Was he lying?

[The Rookie Detective]

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.

Phillips was consistently the most questionable medical professional throughout the entire series of murders.

He appears to have made many mistakes and his judgement was relatively poor.


RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Agreed.

[Fiver]

In a deprived area would he really have left a cart of meat unattended?

The meat cart is a Lechmerian invention. Pickfords was a general goods service.

[Geddy2112]

The meat cart is a Lechmerian invention. Pickfords was a general goods service.

Does meat come under general goods? If the van was guarded so to speak I could just imagine the conversation when he got back to it.

'Why you covered in blood guvnor?'

'Is that a female organ in your pocket, where did you get that?'

It beggars belief, as I said I'm not sure why any sane person believes this crap...

[Sunny Delight]

The meat cart is a Lechmerian invention. Pickfords was a general goods service.

An extremely important point. I was actually unaware of that and had assumed that Lechmere would have been handling a meat cart with all that entailed. Charles Lechmere is the poster boy for a suspect where the evidence is made to fit rather than the evidence leading us to the suspect. Of all the suspects I actually have Lechmere as one of the worst. Almost every bit of evidence that is used to try and almost 'frame' the man can be easily explained and ultimately dismissed.

I do commend those who tried to look at the case with a fresh idea but the tv programme and all the rest I found unpleasant. This was a real person with real family and friends. He was someone who it appears lived a full and decent life living to the age of 71. Just because he is now only a picture or a name to many does not mean he should be treated with such disrespect.

[FrankO]

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?

Hi Mike,

As you suggest, nobody can claim that what Lechmere is quoted to have stated would preclude that there, in reality, might well have been a few seconds between Lechmere hearing footsteps for the first time, then turning his eyes towards the sounds and then actually seeing Paul. Or that, in reality, Paul may have been a bit further from Lechmere than he estimated. Because, after all, the lighting circumstances weren't great. Also, it's perfectly possible that Lechmere, upon first seeing something on the opposite side of the street, slowed down and then arriving in the middle of the street, stopping altogether, thus giving Paul some seconds to come closer. And, of course, there's no reason to think that Paul couldn't have walked faster than Lechmere did. If he, in reality, did, then he might well have started some 70-80 yards behind Lechmere.

As has been said (also by you & me both), there's no way a guilty Lechmere could have known that Paul wouldn't see OR hear him when he would have decided to stay put, just as there's no way he could have known how Paul would react after the night in question. Lechmere stated that Paul was 30 to 40 yards behind him, but he couldn't know what Paul would later say about it. It was simply out of his control. So, Paul could have easily stated that he didn't hear or see him ahead or he could even have suggested that Lechmere wasn't walking some distance in front of him at all. And if he himself wouldn't state this of his own volition, some policeman, reporter or the coroner could have made something of why the carmen didn't mention hearing and/or seeing one another on their way down Buck's Row. Lechmere could absolutely not have foreseen/known this and would have had absolutely no control over any of this either.

Cheers,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Mike,

As you suggest, nobody can claim that what Lechmere is quoted to have stated would preclude that there, in reality, might well have been a few seconds between Lechmere hearing footsteps for the first time, then turning his eyes towards the sounds and then actually seeing Paul. Or that, in reality, Paul may have been a bit further from Lechmere than he estimated. Because, after all, the lighting circumstances weren't great. Also, it's perfectly possible that Lechmere, upon first seeing something on the opposite side of the street, slowed down and then arriving in the middle of the street, stopping altogether, thus giving Paul some seconds to come closer. And, of course, there's no reason to think that Paul couldn't have walked faster than Lechmere did. If he, in reality, did, then he might well have started some 70-80 yards behind Lechmere.

As has been said (also by you & me both), there's no way a guilty Lechmere could have known that Paul wouldn't see OR hear him when he would have decided to stay put, just as there's no way he could have known how Paul would react after the night in question. Lechmere stated that Paul was 30 to 40 yards behind him, but he couldn't know what Paul would later say about it. It was simply out of his control. So, Paul could have easily stated that he didn't hear or see him ahead or he could even have suggested that Lechmere wasn't walking some distance in front of him at all. And if he himself wouldn't state this of his own volition, some policeman, reporter or the coroner could have made something of why the carmen didn't mention hearing and/or seeing one another on their way down Buck's Row. Lechmere could absolutely not have foreseen/known this and would have had absolutely no control over any of this either.

