Evidence of innocence

[rjpalmer]

The whole walking over and blocking and tapping thing has always staggered me. I genuinely cannot make it seem normal...

M.

It depends on how you interpret it. I don't see anything strange--accept--ever-so-slightly--maybe by Paul.

If you want to get a stranger's attention, where do you gently tap them? On the back of the shoulder, as they are faced away from you.

This suggests to me that Paul had already walked past Crossmere when this tapping occurred, and, indeed, at the inquest Paul implies that he was leery of the man in the road and had attempted to avoid him.

Thus, my interpretation is that a genuinely concerned and innocent Crossmere quietly tried to get Paul's attention by waiting for him in the road--not certain yet if it wasn't a beat constable walking towards him--(which is hardly the behavior of a guilty man)--but Paul nonetheless blows past him, as if uninterested and unaware of what is transpiring. Paul doesn't want to be involved--he keeps going.

Crossmere then taps him on the back of the shoulder as Paul walks past, as if to say: 'Hey buddy...wait...don't leave...look over here...' Again, hardly the behavior of a guilty man.

It's entirely natural, particularly among people used to living in crowded conditions, making them less standoffish and prudish than we are today.

From the Daily Telegraph account of Paul's deposition, Sept 18th:

"he (Baul) stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman, who was lying across the gateway."

My translation: Paul stepped into the roadway and passed Lechmere. Lechmere then tap's Paul on the shoulder as his back was to him as he continued to walk away.

Recall that, according to Walter Dew, of the two men, Paul was the uncooperative one. Thus, this behavior of Paul in Buck's Row would align with that characterization--a man who didn't initially want to be involved was attempting to leave until Lechmere forced his hand and stopped him from simply walking past.

Ergo, there is nothing to see here. CAL's behavior is that of a concerned citizen. You seem to be interpreting this encounter as if Cross was aggressively thumping Paul on the chest as he faced him, but I don't think that is correct. Paul never suggested there was any aggression at the inquest, other than his initial suspicion of a man standing in the middle of the road in a rough neighborhood.

[Mark J D]

... Crossmere...

You people can't even handle the name without metaphorical gloves, can you?

M.

[rjpalmer]

You people can't even handle the name without metaphorical gloves, can you?

M.

'You people'?

Nice.

Now and then, I call him Crossmere to indicate that he used two names, which was his prerogative. It hasn't been proven to have been an 'alias.'

Call him Lechmere if you like, my point is the same.

[Dickere]

I don’t get why you keep saying that times are being adjusted. No times are being ‘adjusted.’ Lechmere said that he left the house about 3.30. So saying that this could have been 3.35 or 3.36 is not an adjustment it’s a statement of fact.

Yes, as I’ve said, of course he could have left the house earlier. He could have been out all night for all that we know but this isn’t the point. The point is, and this is very important, that this alleged ‘gap of time’ is a huge part of the case against Lechmere and its starting point has to have Lechmere leaving the house at 3.30. But as he’d only said about 3.30 it introduces the very reasonable possibility that he’d actually left the house a bit later than 3.30. The existence of this possibility alone should negate the point entirely because it cannot be said that ‘if A occurred then B must have occurred’ if we cannot be certain of A.

Leaving Lechmere’s time of leaving the house at 3.30 as you suggest would not be an honest approach. We have to accept that he was making an estimate. This allows a plus or a minus. And that possibility is important.

Hi Herlock
Nice to see you here at last.

I do feel it's easy to get bogged down in timings, and you're right that without a fixed starting point nothing can be proved with certainty.

That said, if Lechmere had said he left home at 3.30 people would question how that could be said with any certainty, and so on.

To me though, Lechmere's claim to be running late is also important. You don't say you're running late without knowing that you are (unless you're making it up), and by the same token you don't say you're running late and then give a time that makes that less plausible. So if Lechmere normally left home at 3.20, he's not going to say he was running late as he left at 3.25.

Now, as he said 'about 3.30' that implies to me that he meant close to that. If it was much after, you'd overegg the pudding and say 3.35 or almost 3.40 etc. But he said 'about 3.30' which to me implies sometime just before 3.30.

I know it's an estimation not an adjustment, but my take is he left home 3.25 to 3.30 (latest), and that assumes he's being truthful about that. He obviously isn't going to lean towards leaving at an earlier time when claiming to be running late.

[Abby Normal]

Finding the body is not the same as being found by the body by a witness.

exactly super
it seems to be too subtle a point for some.

[Abby Normal]

The whole walking over and blocking and tapping thing has always staggered me. I genuinely cannot make it seem normal...

