The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Jon Guy]

In his paper interview, Paul said that he was hurrying along. Yo me, that implies him being late before finding Lechmere..

Didn`t Paul just say: I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw

I`d have to agree with Steve, that until they came across the body, neither of the pair were late, and therefore walking at a normal pace.

[Abby Normal]

aarrrgh. My bad. I meant to say 60 yards in 30 seconds.

so let me try this again. the time it took from lech stopping walking, notice the body, take a few steps look at it and to when Paul appears seems to me could be anywhere from 5-20 seconds. He notices paul about 30-40 yards away.


lets be conservative then and use the larger of both numbers. Lech 20 seconds, Paul 40 yards away. A full grown man walking at a slightly faster than normal walking pace does by my timing 2 yards a second. so the twenty seconds Lech was stopped, Paul walked 40 yards. add to that the 40 yards away in which Cross noticed Paul and we have a total distance of 80 yards at the MOST it seems they were separated when walking.

the least separation using Cross 5 seconds Paul 30 yards away would be-40 yards separated when walking.

So between 40 and 80 yards separation, take the middle and lets say they were 60 yards apart.

two men walking down the street in the middle of the night, More than likely dark but deserted and quiet, do you think they would have noticed each other, at the least the man following???

I think the man following would probably notice at 40 yards, maybe not at 60 yards, and probably not at 80 yards.

so I have actually resolved basically nothing.sorry. carry on.

[Abby Normal]

Didn`t Paul just say: I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw

I`d have to agree with Steve, that until they came across the body, neither of the pair were late, and therefore walking at a normal pace.

Hi Jon
I agree that they didn't say they were late until they came to the body.

but they both could have thought they were late, or almost, before they came to the body.

and more important, IMHO, even if they didn't think they were late before-someone walking to get to work (and not wanting to be late even if they didn't think they were late) in a dark and deserted city, with the possibility of being robbed in the back of your mind, I would think that they would walk at faster than usual pace, don't you??

[Fisherman]

Didn`t Paul just say: I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw

I`d have to agree with Steve, that until they came across the body, neither of the pair were late, and therefore walking at a normal pace.

Did he NOT say that he was hurrying along, Jon? And was not Lechmere seemingly a lot later in Bucks Row than he should have been?

[Patrick S]

Did he NOT say that he was hurrying along, Jon? And was not Lechmere seemingly a lot later in Bucks Row than he should have been?

I'd have to check my notes to be certain, but I thought Cross stated that he was running late to begin with. I'm sure Fish knows.

A quick aside. I've always felt it somewhat futile - if not outright pointless - to time things to judge how 'far along' on his route to Pickfords Cross should or should not have been. We've seen the issue of establishing a firm reference as to time debated on these boards many times, so I'll leave that out. But, I say this mainly because Cross was not - so far as we know - suspected to a degree that caused any level of contemporary inquiry into his route, timing, etc. Thus, we don't know if he stopped along the way to cut some offending piece of leather from his boot, popped in a chandlers shop for a quick bite since his wife hated to cook, paused to feed a hungry dog, stopped off for a few pops because he was - while possibly not Jack the Ripper - a raging alcoholic.

[Fisherman]

I'd have to check my notes to be certain, but I thought Cross stated that he was running late to begin with. I'm sure Fish knows.

A quick aside. I've always felt it somewhat futile - if not outright pointless - to time things to judge how 'far along' on his route to Pickfords Cross should or should not have been. We've seen the issue of establishing a firm reference as to time debated on these boards many times, so I'll leave that out. But, I say this mainly because Cross was not - so far as we know - suspected to a degree that caused any level of contemporary inquiry into his route, timing, etc. Thus, we don't know if he stopped along the way to cut some offending piece of leather from his boot, popped in a chandlers shop for a quick bite since his wife hated to cook, paused to feed a hungry dog, stopped off for a few pops because he was - while possibly not Jack the Ripper - a raging alcoholic.

In a sense, I have a lot more trouble accepting a raging alcoholic having the kind of facade Lechmere had. Some say that serialists do not raise kids, live family lifes, open shops, save money... but that is just not true.

However, would a raging alcoholic accomplish that? I think not.

Not that it takes away from your overall suggestion. But he did say he did not see anyone before Paul arrived, and I think that pretty much rules out the chandlers shop. But there can always be suggestions about different pastimes, I realize that. If he allowed that to put him ten minutes behind schedule, we will never know. My guess is that he didn´t.

[Patrick S]

In a sense, I have a lot more trouble accepting a raging alcoholic having the kind of facade Lechmere had. Some say that serialists do not raise kids, live family lifes, open shops, save money... but that is just not true.

However, would a raging alcoholic accomplish that? I think not.

Not that it takes away from your overall suggestion. But he did say he did not see anyone before Paul arrived, and I think that pretty much rules out the chandlers shop. But there can always be suggestions about different pastimes, I realize that. If he allowed that to put him ten minutes behind schedule, we will never know. My guess is that he didn´t.

The alcoholic thing was a joke. But, then your objection to his having been one is predicated on belief that he was a "serialist" I'm just pointing out that we know virtually nothing about his route, timings, etc. Thus, claiming that his having been at point A when he should have been at point B is suspicious is little more than invention based on assumption. Kind of like assuming he could not have been an alcoholic because he was Jack the Ripper.

[Fisherman]

The alcoholic thing was a joke. But, then your objection to his having been one is predicated on belief that he was a "serialist" I'm just pointing out that we know virtually nothing about his route, timings, etc. Thus, claiming that his having been at point A when he should have been at point B is suspicious is little more than invention based on assumption. Kind of like assuming he could not have been an alcoholic because he was Jack the Ripper.

