Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bucks Row - The Other Side of the Coin.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    This modern obsession with trying to pin down exact times in 1888 only seems to come from Lechmere theorists, which suggests an unhealthy reliance on clocks and watches that were riddled with human error, and understandable guesswork from those same fallible humans, who tended to round up or down to the nearest quarter of an hour, half an hour or hour, depending on individual circumstances and the need to be as accurate as humanly possible.
    I'm generally quite good at 'guessing the time' but I'm rarely spot on and we have watches, computers, clocks etc all over. The problem with using 'time' as you say in Victorian times as a method of pinning blame on a suspect is purely that, a problem, it's completely inaccurate. You may think you are giving an accurate time but in reality it would hardly ever be the case. If they use this method of 'exact' timings the theory is easy to disprove. I personally think I have done this here or at least provided some doubt to that beyond a reasonable one.

    Good news about the pub

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post

      I'm generally quite good at 'guessing the time' but I'm rarely spot on and we have watches, computers, clocks etc all over. The problem with using 'time' as you say in Victorian times as a method of pinning blame on a suspect is purely that, a problem, it's completely inaccurate. You may think you are giving an accurate time but in reality it would hardly ever be the case. If they use this method of 'exact' timings the theory is easy to disprove. I personally think I have done this here or at least provided some doubt to that beyond a reasonable one.

      Good news about the pub
      You seem to be forgetting that we have an actual photograph of a man knocking up Robert Paul's old lady.

      Note his accurate timepiece.

      Click image for larger version

Name:	Knocking Up.jpg
Views:	283
Size:	72.8 KB
ID:	833478

      Comment


      • #18
        My favorite is the old gal with the peashooter.

        When Old Ben the rooster crowed, she knew it was 4.30 and time to make her rounds.

        Click image for larger version

Name:	Pea Shooter.jpg
Views:	271
Size:	79.4 KB
ID:	833480

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
          You seem to be forgetting that we have an actual photograph of a man knocking up Robert Paul's old lady.
          Absolute filth young man, no need for that language on these boards...

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by caz View Post
            This modern obsession with trying to pin down exact times in 1888 only seems to come from Lechmere theorists, which suggests an unhealthy reliance on clocks and watches that were riddled with human error, and understandable guesswork from those same fallible humans, who tended to round up or down to the nearest quarter of an hour, half an hour or hour, depending on individual circumstances and the need to be as accurate as humanly possible.
            Have you looked at the current Berner Street thread? The Lechmerians are the loudest, not the only ones trying to use exact times to promote their theory.

            Originally posted by caz View Post
            In short, Lechmere theorists would be better off looking for signs that the man had violent tendencies towards women, instead of trying to nail jelly to the wall in Buck's Row.
            By this point, the only real records left would be if the violence got the police involved, which doesn't seem to be the case for Charles Lechmere. He does seem to have gotten on well with his female relatives - he was a witness at his mother's third marriage, as well as the marriages of his two oldest daughters.

            Originally posted by caz View Post
            As I've observed on many an occasion, it's Lechmere's highly credible claim to have thought the body was a tarpaulin at first, until he drew closer, that nails it for me. Not the jelly, but his innocence. His first sight of the victim was of a corpse, not an opportunity.
            Diemschutz initially thought that Stride's body was a lump of mud. The person who found Elizabeth Short's body in the Black Dahlia case initially thought it was a discarded clothing store mannequin. The human mind shies away from death, so it's hardly surprising that Lechmere didn't initially recognize that it was a body.

            "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

            "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Fiver View Post

              Have you looked at the current Berner Street thread? The Lechmerians are the loudest, not the only ones trying to use exact times to promote their theory.
              Oh, I know it well, Fiver. My distinction was between those who would have hanged Lechmere, who need exact times on their side, and those who believe he should have been left to rest in peace for eternity. I've already had my fill of theories which rely on exact timings in Berner Street, but this is another Buck's Row thread.

              Diemschutz initially thought that Stride's body was a lump of mud. The person who found Elizabeth Short's body in the Black Dahlia case initially thought it was a discarded clothing store mannequin. The human mind shies away from death, so it's hardly surprising that Lechmere didn't initially recognize that it was a body.
              This has been my point for years, supported by many other documented cases of innocent witnesses initially 'seeing' an inanimate object, before fully appreciating that they have stumbled upon a dead or dying human being. The idea that Lechmere, the psychopathic killer, could have known about this relatively rare phenomenon and then thought to describe it so credibly in this one case, is a non-starter for me.

