Was he lying?

[Geddy2112]

For goodness sake Geddy

in the testimony that you highlighted to kick off this thread.

"At the same time, he heard a man about forty yards away coming up Buck's Row in the direction that the witness had come from."

If this isn't a hammer driven into the notion of Paul as a suspect, nothing will suffice.

Some here will start accusing fiver of being a suspect, not without warrant.

For goodness sake Newbie, that does not get him off the hook at all. Did you read the thread I linked to? To summarise what if Paul had killed Polly then doubled back around Winthrop Street back into Bucks Row, then he would have been BEHIND Cross.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don’t think for a minute that John Richardson was the ripper but…


Charles Cross could have lied and arrived at the scene earlier than he’d stated.

John Richardson could have lied and arrived at the scene earlier than he’d stated.

Charles Cross made a statement which contradicted a Constable.

John Richardson made a statement which contradicted a Doctor.

Charles Cross spent time alone with the body.

John Richardson (according to Phillips and Cross supporters) also spent time alone with the body.

Charles Cross was where he would have been six days a week.

John Richardson was where he would have been on market days.

Charles Cross never mentions carrying a knife.

John Richardson carried a knife.

Charles Cross uses his stepfather’s name.

John Richardson mentions the knife and also a second knife when pressed.

Charles Cross might (unintentionally) have led Mizen to believe that there was a Constable in Bucks Row.

John Richardson appears to have neglected to tell a police officer that he’d sat on the step.



Could someone remind me why is Charles Cross considered a better suspect than John Richardson please?

[Geddy2112]

Will the time ever come when this ludicrous, manufactured, non-existent case against this obviously innocent man ever end. It was way past silly years ago and it’s only getting worse.

Not as long as there is £££ to be made from the House of Tenuous Links. However I'm super pleased you answered Newbie's erm 'post' as my eyes started to bleed after the first paragraph. It's a shame all that effort to prove nothing.

A side note on if/when they could see each other in one of Ed's videos he suggest they should be able to see each other as soon as Paul steps into Bucks Row, to demonstrate this he has his 'film crew' haha, follow him in broad daylight and there was still a 15 second gap on the video. So 15 sec if you insert that into a quadratic equation, add variable windspeed, factor in the velocity of air resistance, multiply it by the number or footsteps to the next lamp post I think you get....

LECHMERE KILLED NOBODY!

[Geddy2112]

But really, what is there of which to respond? That people can get away with furnishing an incorrect last name in a legal proceeding?
If he was trying to hide something, go ahead and you consider it suspicious - go ahead and dig it up ...

Oh no not the name thing again. Deep Poll in the UK are the authority on such matters, from their website.. https://deedpolloffice.com/change-name/law/case-law

In all parts of the U.K., your legal name is the name you are generally known by. This is something which has been established by case law, going back hundreds of years.

Over the years — whenever a dispute about someone’s name (or surname) has been brought before a court of law — the court (and in particular, the judges who were there) have interpreted and defined where exactly the law stands. There has never been any statute, in any part of the U.K., which formally defines what your name is in law (or how you can change it).

It amazes me people who are supposed to be educated and adult about all of this still won't accept it as the truth no matter now many times they are given 100% nailed on facts. That is a special kind of stupid I think.

[Geddy2112]

Option B makes no sense.

Bravo! (Probably because that is not what happened.)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not as long as there is £££ to be made from the House of Tenuous Links. However I'm super pleased you answered Newbie's erm 'post' as my eyes started to bleed after the first paragraph. It's a shame all that effort to prove nothing.

A side note on if/when they could see each other in one of Ed's videos he suggest they should be able to see each other as soon as Paul steps into Bucks Row, to demonstrate this he has his 'film crew' haha, follow him in broad daylight and there was still a 15 second gap on the video. So 15 sec if you insert that into a quadratic equation, add variable windspeed, factor in the velocity of air resistance, multiply it by the number or footsteps to the next lamp post I think you get....

LECHMERE KILLED NOBODY!

We have to remember that Cross was working from memory and that memory isn’t always totally accurate especially under unusual/stressful circumstances. So the gap between the two might easily have been 70 yards or more by the time that Cross stopped. So when Cross was walking to work he’d have also had his own footsteps which would obviously have been louder than Paul’s. Also there’s the matter of attention. We don’t always pay attention to background sounds. Cross was trudging to work..as he did every say…thinking of who knows what? Why would distant footsteps have drawn his attention? Maybe he had heard Paul’s footsteps earlier? He was never asked if he had or not.

It’s impossible to build a theory around unknowns. How loud were Paul’s footstep’s? How good was Cross’s hearing? How fast was Paul walking? PC Neil might have had exceptional hearing and Cross’s might have been not so good. We don’t know. But if it’s suggested that there was a larger gap of distance between Paul and Cross then that makes his innocence all the more certain - because he’d have had even more time to flee the scene.

In a quiet, echoing street Robert Paul simply couldn’t have caught Charles Cross in the act. He couldn’t have sneaked up on him and put him in a position where he felt that he couldn’t have fled the scene safely. Therefore the fact that Cross was still in situ and stood waiting for Paul to arrive proves that he was an entirely innocent man and that the ‘case’ against him has been manufactured by a group motivated by self-interest and ego.

