of departing home as not a fact we can use, nor the just happening to conveniently hear Paul when moving towards the body item, because the killer would have also constructed such a story.

So, here they are: which ones do you wish to embrace or dispute?

A. parts of Lechmere's testimony:
- first noticing Paul's footsteps only while moving towards Polly Nichol's body - Staight in with a misunderstanding of what Cross actually said. Good start. What he said was: “ He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from.“

He saw the figure when he had arrived at the middle of the road.

- not hearing anyone else all the way up Buck's row, when he first enters the street - The murder occurred on the Friday morning, Cross testified on the Monday so we have to at least allow for the memory of trivial things that he wasn’t listening for in the first place. And how do you know how good Cross’s hearing was?

B. parts of Paul's testimony and witness statement to Lloyd's: failing to mention, on two separate occasions, marking the presence of Lechmere along Bath Street or Buck's row, before finally visualizing him at various points next to Polly Nichol's body. - Because he hadn’t seen or noticed him. Nothing mysterious.

C. PC Neil's testimony to hearing PC Mizen's footsteps, some 120 yards away on Brady street - How loud was Mizen’s tread compared to Paul’s? How good was Neill’s hearing compared to Cross’s? Cross wasn’t looking or listening for anyone; Neill was on alert due to the situation, knowing that he required assistance.

D. Paul's statement that people seldom walk up Buck's row (at that time) without being on their guard - Irrelevant.

E. Current scientific findings on how the brain cancels out repetitive stimuli, most particularly, in the action of movement, where the motor cortex signals the inhibitory neurons of the auditory cortex to ignore repetitive sounds associated with walking or running. - I’m unaware of these current ‘findings.’

F. The theory of sound masking: which has applications to jack hammers, but not a person's own footsteps. - So it’s somehow impossible not to notice a sound? Rubbish.

We have 5 facts and our current scientific understanding of the neurology of hearing on this matter: the theory of sound masking being a pseudo theory in this case.

Which do you wish to dispute? All of it.

The evidence, in conjunction with science, says that Paul would have heard or seen Lechmere well before the body, no it doesn’t and that Lechmere would have heard Paul, if they were separated by a distance well, well short of that between PCs Neil and Mizen. When someone claims to be somewhere, but people at that location neither see or hear him, but they should have, that means that person was still there - correct?

You do realize that the notion that 'if guilty, he would have fled' is taking a premise and speculating about human behaviour to create a fact. No, it’s the application of common sense and the realisation that no serial killer in the entire history of serial killing ever stood around and waited for a stranger to turn up.
And I'm sure you don't want the triumph of speculation over fact. Good heavens, no! A thousand times, no! Absolutely not. That’s why the totally trumped up and dishonest case against Cross has been shown for the complete fabrication that it is,

If more facts are forthcoming, we can change our minds of course .... but we should be bound by facts here, and only facts

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I guess this is the best you can do .... sort of .... your typical sad effort Herlock.

You plead ignorance to the science of acoustic psychology Yes, isn’t that strange. You would have thought that everyone would have acquired a fairly in-depth understanding of acoustic psychology during the course of their lives. I’ve often nipped into Waterstone’s to purchase my holiday read fully intending to get a good old page turner on the subject of acoustic psychology but sadly I could never make my mind up as to which gripping volume to choose, and imply that it bores you .... as if this extinguishes its role in the discussion. I don’t know the acoustics of that area and neither do you Newbie.
And then you warmly embrace the sound masking quality of human feet ..... zounds! Is discussion really that dreadful here? No science is required. Unless you are claiming that it’s impossible for it to be the case that sometimes sounds exist that aren’t heard by some people then I’d quit whilst you’re lagging behind.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's estate should ask you for the name back. Conan Doyle wrote stories involving Sherlock Holmes. Herlock Sholmes was a parody written by Maurice Leblanc.

Its a waste of time telling you that the human brain does not multi-task on perceptions well (the old acoustic psychology bit that bores you), so by focusing visually on the body, Yes it is, because I know from experience experience that people sometimes don’t pick up on sounds that other people do hear. This is a fact so please don’t bother wasting time on this. Neil was less likely to hear Mizens footsteps, not more likely. Rubbish. Lechmere would be in the same boat .... he finally claims to hear footsteps when he was visually focused. You are just desperately trying to see everything of Cross being guilty…which anyone can see that he wasn’t.

He doesn't hear it while walking up the street, but just so happens to hear it when he was proximate to the body. Duh! He doesn’t hear Paul when he was further away but heard him as he got closer to him. What a revelation! We’ll be suggesting that things look smaller the further away that are next. Was Polly Nichol's body a sound receptor Herlock? Was that why PC Mizen also heard footsteps so well, or was he actually part rabbit? Just because someone doesn’t mention hearing something doesn’t entitle someone to make the spurious claim that it couldn’t have come from within hearing range.