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              Last edited by caz; 04-25-2024, 01:07 PM.
              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                My favorite is the old gal with the peashooter.

                When Old Ben the rooster crowed, she knew it was 4.30 and time to make her rounds.

                Click image for larger version

Name:	Pea Shooter.jpg
Views:	271
Size:	79.4 KB
ID:	833480
                Where the hell did Palmer find that photo of me? I demand the negative!
                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post

                  A couple of issues with this are according to Pickford’s website there are no records of a Lechmere working there. There was however a Cross.
                  Hi Geddy

                  Is there a reference on Pickford's website that "a Cross" worked there, or am I deciphering your wording incorrectly (apologies if so)? All I found on their website, under "Pickfords' History" is that "In 2012, a descendant of Charles Latchmere [sic] searched the Pickfords archive to find any reference to her relative. No records were found". Would the relative be Sue Clapp or someone else? Whoever it was, how did they get hold of Pickfords archives, and has anyone else tried to access these (who might unearth something she missed)?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Hair Bear View Post

                    Hi Geddy

                    Is there a reference on Pickford's website that "a Cross" worked there, or am I deciphering your wording incorrectly (apologies if so)? All I found on their website, under "Pickfords' History" is that "In 2012, a descendant of Charles Latchmere [sic] searched the Pickfords archive to find any reference to her relative. No records were found". Would the relative be Sue Clapp or someone else? Whoever it was, how did they get hold of Pickfords archives, and has anyone else tried to access these (who might unearth something she missed)?
                    That probably was Sue Clapp, though Edward Butler has claimed that he was the one who checked the records. drstrange has said that Pickfords has no employee records from the period.
                    "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                    "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Hair Bear View Post

                      Hi Geddy

                      Is there a reference on Pickford's website that "a Cross" worked there, or am I deciphering your wording incorrectly (apologies if so)? All I found on their website, under "Pickfords' History" is that "In 2012, a descendant of Charles Latchmere [sic] searched the Pickfords archive to find any reference to her relative. No records were found". Would the relative be Sue Clapp or someone else? Whoever it was, how did they get hold of Pickfords archives, and has anyone else tried to access these (who might unearth something she missed)?
                      Hi Hair Bear,
                      Yes. The website states no records of a Lechmere working there. Teddy has recently stated on Facebook no employee records are available from prior to the 1920s. Hence my confusion have can it be stated 100% sure that Lechmere worked for Pickfords. I know he said he did in the inquest but that's a lie and he was misquoted in the press... haha.
                      I also believe you are correct that Sue Clapp is the relative who is/was Eddy Butler/Edward Stow's partner. All this name changing is rather sinister

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Since Mr Stow seems upset about a possible 'Paul Theory' doing the rounds he has subsequently posted a video to debunk this atrocity of an idea.

                        Regarding the possibility of Robert Paul committing the crime and then heading West and round the corner of the Board School and along Winthrop Street.

                        Stow states –‘Unfortunately there was a night watchman in Winthrop Street called Patrick Malshaw and he testified that he was awake at the time, nevertheless Paul gets past Malshaw unseen and unheard.’

                        However this is again completely not true. The testimony of Malshaw states –

                        ‘Alfred Malshaw, a night watchman in Winthorpe-street, had also heard no cries or noise. He admitted that he sometimes dozed.
                        The Coroner: I suppose your watching is not up to much?
                        The Witness: I don't know. It is thirteen long hours for 3s and find your own coke. (Laughter.)’


                        Awake at the time was he Edward? Maybe just maybe he was not. So already we have doubts creeping into your argument.

                        According to the data (distances, walking speeds etc) given in the excellent ‘Inside Bucks Row’ book Paul would have had to travel a distance of approx 300 yards to get back from the body, around Winthrop Street and back to the entrance of Buck’s row. This would have taken approx 3m25s walking (not running) at a pedestrian 3mph or 2m55s at a slightly faster 3.5mph. So we have PC Neil leaving the murder spot in Bucks Row at 3:15am (according to the Missing Evidence) on his beat, end of Bucks Row 120 yards further on at about 3:17am, (this is also shown in Jeff's animations) let’s be generous and say 3:20am. Paul enters Bucks Row at say 3:22am, gets to the murder site at 3:24am, we have plenty of time for Paul to find Polly – explained in a while.