[The Rookie Detective]

I don’t think for a minute that John Richardson was the ripper but…


Charles Cross could have lied and arrived at the scene earlier than he’d stated.

John Richardson could have lied and arrived at the scene earlier than he’d stated.

Charles Cross made a statement which contradicted a Constable.

John Richardson made a statement which contradicted a Doctor.

Charles Cross spent time alone with the body.

John Richardson (according to Phillips and Cross supporters) also spent time alone with the body.

Charles Cross was where he would have been six days a week.

John Richardson was where he would have been on market days.

Charles Cross never mentions carrying a knife.

John Richardson carried a knife.

Charles Cross uses his stepfather’s name.

John Richardson mentions the knife and also a second knife when pressed.

Charles Cross might (unintentionally) have led Mizen to believe that there was a Constable in Bucks Row.

John Richardson appears to have neglected to tell a police officer that he’d sat on the step.



Could someone remind me why is Charles Cross considered a better suspect than John Richardson please?

Excellent post Herlock



RD

[Geddy2112]

It’s impossible to build a theory around unknowns. How loud were Paul’s footstep’s? How good was Cross’s hearing? PC Neil might have had exceptional hearing and Cross’s might have been not so good. We don’t know. But if it’s suggested that there was a larger gap of distance between Paul and Cross then that makes his innocence all the more certain - because he’d have had even more time to flee the scene.

Very true. It reminds me of the time when Car alarms were new. If one went off the whole street were out to see what was going on, a while after that you do not even get a twitch of the curtains. I'll give another example of your point. Since I've been injured I'm not driving the car, the missus is. It's a nightmare as she is constantly asking for directions to places we have been dozens of times, alas when she was a passenger she was not really paying attention to how we were getting there...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Very true. It reminds me of the time when Car alarms were new. If one went off the whole street were out to see what was going on, a while after that you do not even get a twitch of the curtains. I'll give another example of your point. Since I've been injured I'm not driving the car, the missus is. It's a nightmare as she is constantly asking for directions to places we have been dozens of times, alas when she was a passenger she was not really paying attention to how we were getting there...

Exactly. I well remember when I was younger trudging to work at 5.15 am, head down, grumbling to myself about how unfair life was and thinking longingly about my probably still warm bed. Background sounds were just that.

[FrankO]

Exactly. I well remember when I was younger trudging to work at 5.15 am, head down, grumbling to myself about how unfair life was and thinking longingly about my probably still warm bed. Background sounds were just that.

My experience is very similar to yours, Mike, especially when I have to be somewhere at a certain time. Then I'm so focussed on getting there that I don't even have eye for anybody that I know along the way. Or I'm so caught up in my own thoughts that I don't hear or see anything old/familiar or new/unfamiliar.

[Lewis C]

I don’t think for a minute that John Richardson was the ripper but…


Charles Cross could have lied and arrived at the scene earlier than he’d stated.

John Richardson could have lied and arrived at the scene earlier than he’d stated.

Charles Cross made a statement which contradicted a Constable.

John Richardson made a statement which contradicted a Doctor.

Charles Cross spent time alone with the body.

John Richardson (according to Phillips and Cross supporters) also spent time alone with the body.

Charles Cross was where he would have been six days a week.

John Richardson was where he would have been on market days.

Charles Cross never mentions carrying a knife.

John Richardson carried a knife.

Charles Cross uses his stepfather’s name.

John Richardson mentions the knife and also a second knife when pressed.

Charles Cross might (unintentionally) have led Mizen to believe that there was a Constable in Bucks Row.

John Richardson appears to have neglected to tell a police officer that he’d sat on the step.



Could someone remind me why is Charles Cross considered a better suspect than John Richardson please?

Hi Herlock,

I look at it this way. If Chapman died after 5:15 (as I believe she did), then there's no reason to think that either Richardson or Cross may have killed her. Certainly Cross couldn't have killed her on his way to work. Ed Stow suggested that Cross could have had someone guarding his cart while he killed Chapman, which would have meant that this guard (a potential witness) would have been waiting for Cross when he returned from killing Chapman, but I find that pretty far-fetched.

If Chapman died considerably earlier than that, then either Cross or Richardson could have killed her, but surely Richardson would be the stronger suspect of the two. In that case we would have Richardson, according to his testimony, sitting on the steps holding a knife, but he claims that he didn't see Chapman's body, even though it would have been lying right next to him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

My experience is very similar to yours, Mike, especially when I have to be somewhere at a certain time. Then I'm so focussed on getting there that I don't even have eye for anybody that I know along the way. Or I'm so caught up in my own thoughts that I don't hear or see anything old/familiar or new/unfamiliar.

That’s right Frank. Cross walked that route 6 days out of 7 so it’s a certainty that he would have occasionally heard footsteps, sounds of doors opening and shutting, the odd horse and cart and cart, distant clock tower bells, trains passing, dogs barking etc. None of which he would have paid particular attention to. And if he was like me he might have been grumbling to himself about why he was there while others were still happily tucked up in bed.