Cheers,
Frank

Hello Frank,

And this is the vital point that Cross supporters deliberately ignore. Cross couldn’t have known what Paul saw or didn’t see; hear or didn’t hear (an example is that if Cross heard Paul, and Paul saw him standing in the middle of the road, how could he have known that Paul hadn’t heard his footsteps as he moved from the body to the position that he saw him?) Cross also had absolutely no control over, or way of predicting, Paul’s actions or any suggested actions that he might have made and he certainly couldn’t have expected to have been able to have manipulated a situation where he could speak to a Constable out of Paul’s earshot so that he could lie his way past him.

These obvious hurdles are why they have to go along ridiculous tangents making comedic ‘links’ in an attempt to bolster this clearly innocent man. There is nothing in favour of him being a suspect. He was at the scene alone for a time - so was every other person in crime history that discovered a body. The victim was ‘freshly killed’ - for which we can also use the phrase ‘recently killed.’ We agree - she was killed not long before Cross arrived. There was an innocuous disagreement in what was said to Mizen - totally inconsequential unless a completely unbelievable ‘scam’ is imagined. And he used the name Cross instead of Lechmere - nothing remotely suspicious about that unless it can be shown that he did so to avoid police scrutiny, which he transparently couldn’t have.

There is no case to answer for Cross. Scobie felt that there was only because he was fed incorrect information. Likewise most ‘supporters’ - they’ve accepted the manipulations without question and turned the blindest of blind eyes to the quite deliberate leaving out of the word ‘about’ from book and documentary which, combined with the total invention of a 3.45 discovery time, led to the creation of the illusion of a gap.

As far as I’m concerned Frank, Cross has been comprehensively debunked as a suspect. The Ed and Christer Show will go on though with their adoring acolytes. Maybe their eyes will be opened one day?

[FrankO]

Hello Frank,

And this is the vital point that Cross supporters deliberately ignore. Cross couldn’t have known what Paul saw or didn’t see; hear or didn’t hear (an example is that if Cross heard Paul, and Paul saw him standing in the middle of the road, how could he have known that Paul hadn’t heard his footsteps as he moved from the body to the position that he saw him?) Cross also had absolutely no control over, or way of predicting, Paul’s actions or any suggested actions that he might have made and he certainly couldn’t have expected to have been able to have manipulated a situation where he could speak to a Constable out of Paul’s earshot so that he could lie his way past him.

Quite so, Mike. For an innocent Lechmere it wouldn't have been much of a risk stating that Paul was 30 to 40 yards behind him as he did, because he had the truth at his side. For a guilty Lechmere it would have been a different matter.

As far as I’m concerned Frank, Cross has been comprehensively debunked as a suspect. The Ed and Christer Show will go on though with their adoring acolytes. Maybe their eyes will be opened one day?

As you know, I'm less outspoken than you, but what I wrote before is yet another point against a guilty Lechmere, as far as I'm concerned. One that I hadn't thought of before.

Cheers,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

Quite so, Mike. For an innocent Lechmere it wouldn't have been much of a risk stating that Paul was 30 to 40 yards behind him as he did, because he had the truth at his side. For a guilty Lechmere it would have been a different matter.


As you know, I'm less outspoken than you, but what I wrote before is yet another point against a guilty Lechmere, as far as I'm concerned. One that I hadn't thought of before.

Cheers,
Frank

You’re less easily irritated than I am Frank…which is a good thing. It just the unjustifiable level of confidence that irritates me. It shouldn’t do…but it does.

[Geddy2112]

An extremely important point. I was actually unaware of that and had assumed that Lechmere would have been handling a meat cart with all that entailed.

However the Missing Evidence fakeumentary had a Pickfords 'expert' on who claimed they delivered all the time to butchers around the area. Mmmm the evidence still seems to be missing.

Narrator - A tantalising FACT could explain that mystery (being covered in blood.) Historian Arthur Ingram is an expert on Pickfords. His (Arthur's) research has uncovered his job was to deliver meat to butchers around East London.

[Fiver]

However the Missing Evidence fakeumentary had a Pickfords 'expert' on who claimed they delivered all the time to butchers around the area. Mmmm the evidence still seems to be missing.

Narrator - A tantalising FACT could explain that mystery (being covered in blood.) Historian Arthur Ingram is an expert on Pickfords. His (Arthur's) research has uncovered his job was to deliver meat to butchers around East London.

That's another lie in the "documentary", we have no period work records for Charles Cross. Ingram's expertise is after Pickfords switched to motorized vehicles.

[Newbie]

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.

No Geddy,

but I did mention that killing someone and then taking a walk around the block theory as being so remote that it could be ruled out.

Maybe Paul killed Polly Nichols, and then went back to his flat to take a piss, and then headed out to go to work?

He did say that he was running late .... killing someone to start out the morning will do that to a guy.

[Newbie]

So, I got no nibbles?

