Robert Paul

[Herlock Sholmes]

"Based on the evidence, the 25 second time gap is untenable"

How many times over the years, both here and elsewhere, has it been explained that it is perfectly tenable and the reasons why?
Yet, people still will not acknowledge there is an alternative that fits the evidence.

I wonder why Dusty

[Herlock Sholmes]

What the evidence points to is that Cross was entirely honest as to what he said about what happened that morning. People that weren’t there speak with undeserved confidence as if they were. Not one single thing about what Cross said raises an eyebrow. The case ‘against’ him is a quite deliberate fabrication. Deliberate misinterpretation, invention, assumption, evidence editing, opinion stated as fact, lying and out and out silliness. The most disreputable position to hold in this case is to say that you think Cross might have been the ripper. It can’t be stated genuinely.

[Herlock Sholmes]

When Cross explained what he saw/thought/did in Buck’s Row that morning he wasn’t giving a Hemingway-like piece of descriptive prose. He was responding to questions and he certainly wasn’t saying “I thought X, then 5 seconds later I did Y which caused me to pause and think Z before…etc.” We are getting a trimmed down version with him, like all witnesses giving statements, leaving out bits that he feels are unimportant. The small, seemingly insignificant things here and there. It’s easy to imagine, without any resort to silliness, a slightly more drawn out version of events.

Cross walks along Buck’s Row on his way to work, minding his own business, lost in his own thoughts of whatever and paying little attention to the sight and sounds that make up the same soundtrack to every mornings walk to work. The distant voice, the distant train whistle, the footstep, the door slamming, the dog barking. Would anyone particularly have recalled any of these when recalling that time hours later?

As he’s walking he sees the shape up ahead in the poor light. (Start your stopwatch) He walks a little closer. He steps in to the road and continues a very few feet the stops. “Hold on…is that what I think it is? It’s a man or a woman.” He hesitates and thinks “shall I just move on? Perhaps the shape only looks like a person?” [15 seconds have passed since he first saw the shape.] He moves diagonally and hesitatingly to the centre of the road when he sees that it’s certainly a woman (he could probably see the legs as the skirts are raised) A bit of natural concern/panic sets in. Does he do his ‘decent citizen’ bit, or does he wonder “what if this is just some drunk who starts screaming at the top of her lungs?” [30 seconds have now passed since he first saw the body] At that point he hears the other man approaching. Relieved, he waits for the other man to arrive. Paul, seeing a guy loitering in the middle of the road up ahead is hardly at marching speed. Twenty seconds after hearing Paul approaching he gets to Cross. [50 seconds have now elapsed since Cross first saw the ‘shape’ up ahead]. At an average speed that’s around a 70 yard gap between the two men.

Where’s the problem unless someone wants to deliberately trim everything down as if we are dealing with robots? To be suspicious of Cross you have to start out from a position of being suspicious and then imagine that everything somehow ‘fits.’ It doesn’t. We have absolutely no reason to be suspicious of this man. That’s why the police weren’t suspicious of him.

[Newbie]

What the evidence points to is that Cross was entirely honest as to what he said about what happened that morning. People that weren’t there speak with undeserved confidence as if they were. Not one single thing about what Cross said raises an eyebrow. The case ‘against’ him is a quite deliberate fabrication. Deliberate misinterpretation, invention, assumption, evidence editing, opinion stated as fact, lying and out and out silliness. The most disreputable position to hold in this case is to say that you think Cross might have been the ripper. It can’t be stated genuinely.

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
- not hearing anyone else all the way up Buck's row, when he first enters the street

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.

C. PC Neil's testimony to hearing PC Mizen's footsteps, some 120 yards away on Brady street

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

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.

F. The theory of sound masking: which has applications to jack hammers, but not a person's own footsteps.

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?

The evidence, in conjunction with science, says that Paul would have heard or seen Lechmere well before the body, 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 behavior to create a fact.
And I'm sure you don't want the triumph of speculation over fact. Good heavens, no! A thousand times, no!

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

[Newbie]

"Based on the evidence, the 25 second time gap is untenable"

How many times over the years, both here and elsewhere, has it been explained that it is perfectly tenable and the reasons why?
Yet, people still will not acknowledge there is an alternative that fits the evidence.

I'm perfectly happy to hear how the 25 second time gap is tenable. In fact, I beg people here to tell me why its tenable.

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.

I'm ready for it Dusty - hit me!

Someone here was talking about sound masking involving Lechmere or Paul's footsteps, which I patiently explained was not a valid scientific theory in application to footsteps.

Someone (the same person?) spoke about the footsteps being heard on the unconscious but not conscious level, and when I challenged him to come up with a study, he demurred.

So, those two are none starters for me, and should be for anyone here who are seriously interested in the issue.

I'm ready!

[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

And the facts tell us that Cross was innocent. Honesty tells us this. The ‘case’ against him continues to be a complete stain on the subject as a whole.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm perfectly happy to hear how the 25 second time gap is tenable. In fact, I beg people here to tell me why its tenable.

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.

I'm ready for it Dusty - hit me!

Someone here was talking about sound masking involving Lechmere or Paul's footsteps, which I patiently explained was not a valid scientific theory in application to footsteps.