                        According to Christer’s Medical expert it took 2mins to kill poor Polly so now we have Paul leaving the murder spot at 3:26am and starting on his double back route. We have already established this takes between 3m25s and 2m55s to get to the junction of Bucks Row and Brady Street. So now we have, if we take the average time of 3mins Paul arriving ‘not so out of breath’ as Stow puts it at Bucks Row at 3:29am, say 3:30am. This gives him plenty of time to be back at the murder spot NOT out of breath in time to find ‘Lechmere standing near the body.’ In fact it gives him too much time, as it gives him approx another ten mins to allow PC Neil to be even further away and be able to commit the deed or find a victim and ‘appear’ back in Bucks Row ‘not out of breath.’ Ed’s debunking of Paul possibly doing the crime and double backing on Winthrop Street is now in tatters.

                        Stow - ‘Running around the block would have been his [Paul’s] only option and the logistics on the ground alone puts any Paul suspect theory in the Nutty column.’ – alas I’ve just proved it using basic maths it’s very doable, very doable indeed and running around the block was not his only option, in fact he could have walked backwards and still had time to do it. Great researcher though.

                        No I'm not saying Paul done the crime, rather that Stows dismissal of the 'theory' is baseless.

                        Annie Chapman was murdered literally a few yards from where Robert Paul worked (Stow claims Lechmere murdered in Hanbury Street to pin the crime on Paul for 'dobbing him in to the newspapers' - I kid you not, you can't make it up) and Kelly just around the corner in Millers Court. Surely he also lied at the inquest saying 'EXACTLY 3:45' which is not possible as he would have been in Bucks Row the same time as PC Neil. To quote Scobie Doo - “When the coincidences mount up against a defendant, it becomes one coincidence too many”

                        Indeed it does James, indeed it does...​
                        Last edited by Geddy2112; 05-14-2024, 10:01 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post
                          Stow - ‘Running around the block would have been his [Paul’s] only option and the logistics on the ground alone puts any Paul suspect theory in the Nutty column.’
                          I'm not keen on Paul being the murderer any more than I am keen on Lechmere, and Stow has correctly discerned that the Paul theory is largely meant as a parody of his own theory, but this being the 'only option' is debatable.

                          This conclusion would depend on two things: our incomplete understanding of the lighting conditions of Buck's Row; our accepting of Christer Holmgren's analysis that Nichols was killed only tens of seconds before Robert Paul's arrival, instead of minutes--a claim that has little empirical support as admitted by the medical authority that he consulted.

                          In theory, Paul could have decided to return the short distance to his house after killing Nichols and noticed Lechmere trotting towards him as he turned into Foster Street. Lechmere unwittingly walked past the end of the street and Paul shortly afterwards returned to Buck's Row out of sheer curiosity or with the deliberate intention of "finding" Lechmere by the body and thus implicating him. I'm not arguing that that is what happened, of course, but I'm not convinced the forensics would disallow it.

                          I think it was the New York murderer Joel Rifkin who returned to the scene of one of his crimes when he saw pedestrians gathering and then mildly insinuated himself into the investigation--which would fit Paul and theoretically Mulshaw or Tomkins, but not C.A.L.
                          Last edited by rjpalmer; 05-16-2024, 09:58 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post
                            Since Mr Stow seems upset about a possible 'Paul Theory' doing the rounds he has subsequently posted a video to debunk this atrocity of an idea.

                            Regarding the possibility of Robert Paul committing the crime and then heading West and round the corner of the Board School and along Winthrop Street.

                            Stow states –‘Unfortunately there was a night watchman in Winthrop Street called Patrick Malshaw and he testified that he was awake at the time, nevertheless Paul gets past Malshaw unseen and unheard.’

                            However this is again completely not true. The testimony of Malshaw states –

                            ‘Alfred Malshaw, a night watchman in Winthorpe-street, had also heard no cries or noise. He admitted that he sometimes dozed.
                            The Coroner: I suppose your watching is not up to much?
                            The Witness: I don't know. It is thirteen long hours for 3s and find your own coke. (Laughter.)’