M.

hi mark
me neither. as i pointed out in my recent earlier post it just seems so odd to me. such an agressive manuever given the circumstances. its almost like lech cant let paul pass without ascertaining if hes seen anything.

[Abby Normal]

It depends on how you interpret it. I don't see anything strange--accept--ever-so-slightly--maybe by Paul.

If you want to get a stranger's attention, where do you gently tap them? On the back of the shoulder, as they are faced away from you.

This suggests to me that Paul had already walked past Crossmere when this tapping occurred, and, indeed, at the inquest Paul implies that he was leery of the man in the road and had attempted to avoid him.

Thus, my interpretation is that a genuinely concerned and innocent Crossmere quietly tried to get Paul's attention by waiting for him in the road--not certain yet if it wasn't a beat constable walking towards him--(which is hardly the behavior of a guilty man)--but Paul nonetheless blows past him, as if uninterested and unaware of what is transpiring. Paul doesn't want to be involved--he keeps going.

Crossmere then taps him on the back of the shoulder as Paul walks past, as if to say: 'Hey buddy...wait...don't leave...look over here...' Again, hardly the behavior of a guilty man.

It's entirely natural, particularly among people used to living in crowded conditions, making them less standoffish and prudish than we are today.

From the Daily Telegraph account of Paul's deposition, Sept 18th:

"he (Baul) stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman, who was lying across the gateway."

My translation: Paul stepped into the roadway and passed Lechmere. Lechmere then tap's Paul on the shoulder as his back was to him as he continued to walk away.

Recall that, according to Walter Dew, of the two men, Paul was the uncooperative one. Thus, this behavior of Paul in Buck's Row would align with that characterization--a man who didn't initially want to be involved was attempting to leave until Lechmere forced his hand and stopped him from simply walking past.

Ergo, there is nothing to see here. CAL's behavior is that of a concerned citizen. You seem to be interpreting this encounter as if Cross was aggressively thumping Paul on the chest as he faced him, but I don't think that is correct. Paul never suggested there was any aggression at the inquest, other than his initial suspicion of a man standing in the middle of the road in a rough neighborhood.

totally disagree. its a bizarre and agressive way to get someones attention. especially in those circs. you are literally getting in someones personal space and making physical contact. especially in a darkened street known for roughs. the normal thing to do as the person approaches is to say something along the lines of ...hey look here theres a woman down.

[rjpalmer]

So if Lechmere normally left home at 3.20, he's not going to say he was running late as he left at 3.25.

Hi Dickere. Perhaps it would be useful for you or for Mr. Mills to give your source for the claim that Lechmere 'normally' left for work at 3.20.

This keeps being repeated, but what is the source?

Isn't this just a theory that was suggested by Christer Holmgren, who speculated that since two or three newspapers reported that CAL had left home at 3.20 that morning, that this must mean that it was his usual time, when, in fact, the majority of newspapers reported that the departure time was actually 'about' 3.30?

Is there a source for this 'normal' time other than Christer?

If I recall David Barrat's study correctly, who actually traveled to the East End and timed a couple of the proposed routes, the travel time from Doveton Street to Pickford's came out at around 25-30 minutes.

Thus, if Lechmere left home at 'about' 3:30, he wouldn't have been running late. He could have made to work on time, presuming that he didn't stop along the way, and if his work started at 4.00, which seems reasonable.

Further, Lechmere never said he was running late when he left home that morning; he said he was 'behind time' AFTER he stopped in Buck's Row to investigate Polly Nichols' body. Why couldn't it simply have been a case of Lechmere having stopped for a few minutes in Buck Row and that this is what led him to being 'behind time'?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock
Nice to see you here at last.

I do feel it's easy to get bogged down in timings, and you're right that without a fixed starting point nothing can be proved with certainty.

That said, if Lechmere had said he left home at 3.30 people would question how that could be said with any certainty, and so on.

To me though, Lechmere's claim to be running late is also important. You don't say you're running late without knowing that you are (unless you're making it up), and by the same token you don't say you're running late and then give a time that makes that less plausible. So if Lechmere normally left home at 3.20, he's not going to say he was running late as he left at 3.25.

Now, as he said 'about 3.30' that implies to me that he meant close to that. If it was much after, you'd overegg the pudding and say 3.35 or almost 3.40 etc. But he said 'about 3.30' which to me implies sometime just before 3.30.

I know it's an estimation not an adjustment, but my take is he left home 3.25 to 3.30 (latest), and that assumes he's being truthful about that. He obviously isn't going to lean towards leaving at an earlier time when claiming to be running late.