I'll truncate what I just wrote; I'll probably just start a new thread and place it at the lead.


truncated version:

1. Lechmere walked up Buck's row with Paul trailing him by some 40 - 60 yards behind, over a time of 40 - 45 seconds.

2. It was dim along Buck's row and a dangerous neighborhood: any one walking it at that time should have been on their guard:
which would mean in particular, anticipating new sounds.

3. PC Neil, while occupied with investigating the body by feel & sight, immediately heard the footsteps of PC Thain from 130 yards away.
PC Thain had not even entered Buck's row, but sounds travelled exceptionally well down that narrow stone street aligned with stone buildings, with no gaps.

4. Lechmere, on his guard walking up the dark street, should have noticed that new sounds were isuing behind him:
- modern theories on sensory perception dictate that novel sounds are prioritized in the auditory system
- repetitive sounds are de-emphasized / ignored by somatic nerves and the auditory cortex.

5. Lechmere says that he never heard Paul's footsteps until he was crossing to the middle of the street, towards Polly Nichols body.
- Lech's defenders, who employ the antiquated footsteps drown out the other footsteps theory,
would need to explain why Lech finally heard these footsteps at this point: he was not only still walking,
but his brain was occupied visually with analyzing the recumbent body of Polly Nichols .... downgrading auditory cortical impulses.

6. Paul never mentions seeing or hearing Lechmere, until nearby the body of Polly Nichols

7. Lechmere, after marking Paul from around 40 yards away, immediately discontinues his movement to the body: a body only a few steps away. Most here at this point, one would imagine, would make a quick check to ascertain the woman's condition before addressing the stranger.

Finding a woman collapsed on the edge of a street being an urgent situatin ..... life was cheap back then?

8. However, if Lechmere had actually come from the body, he would need to make some excuse for not only just encountering the body,
but standing in the street and waiting for Paul .... hence, the just happened to hear footsteps in the middle of the street testimony.

Sherlock earlier made big hand waving gestures about his belief that something highly improbable negates any argument: for instance, the improbabliity of Lechmere encountering and murdering Polly Nichols, so close to his time of work.

CAL's own description of events fits perfectly what one would expect from one coming from the body,
but fits very poorly the notion that he was just in front of Paull all that time.

So, does highly improbable apply the other way? Or, will the argument shift to he's innocent after all, so what ever improbable series of events happened from point A to point B, had to happen.

[Newbie]

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.

That doesn't fit the data Herlock, unless Paul was running down the street.
Lech, leaving around 3:30 am (it doesn't really matter his starting time),
walking from Doveton to Broad street, would need to go 3.6 mph (1.8 miles in 30 minutes),
to get to work at 4 am.

Paul, 70 yards away at some point on Buck's row, would need to go into a full sprint, to gain 30 yards.
Lech would have gone down Buck's row some 60 - 70 yards with Paul trailing him.

Are you sure you want him running down the street?

If both are traveling at a constant rate, its a simple zeroth order simultaneous equations with very specific boundary values.
I placed the equation in my long thread ..... go crunch the numbers.

[GBinOz]

As has been said (also by you & me both), there's no way a guilty Lechmere could have known that Paul wouldn't see OR hear him when he would have decided to stay put, just as there's no way he could have known how Paul would react after the night in question. Lechmere stated that Paul was 30 to 40 yards behind him, but he couldn't know what Paul would later say about it. It was simply out of his control. So, Paul could have easily stated that he didn't hear or see him ahead or he could even have suggested that Lechmere wasn't walking some distance in front of him at all. And if he himself wouldn't state this of his own volition, some policeman, reporter or the coroner could have made something of why the carmen didn't mention hearing and/or seeing one another on their way down Buck's Row. Lechmere could absolutely not have foreseen/known this and would have had absolutely no control over any of this either.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

While not refuting the content of your post, I'd like to add some comments of my own.

I find it very odd that in an area that Paul nominated as being dangerous, Lechmere chose to approach a man that was, reportedly, trying to evade him, and touch him on the shoulder before offering a word of explanation. Was Lechmere trying to see if Paul would run? Why would Paul allow a stranger in a dark dangerous location to approach so close rather than running away? Didn't Lechmere run the risk of Paul thinking he was about to be attacked and robbed and reacting with a right cross to Lechmere's chin? What assessment might the police have made had Neil found, not only a woman's dead body, but also a unconscious man lying a few yards from her body?

After Lechmere and Paul's encounter with Mizen, Lechmere chose to accompany Paul along Hanbury St rather than take the slightly shorter (?) route along Old Montague St. We cannot know what, if anything, was said on that journey, but Lechmere did gain the opportunity to find out a little more about what Paul may have seen, or heard, and possibly Paul's impressions of what had happened.

Best regards, George