                            Awake at the time was he Edward? Maybe just maybe he was not. So already we have doubts creeping into your argument.

                            According to the data (distances, walking speeds etc) given in the excellent ‘Inside Bucks Row’ book Paul would have had to travel a distance of approx 300 yards to get back from the body, around Winthrop Street and back to the entrance of Buck’s row. This would have taken approx 3m25s walking (not running) at a pedestrian 3mph or 2m55s at a slightly faster 3.5mph. So we have PC Neil leaving the murder spot in Bucks Row at 3:15am (according to the Missing Evidence) on his beat, end of Bucks Row 120 yards further on at about 3:17am, (this is also shown in Jeff's animations) let’s be generous and say 3:20am. Paul enters Bucks Row at say 3:22am, gets to the murder site at 3:24am, we have plenty of time for Paul to find Polly – explained in a while.

                            According to Christer’s Medical expert it took 2mins to kill poor Polly so now we have Paul leaving the murder spot at 3:26am and starting on his double back route. We have already established this takes between 3m25s and 2m55s to get to the junction of Bucks Row and Brady Street. So now we have, if we take the average time of 3mins Paul arriving ‘not so out of breath’ as Stow puts it at Bucks Row at 3:29am, say 3:30am. This gives him plenty of time to be back at the murder spot NOT out of breath in time to find ‘Lechmere standing near the body.’ In fact it gives him too much time, as it gives him approx another ten mins to allow PC Neil to be even further away and be able to commit the deed or find a victim and ‘appear’ back in Bucks Row ‘not out of breath.’ Ed’s debunking of Paul possibly doing the crime and double backing on Winthrop Street is now in tatters.

                            Stow - ‘Running around the block would have been his [Paul’s] only option and the logistics on the ground alone puts any Paul suspect theory in the Nutty column.’ – alas I’ve just proved it using basic maths it’s very doable, very doable indeed and running around the block was not his only option, in fact he could have walked backwards and still had time to do it. Great researcher though.

                            No I'm not saying Paul done the crime, rather that Stows dismissal of the 'theory' is baseless.

                            Annie Chapman was murdered literally a few yards from where Robert Paul worked (Stow claims Lechmere murdered in Hanbury Street to pin the crime on Paul for 'dobbing him in to the newspapers' - I kid you not, you can't make it up) and Kelly just around the corner in Millers Court. Surely he also lied at the inquest saying 'EXACTLY 3:45' which is not possible as he would have been in Bucks Row the same time as PC Neil. To quote Scobie Doo - “When the coincidences mount up against a defendant, it becomes one coincidence too many”

                            Indeed it does James, indeed it does...​
                            Instead of Paul going all the way back can be sure that there wasn’t a recessed doorway, gateway or entrance at the Wool Warehouse that he could have ducked into? And did he have to see Cross by chance? As they both took the same route to work for 6 days a week wouldn’t it be possible that Paul had previously heard the footsteps of a man going to work (maybe a few times)? So he might have just waited knowing that a guy would be passing soon?
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                            “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Geddy has raised the question of Robert Paul as a possible suspect and on the face of it he seems unlikely because he definitely arrived after Cross but is that an insurmountable hurdle? I did a bit of a comparison at the beginning of my Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent thread even though like Roger I wouldn’t seriously propose him as a candidate but…I don’t see Cross as a serious candidate either.

                              He has also illustrated (using the times provided by Steve in Inside Buck’s Row) that Paul could have doubled back and I’ve suggested the alternative possibility that perhaps there was a recessed doorway or entrance at the Wool Warehouse (for example) that Paul could have ducked into. I’ve also suggested that as they both took the same route everyday it’s far from impossible that Paul might have been aware that another man passed this way everyday too which would have meant that he only had to wait a very few minutes until the other guy passed before following him arriving just after he’d found the body or alternatively maybe he intended to wait until a Constable found the body before casually arriving and offering to help?

                              Likely or unlikely it’s certainly not impossible. So if we allow for at least the possibility of the above suggestion we are left to look at Paul himself. We know what Holmgren, Stow and their supporters see as suspicious about Cross but what might we suggest as suspicious about Paul? And if we compare the ‘Cross suspicions’ with the ‘Paul suspicions’ is there much of a difference?

                              I made the following points which are there to be refuted, disputed or added to:


                              Robert Paul, like Cross, could easily have left his house earlier than stated meaning that he had ample opportunity to kill Polly.