Hi Dickere.

I don’t think that we could tie it down that much but I’d say anytime between 3.25 and 3.37. All that I know for a certainty is that we can’t make any point about how long he’d been there when Paul arrived.

[Dickere]

Hi Dickere. Perhaps it would be useful for you or for Mr. Mills to give your source for the claim that Lechmere 'normally' left for work at 3.20.

This keeps being repeated, but what is the source?

Isn't this just a theory that was suggested by Christer Holmgren, who speculated that since two or three newspapers reported that CAL had left home at 3.20 that morning, that this must mean that it was his usual time, when, in fact, the majority of newspapers reported that the departure time was actually 'about' 3.30?

Is there a source for this 'normal' time other than Christer?

If I recall David Barrat's study correctly, who actually traveled to the East End and timed a couple of the proposed routes, the travel time from Doveton Street to Pickford's came out at around 25-30 minutes.

Thus, if Lechmere left home at 'about' 3:30, he wouldn't have been running late. He could have made to work on time, presuming that he didn't stop along the way, and if his work started at 4.00, which seems reasonable.

Further, Lechmere never said he was running late when he left home that morning; he said he was 'behind time' AFTER he stopped in Buck's Row to investigate Polly Nichols' body. Why couldn't it simply have been a case of Lechmere having stopped for a few minutes in Buck Row and that this is what led him to being 'behind time'?

Hi rj
Fair point about the usual 3.20, I'm just repeating here, not sure of the original source.

That said, the 'behind time' suggests to me that it was due to leaving home late (or so he claimed). Paul said he was himself running late, and Lechmere said he was too (Lechmere that is). There's no mention of being late due to having stopped for Nichols by either of them.

It feels like Lechmere giving himself a covering alibi to me - I didn't have time for any murdery stuff today, I was already late before I even had the decency to investigate this tarpaulin, officer. Now I'm even later. What a great chap I am.

[drstrange169]

>>lol. paul said he saw lech standing near her dead body. its a fact unless you think paul was lying. sorry but you are quite wrong.<<

Paul a liar? Heaven forbid.

"The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head."

One of us is wrong Abby and it's definitely not me.

So, you are telling us you believe Mrs Nichols had been dead for over an hour when Paul arrived and somebody moved the bonnet two feet away after Paul and Cross left and before Neil arrived? How does all that that work?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Dickere. Perhaps it would be useful for you or for Mr. Mills to give your source for the claim that Lechmere 'normally' left for work at 3.20.

This keeps being repeated, but what is the source?

Isn't this just a theory that was suggested by Christer Holmgren, who speculated that since two or three newspapers reported that CAL had left home at 3.20 that morning, that this must mean that it was his usual time, when, in fact, the majority of newspapers reported that the departure time was actually 'about' 3.30?

Is there a source for this 'normal' time other than Christer?

If I recall David Barrat's study correctly, who actually traveled to the East End and timed a couple of the proposed routes, the travel time from Doveton Street to Pickford's came out at around 25-30 minutes.

Thus, if Lechmere left home at 'about' 3:30, he wouldn't have been running late. He could have made to work on time, presuming that he didn't stop along the way, and if his work started at 4.00, which seems reasonable.

Further, Lechmere never said he was running late when he left home that morning; he said he was 'behind time' AFTER he stopped in Buck's Row to investigate Polly Nichols' body. Why couldn't it simply have been a case of Lechmere having stopped for a few minutes in Buck Row and that this is what led him to being 'behind time'?

Hi Roger,

This is the thread with David’s timings.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/scene-of-the-crimes/8895-buck-s-row-timings

Happy New Year to you.

[drstrange169]

>>The whole walking over and blocking and tapping thing has always staggered me. I genuinely cannot make it seem normal...<<

You would consider standing there and letting Paul walk past as more normal?

I can only speak from a personal point of view, but were I Cross in that street at that time of the morning I would want to check out an approaching stranger before I interacted with them. Cross testified he saw Paul was frightened, Paul said he was wary, that would be a signal to me that it was safe to approach the stranger and clearly Cross thought so too. I can't see anything abnormal about Cross's behaviour towards Paul.

[drstrange169]

>>You people can't even handle the name without metaphorical gloves, can you?<<

Since he indisputably used two names, what's the problem?

[drstrange169]

>>Finding the body is not the same as being found by the body by a witness.<<

But we don't know whether he was found "by" the body. The only reference to that is an interview filled with recanted stories.