One could say that Paul noticed footsteps all along ... but just didn't feel inclined to introduce them into his testimony. That would be a sound argument - but it was beyond you here. Do you read the posts that other people make? I wrote a lengthy post making that exact point. He'd most probably be wrong, but there is that scintilla of doubt. But then Lechmere comes along and tells you the same damn thing, with no room for doubt. Lechmere could hear Paul from that distance of separation, but just doesn't for some reason. Hell, Lech claimed that he could hear all the way up the street. Then where is the person who jumps up and claims that this is 100% proof of Cross lying and therefore of his guilt. Surely if it’s as straightforward as you claim? So obvious? Where are they? That’s right Newbie, there’s no one claiming that this is proof of anything. It’s waffle. Either Cross and Paul didn’t hear each other or they might have heard something but didn’t bother mentioning it because it wasn’t important and no one asked them about it.

So, what are you trying to say when insisting that they just couldn't hear each other in that dark, dangerous street, separated by about a third the distance that separated the two PCs, when Lechmere then comes along and tells us that indeed he could? They should have been walking faster than Mizen, who was carrying a lamp and walking his beat; by walking faster, their feet should have hit the pavement harder. The boots they wore should have been sturdy enough to protect a toe from being broken, if they dropped a heavy load on it. I’m trying to introduce a bit of common sense and life experience to your journey down the rabbit hole. It’s a sad state of affairs when someone is that desperate to make a point they will deny the possibility that one person might not have seen another. Early hours of the morning, it’s dark, the streets are inadequately lit, two men are (probably miserably) trudging to work in the dark heading for a long shift of work. They weren’t on a guided tour looking around them at points of interest. A man 60/70 yards ahead or whatever in those conditions could have been out of sight and sound of each other.

Lech didn't hear him, didn't hear him, didn't hear him .... and then, oops! Hears him when near the body. How convenient! Isn’t science weird Newbie. You don’t hear something and then….just as the source gets closer….you hear it? It’s like witchcraft.

Why did he suddenly hear Paul's footstpes then Herlock, and not beforehand, when he was not visually focused? Oh! I'm sorry, you don't recognize the science of acoustic psychology here .... my bad. Well then, was it the acoustic receptor qualities of Polly Nichol's body redirecting the echo of footsteps to people on her immediate right? Why didn’t the police, who were there, spot this glaring anomaly I wonder? Ah yes, I remember…it’s that old ‘selective idiocy’ theory that you Cross fans love. Smart when it suits you, idiot when it doesn’t.

Yes, that argument certainly is sustainable. There is no argument. All arguments pro-Cross have been dissected, discussed and comprehensively rebutted. Every single one. The only decent thing would be for those proposing him to apologise for wasting everyone’s time.

As to whether Lechmere first stopped, or was moving towards the body when he heard Paul, he never mentions stopping.
It would be pretty weird to stop there, you must admit .... but then, it’s just typical Lechmere weirdness, which is no proof of nothing!

Like…no proof of his guilt…not a smidge, not an iota, not a scintilla. Just a tissue of invention and deceit.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh! BTW, not only did I concede early this Summer that Lechmere showing up in the courtroom in his work clothes was no longer a valid issue, as expressed in the East London Observer, I went out and proved as to why that is. That was the job of the anti-Lechmere crowd, and now they are giving me no quarters and have declared that I have now gone to the dark side .... oh no!

Really, i'm far more objective than someone, say, like Herlock ... who is so ideologically wrapped up in his biases, and so incapable of countering points, that its almost funny, but certainly a demonstration where people can go in that matter if they are not careful.

I’m not biased on any topic on this case. I look at the evidence from all sides and remain balanced. What do you mean “…so incapable of countering points.” Are you blind? I’ve countered every single one a hundred times. Any poor logic, any bias is found on the side of Cross supporters.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s late and I just haven’t got the inclination to search through various newspaper reports of the inquest. I’ve done the obvious and checked The Times and The Telegraph but perhaps someone could point me to where Cross or Paul had been asked if they had heard the other man prior to their meeting in Buck’s Row?

Mmm, thought so. Neither Cross nor Paul were asked if they had heard anyone else. So why would they have bothered to mention it if they had?

[Herlock Sholmes]

To add to the “why didn’t he mention seeing or hearing a man up ahead near to the body who walked/ran away?” And “why didn’t he firm up his time for leaving home to 3.35 giving him no time to commit the murder in the eyes of the police?” We can also add the very obvious - why didn’t he take Polly a few streets away from a spot that he passed every day on the way to work?

He’s sharp enough to concoct the Mizen Scam on the spot but when it came to doing the obvious to deflect attention from himself old Charlie transformed from cunning crook to desperate dullard.

How very convenient.

[Lewis C]

That’s some in-depth, deep-dive research that you’ve done to dig out that post Lewis.