                              In one newspaper version it’s Paul that refuses to prop up the body. I don’t see this as suspicious but it has to be added because Cross supporters see it as suspicious when one newspaper version has Cross himself refusing. We can’t have one rule for one can we?

                              In his Lloyd’s interview Paul was certain that Polly was dead but in his inquest testimony he claimed that she might have been alive. Why the change? Isn’t that suspicious behaviour?

                              He claimed that he left home at 3.45 which is contradicted by Neil, Thain, Mizen and Cross himself. Was he overcompensating?

                              He talked about trying to give Cross a wide berth. Was he perhaps trying to plant a seed in the mind of the police that Cross was somehow a suspicious character?

                              In his Lloyd’s interview he almost airbrushes Cross out of the story. A sign of a big ego at work perhaps?

                              He criticises Mizen which might suggest a grudge against the police. Had he been in trouble with them?

                              Paul said that he helped Cross pull Nichols dress down. So it was Cross that was concerned about decency and not Paul?


                              None of the above proves a case against Robert Paul but I’d say that there is more that’s suspicious about him than there is about Cross. And yet Cross has a crusade in his name.



                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                              “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                                Geddy has raised the question of Robert Paul as a possible suspect and on the face of it he seems unlikely because he definitely arrived after Cross but is that an insurmountable hurdle? I did a bit of a comparison at the beginning of my Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent thread even though like Roger I wouldn’t seriously propose him as a candidate but…I don’t see Cross as a serious candidate either.
                                No I do not either, but I was trying to discredit Stow’s video stating that he could not of been and it should be in the nutty column. I’m sure Stow’s video came about because of this thread. He seems to be systematically going through ‘suspect’ theories and trying to debunk them on YouTube.

                                Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                                I made the following points which are there to be refuted, disputed, or added to:
                                Robert Paul, like Cross, could easily have left his house earlier than stated meaning that he had ample opportunity to kill Polly.
                                Absolutely. With PC Neil previously leaving Bucks Row at say 3:20am it gives Paul quite a bit of time to do the deed and still appear back ‘behind’ Lechmere.

                                I
                                Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                                n one newspaper version it’s Paul that refuses to prop up the body. I don’t see this as suspicious but it has to be added because Cross supporters see it as suspicious when one newspaper version has Cross himself refusing. We can’t have one rule for one can we?
                                Again completely true and balanced. Problem with Christer and Stow (Next years Eurovision entrant with the ballad ‘I’m Cross’) is they are very selective to what they believe. I really can’t see how not wanting to touch a dead body is suspicious. I mean do people stop cars nowadays to have a road kill fondle?

                                Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                                In his Lloyd’s interview Paul was certain that Polly was dead but in his inquest testimony he claimed that she might have been alive. Why the change? Isn’t that suspicious behaviour?
                                Like I said Paul’s story seems to contradict itself on more than one occasion. More suspicious than Lechmere but Lechmere gets stamped as one of the most notorious serial killers in history. I really would love to know Christer and Stow’s motives for blaming him. I’m sure with Stow it’s simply to get his face on the telly and make money from it.

                                Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                                He claimed that he left home at 3.45 which is contradicted by Neil, Thain, Mizen and Cross himself. Was he overcompensating?
                                I think he was trying to give himself an alibi, he knew PC Neil would be in Bucks Row at 3:45am so if he was as well, he is safe from any blame.

                                Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                                He talked about trying to give Cross a wide berth. Was he perhaps trying to plant a seed in the mind of the police that Cross was somehow a suspicious character?
                                Indeed, classic deflection technique and if it was a rough street with plenty of muggings why did he walk that way every morning to work? Kind of does not make sense.

                                Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                                None of the above proves a case against Robert Paul but I’d say that there is more that’s suspicious about him than there is about Cross. And yet Cross has a crusade in his name.
                                No of course it does not prove a case, however I think it makes him just as much suspicious or even more suspicious than Cross. We also have the Geographical stuff Christer and Ed rely on. Apart from the mother explanation, (he might have had a relly or friend living close by) we have Paul roughly travelling the same routes and MJK in Millers Court is not a huge distance from Paul's place of work. Of course we still have the Hanbury street ToD to contend with.

                                You know one day we might know in more certainty.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X