I am not saying that he was a serialist, Patrick. I am saying that I find that a serialist would be more likely to be able to keep up a facade of a striving, responsible lifestyle than a raging alcoholic.

As for the points A and B, it´s the same as ever: we have what we have, and it´s up to anybody what we make of it.

[John G]

aarrrgh. My bad. I meant to say 60 yards in 30 seconds.

Ah, that's six miles an hour, which is very quick walking pace. In fact, it amounts to race walking speed: https://www.verywell.com/measure-walking-speed-3435745

[Patrick S]

I am not saying that he was a serialist, Patrick. I am saying that I find that a serialist would be more likely to be able to keep up a facade of a striving, responsible lifestyle than a raging alcoholic.

As for the points A and B, it´s the same as ever: we have what we have, and it´s up to anybody what we make of it.

Well. You said this: "In a sense, I have a lot more trouble accepting a raging alcoholic having the kind of facade Lechmere had."

The operative word here is obvious: "façade". You feel that Lechmere wasn't a "raging alcoholic" because he of the complex, well executed "façade" that allowed him to kill unabated for decades, come in close contact with the police, dupe them with a fake name and invented story, and then disappear into the ether with them none the wiser. I agree! Well...I agree that he probably wasn't a raging alcoholic, that is. Alas, I base my reasoning on the facts that we both know about him: Raised 11 kids, 20+ years at Pickfords, opened a "general shop" late in life, married 50+ years......

[John G]

Well. You said this: "In a sense, I have a lot more trouble accepting a raging alcoholic having the kind of facade Lechmere had."

The operative word here is obvious: "façade". You feel that Lechmere wasn't a "raging alcoholic" because he of the complex, well executed "façade" that allowed him to kill unabated for decades, come in close contact with the police, dupe them with a fake name and invented story, and then disappear into the ether with them none the wiser. I agree! Well...I agree that he probably wasn't a raging alcoholic, that is. Alas, I base my reasoning on the facts that we both know about him: Raised 11 kids, 20+ years at Pickfords, opened a "general shop" late in life, married 50+ years......

And has there ever been a serial killer in history who "retired" and stopped killing for over 30 years?

[David Orsam]

Point 3: I cannot say what the documentary meant by stating that Robert Paul was in Bucks Rof for a full minute before he noticed Lechmere. It is not for me to establish what other people, such as film crews mean when they state something. Only they will have the definitive answer, as I hope you can understand.
If I was to offer my take on what I THINK the film crew meant, it boils down to the fact that there was about 130 yards to cover from the junctions Brady Street/Bucks Row, and that they concluded that it would take around a minute for Paul to cover the first 100 yards, whereupon he saw Lechmere. Now, this can of course be discussed ad infinitum too, as you like to do. But it won´t happen this time - I am offering you what I THINK the film crew meant: That Robert Paul arrived in Bucks Row at 3.45.00 (the exact timing chosen by me to facilitate for me to get my suggestion across), walked 100 yards in 60 seconds, and then noticed Lechmere. Obviously, if he walked at a normal walking speed of around 1,3 yards per second, he should have spent significantly less time than 60 seconds in Bucks Row before he saw Lechmere.

To you, this will no doubt represent an opportunity to say "Look, this is wrong, and so we should throw the docu out as a falsary on the whole", the way you look at Scobie and the 3.30 timing.

My goodness Fisherman, that is a very long way of saying that yes, the documentary made a mistake. (Without actually managing to bring yourself to use those words, naturally.)

No wonder you had to feign outrage to avoid answering my question.

[David Orsam]

Similarly, it as not me who told Scobie that Lechmere left home at 3.30; I am saying that we cannot know when he left, only when he said he left, and as such the given time of "around 3.30" does nothing at all to dissolve the suggestion that Lechmere had time to kill Nichols.

You are missing the point. The issue is not whether Lechmere had time to kill Nichols. Of course he did! He could have left his house at 3am. The issue is whether there is anything in the timings given by Lechmere that really hurts him and whether he has failed to explain where he was that morning. For there to be something in the timings that really hurts Lechmere that MUST be a significant gap between the time he said he left his house and the time he arrived at Bucks Row which requires an explanation as to where he was.

What Scobie, a Queens Counsel, cannot possibly have meant to say is that the timings really hurt Lechmere even though those same timings are perfectly consistent with him being innocent of the murder.

If Scobie is being fed wrong information about just one part of the timing equation his opinion obviously loses its value. It's nothing to do with Scobie being a bad barrister or forming bad opinions but everything to do with him being given bad information.

[Patrick S]

And has there ever been a serial killer in history who "retired" and stopped killing for over 30 years?

His theory is that he didn't stop killing. He continued killing with different MO 'till he dropped.

[David Orsam]

All in all, that means that when a random poster on boards like these gets it into his head that Scobie having been given the information that Lechmere said he left home at 3.30, while he in fact said "around 3.30", would in any way be a reason to throw out everything Scobie said, is utterly ridiculous. It would tell me a lot more about the posters true intentions than about any major mistake on the film crews account.

In a way, it would also make me think in your terms - if this poster can write such a thing, then how can he be trusted overall?

It is a pertinent question that you will not have the joy of discussing with me. I am not going to join the discussion any more, since I think it has sunk to a level where even rats and insects would find the habitat challenging. All I have left here is to quash Dusty, which should not take too much of an effort.

I have not said anything about throwing out "everything Scobie said" but his opinion about there being a prima facie case against Lechmere simply cannot stand if it was based on false information. Lechmere leaving his house at 3.30 is not the same as him leaving his house at about 3.30 because "about 3.30" encompasses a range of times whereas "at 3.30" means at 3.30!

Previously you have been able to hide behind an argument that we didn't know what was in Scobie's briefing note but now that a crucial sentence as been exposed as wrong you can no longer do this.