And as we never get verbatim inquest reports I have to wonder what might have been missed out? I still think it’s possible (though not provable) that he might have said something like ‘I heard footsteps then I saw the man around 40 yards away’. Which was reported as:

“He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away.”

This is just a summing up and it’s difficult to judge distance just by sound alone. So wouldn’t it be more likely that he heard Paul and then saw him when he was around 40 yards away? So he could have heard him, waited a few seconds until he saw the guy appear out of the dark around 40 yards away. Add this to the time it took Cross to stop, walk to the centre of the road, peer through the dark to make out what the shape was, perhaps hesitate for 5 seconds or so before he heard Paul’s footsteps and we have fair distance between them as they walked to work. And who knows how good Cross’s hearing was?

[The Baron]

Right so. Lechmerians have their man near a freshly killed woman and thats all, but if Chapman was killed earlier, as I and they believe, then we have Richardson,:

Near a freshly killed woman
With a knife
Lied about the knife
And claimed he didn't see anything

Of course Richardson is the better suspect of the two.


The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I look at it this way. If Chapman died after 5:15 (as I believe she did), then there's no reason to think that either Richardson or Cross may have killed her. Certainly Cross couldn't have killed her on his way to work. Ed Stow suggested that Cross could have had someone guarding his cart while he killed Chapman, which would have meant that this guard (a potential witness) would have been waiting for Cross when he returned from killing Chapman, but I find that pretty far-fetched.

If Chapman died considerably earlier than that, then either Cross or Richardson could have killed her, but surely Richardson would be the stronger suspect of the two. In that case we would have Richardson, according to his testimony, sitting on the steps holding a knife, but he claims that he didn't see Chapman's body, even though it would have been lying right next to him.

Hi Lewis,

It’s why Christer argues so strenuously for an earlier time insisting that Phillips, by touch alone, could estimate a ToD more accurately that experts can today. If Chapman was killed at somewhere around 5.20/5.30 (which she certainly was) then Cross should, with a high level of confidence, be eliminated as a suspect. The evidence is clear and obvious. The doctor was using unreliable methods. Every single medical expert and textbook tells us this. Add to that we have three witness. It would have been physically impossible for Richardson to have missed the body. It’s become a bit of a joke. Tod 5.20-5.30 without a shadow of doubt.

No one mentioned seeing a Pickford’s cart around.
He would have had deliveries to make (maybe regulars and at roughly regular times?)
In a deprived area would he really have left a cart of meat unattended?
If he had an assistant how could he possibly entrusted him to keep his mouth shut when he found out a murder had occurred in the same area at just the time that his mate ‘disappeared’ for 15 minutes?
Would he have just said “I’m going for a chat with that woman?” Because surely he wouldn’t have just left the cart and his mate to go looking for a victim?

Far-fetched isn’t the phrase Lewis. Stow knows that he’s talking nonsense.

For me Chapman eliminates Cross as a suspect.
Killing just before being due at work eliminates Cross as a suspect.
Not fleeing the scene when he had ample opportunity eliminates Cross as a suspect.
There not being a solitary scintilla of evidence to even hint at his guilt eliminates him as a suspect.

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis,

It’s why Christer argues so strenuously for an earlier time insisting that Phillips, by touch alone, could estimate a ToD more accurately that experts can today. If Chapman was killed at somewhere around 5.20/5.30 (which she certainly was) then Cross should, with a high level of confidence, be eliminated as a suspect. The evidence is clear and obvious. The doctor was using unreliable methods. Every single medical expert and textbook tells us this. Add to that we have three witness. It would have been physically impossible for Richardson to have missed the body. It’s become a bit of a joke. Tod 5.20-5.30 without a shadow of doubt.

No one mentioned seeing a Pickford’s cart around.
He would have had deliveries to make (maybe regulars and at roughly regular times?)
In a deprived area would he really have left a cart of meat unattended?
If he had an assistant how could he possibly entrusted him to keep his mouth shut when he found out a murder had occurred in the same area at just the time that his mate ‘disappeared’ for 15 minutes?
Would he have just said “I’m going for a chat with that woman?” Because surely he wouldn’t have just left the cart and his mate to go looking for a victim?

Far-fetched isn’t the phrase Lewis. Stow knows that he’s talking nonsense.

For me Chapman eliminates Cross as a suspect.
Killing just before being due at work eliminates Cross as a suspect.
Not fleeing the scene when he had ample opportunity eliminates Cross as a suspect.
There not being a solitary scintilla of evidence to even hint at his guilt eliminates him as a suspect.

I mostly agree with that with my only quibble being that while I consider the later time of death much more likely, there is a remote chancec that it could have been erlier. But I hope that this doesn't lead to lots of posts debating Chapman's time of death, because for the purposes of this thread, it doesn't matter much. If we suppose, just for the sake of argument, that Chapman was killed earlier, in that case, Richardson would be much more suspicious than Cross. That wouldn't take much, since there's little reason to be suspicious of Cross.