Someone (the same person?) spoke about the footsteps being heard on the unconscious but not conscious level, and when I challenged him to come up with a study, he demurred.

So, those two are none starters for me, and should be for anyone here who are seriously interested in the issue.

I'm ready!

There’s no point in telling you. You are clearly now one of the ‘select.’ A Disciple of the Church of the True Charles Cross.

Thankfully most of us in this subject haven’t been duped by this drivel.

[JohnSAJR]

We can debate timings, who was where or what was heard, but don't forget Cross, the alleged murdering mastermind, had three different opportunities to say he'd heard running or declining footsteps as he approached Nichols - to Paul, Mizen and at the inquest. He had three days to concoct a simple cover story, before appearing at that inquest, but what does he do? He stands up and indirectly implicates himself. This is the biggest indicator of his innocence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We can debate timings, who was where or what was heard, but don't forget Cross, the alleged murdering mastermind, had three different opportunities to say he'd heard running or declining footsteps as he approached Nichols - to Paul, Mizen and at the inquest. He had three days to concoct a simple cover story, before appearing at that inquest, but what does he do? He stands up and indirectly implicates himself. This is the biggest indicator of his innocence.

Excellent point John. Christer Holmgren invented The Mizen Scam which, according to the facts, Cross must have concocted as soon as he first heard Paul approach and on the spot in a feat of almost Rain Man-type quick thinking. And yet, he never thought to say that he’d seen or heard someone up ahead near the body who ran away. Added to that, even though he had over two days thinking time, he didn’t think to firm up his leaving the house time. Why didn’t he say “I left home at around or just after 3.35.” Was that too ‘ingenius’ for the creator of The Mizen Scam?

[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?

[Lewis C]

I'm perfectly happy to hear how the 25 second time gap is tenable. In fact, I beg people here to tell me why its tenable.

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.

I'm ready for it Dusty - hit me!

Someone here was talking about sound masking involving Lechmere or Paul's footsteps, which I patiently explained was not a valid scientific theory in application to footsteps.

Someone (the same person?) spoke about the footsteps being heard on the unconscious but not conscious level, and when I challenged him to come up with a study, he demurred.

So, those two are none starters for me, and should be for anyone here who are seriously interested in the issue.

I'm ready!

OK, I'll refer you to a place in Casebook that's easy to find: post #63 of this page.

[Herlock Sholmes]

OK, I'll refer you to a place in Casebook that's easy to find: post #63 of this page.

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve always assumed, and no one has ever given me any reason not to, that no one who favours Cross as a suspect believes that he would have met her elsewhere and then taken her to a spot that was on his direct walk to work; and certainly not at a time so close to his being due at work. If Cross had gone out early to find a victim is it really likely that in Whitechapel, he had failed to find a prostitute? This would have been about as likely as someone going to Paris and failing to find a shop that sells baguettes. The alternative then is that Cross saw her on his way to work and decided to kill her on the spot; careless of the location and not bothering to suggest that they go a street or two away to a street where he couldn’t have been connected to.

Emily Holland had met Polly Nichols at the junction of Osborne Street and Whitechapel Road at around 2.30am on the morning of August 31st. I’m not great with maps but it appears to me that this would have been a walk of around 12-15 minutes (I’ll stand correcting of course) Polly was the worse for drink and stated her need for cash to get a bed.

Would she have tried unsuccessfully for a customer elsewhere, given up and decided that the backstreet that was Buck’s Row was a better option? It seems unlikely to say the least. Why would a prostitute choose Buck’s Row?

And would she have gone straight from her meeting with Holland to Buck’s Row? Again, surely it’s unlikely as this would have got her there by around 2.45 and PC Neill hadn’t seen her when he passed on his beat 30 minutes later.

So the only remaining, and far more likely explanation, is that she ran into her killer not far from Buck’s Row and she had taken him to a quiet backstreet where she thought that they would be unlikely to be disturbed. Surely no one can really imagine Cross doing this?

[Newbie]

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, and imply that it bores you .... as if this extinguishes its role in the discussion.
And then you warmly embrace the sound masking quality of human feet ..... zounds! Is discussion really that dreadful here?

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's estate should ask you for the name back.

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, Neil was less likely to hear Mizens footsteps, not more likely. Lechmere would be in the same boat .... he finally claims to hear footsteps when he was visually focused.

He doesn't hear it while walking up the street, but just so happens to hear it when he was proximate to the body. 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?

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. 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.

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.

Lech didn't hear him, didn't hear him, didn't hear him .... and then, oops! Hears him when near the body. How convenient!

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?

Yes, that argument certainly is sustainable.

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, its just typical Lechmere weirdness, which is no proof of nothing!

[Fiver]

the only important thing about the Lloyd's article and his inquest testimony is Paul's consistent failure to mention seeing or hearing Lech,
who claimed to be only some 50 yards ahead of him, until noticing him stopped, standing near the body.

A 50 yard distance would have put Charles Cross around the corner and out of sight until Robert Paul entered Bucks Row. We don't know what distance Paul saw Cross, nor can we know when he first heard Cross - no one asked Paul those questions.

Paul not mentioning something is not evidence that it didn't exist. It's like concluding that since Paul never mentioned Cross' clothing, Cross must have been naked.