Was he lying?

[Geddy2112]

Newbie maybe an important factor to place in would be the distance/time taken for Lechmere to get from 22 Doveton St to the bottom of Forster Street. That really should be the place the calculations should start since that is where they are constant for both men, distance wise.

[Geddy2112]

Why did Lech not hear Paul for so long?

We do not know. I always find this 'hearing' someone then estimated how far away they are is very inaccurate. It might not have been in those days it might have been something people were adapted to be able to tell more accurately.

Why is Paul's speed near to or exceeding the threshold of jogging while moving down Buck's row?

There is nothing in the evidence to suggest it was. He was 'behind time' so maybe walking a bit faster, or scared of the street/area so again maybe walking faster but there is no evidence to suggest a jogging speed. If he was jogging or faster would this change Lechmere's perception of the footsteps noise?

Why did Lech stand like a toad by the body, only a few steps away, for 30 seconds without checking it's condition?

Did he? Sorry missed that in the testimonies, can you point that out?

Why did Lech finally hear the footsteps while walking?

Again did he? 'He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row' He heard the footsteps whilst he was standing still in the middle of the road, Paul confirms this by saying - 'he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road'

Are you doing a Christer here and inventing scenarios to fit a narrative perhaps?

[FrankO]

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.

We only know that Paul spoke of it being a dangerous locality and being on one’s guard in combination with spotting a man standing in the middle of the street. Everything beyond that is speculation. If Buck’s Row was so dangerous, both he and Lechmere could easily have chosen the safe(r) Whitechapel Road, but they didn’t. Both chose to walk along Buck’s Row almost on a daily basis.

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.

You make it sound as if it should be surprising that Neil would have heard Thain. My view is different. Neil, having found a woman with her throat severely cut, would be on high alert. And I might add, just as might be expected of someone who’s killing and mutilating a woman out in the open street. Such a person would have every reason to be on high alert.

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.

We have no way of knowing if Lechmere was on his guard or not. You assume that, but he might just as well have been caught up in his own thoughts, routinely going to work, like he did almost every day.

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.

No problem. He was concentrated on getting to work, caught up in his own daily thoughts until his attention was attracted by something lying on the other side of the street. So, his attention shifted and only when he actually realized it was a woman, he became aware of footsteps behind him. Before that, he simply had no reason to be on his guard or listen for any sounds.

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

I know what your view is and can understand that, with your view, you have no other option but to think it odd that he didn’t hear or see anything of Lechmere ahead of him. Me, on the other hand, thinks that the evidence is such that he might just have become alert when he saw a man standing in the middle of the street.

But why the inconsistency? Why should we expect Paul to see or hear Lechmere walking in front of him, but why shouldn’t he have heard Lechmere move around the body and then move away from it to take up his position in the middle of the street? Are we supposed to assume that Paul was only on high alert until 5 seconds or more before spotting a man in the street ahead of him?

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.

First of all, it’s not a fact or even a given that Lechmere only stops walking after seeing Paul some 40 yards away. There’s even nothing in the evidence to suggest it, really. He says he walked to the middle of the street, then saw it was the figure of a woman and that, at the same time he heard a man come up behind him, whom he then estimated to be 30 or 40 yards away from him. That’s it. He might have stopped walking when he realized it was a woman, he might have stopped when he heard footsteps behind him, he might have stopped when he turned to look back in the direction of Paul.

Furthermore, I’m not sure most would make a quick check. Why do you think this? Anyway, I can easily imagine anyone in that situation thinking precisely NOT to do what you propose in order to avoid the risk of being implicated in anything that might have happened to the woman.

But maybe he did make that quick check and then stepped back to the middle of the road, but just didn’t tell Paul or anybody else to avoid the risk of being implicated, even though he was innocent.

... but fits very poorly the notion that he was just in front of Paull all that time.

That’s only because you assume that Paul must have been on high alert up to some 5 to 10 seconds before he spotted Lechmere. But that neither a given nor very realistic.

[Geddy2112]

We only know that Paul spoke of it being a dangerous locality and being on one’s guard in combination with spotting a man standing in the middle of the street. Everything beyond that is speculation. If Buck’s Row was so dangerous, both he and Lechmere could easily have chosen the safe(r) Whitechapel Road, but they didn’t. Both chose to walk along Buck’s Row almost on a daily basis.

Absolutely, also can we assume Polly did not think it was that dangerous as surely we can assume that was a frequent spot to do business. I think it's fair to assume these poor ladies took their clients to familiar places that they figured were safe. I do not thing a random place would have been chosen to do business.
I still, no not saying he was Jack but Paul's role in all of this is far more suspicious. He seems in his newspaper reports and testimony going the extra mile to cover his own arse... something stinks haha.

[Fiver]

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.

Auditory masking is an antiquated theory?

That will be news to the actual scientists.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Math analysis of the movement of Lechmere/Paul down Buck’s row

1. First, I will start off with my findings and then conclusions that can be derived from the findings.
2. Second, I will go over the analysis that produced these findings.

Findings:

1. Comparative speeds, distance of separation, times….

Yards Lechmere was ahead of Paul when Paul entered Bath street	Time for Lechmere to begin crossing to middle of street, hear Paul, and then see Paul for the 1rst time	Distance Lech walked up Buck’s row with Paul trailing	Time Paul was trailing Lechmere up Buck’s row w/o Lechmere knowing	Distance of separation with Paul trailing Lechmere up Buck’s row	Speed up Buck’s row Lech Paul
60 yards	6 seconds	70 yards	42 seconds	53 - 51 yards	3.6 mph	3.8 mph
60 yards	12 seconds	66 yards	40 seconds	60 - 61 yards	3.6 mph	3.56 mph
70 yards	6 seconds	69 yards	39 seconds	63 - 51 yards	3.6 mph	4.1 mph
70 yards	12 seconds	64 yards	36 seconds	66 - 62 yards	3.6 mph	3.83 mph

II. Time Lechmere waits for Paul, once footsteps heard, while standing a few steps from body of Polly Nichols:

60 yards	6 seconds	time between hearing/ seeing Paul 2 seconds	time of approach after being Paul is seen 21.5 seconds	total time that Lechmere waits 23.5 seconds
60 yards	12 seconds	8 seconds	23 seconds	31 seconds
70 yards	6 seconds	2 seconds	20 seconds	22 seconds
70 yards	12 seconds	8 seconds	21.5 seconds	29.5 seconds

Conclusion


A: “In general, the average jogging speed is 4 to 6 mph.”

https://www.healthline.com/health/average-jogging-speed


Option #1: Paul, who has walked this route for 10 + years, is going faster

than the speed we would expect him to proceed to make it to work at 4 am

…. he either is close to or exceeds the speed of jogging, while closing the gap to about 50 yards, right before Lech moves across the street, towards the body.


Note: 50 yards is 38 % of the distance over which PC Neil heard PC Thain


Option #2: Paul goes at an acceptable speed, and is 60 + yards away from Lechmere at all times, while going up Buck’s road. However, in this case we would have to believe that Lechmere waits 30 seconds for Paul to arrive, once he hears Paul’s footsteps, all the while standing a few steps away from Polly Nichols’ body.


Logistics:

A: corner of Bath/Forster to Brady street - 55 yards

B: corner of Bath/Brady to Buck’s Row - 15 yards

C: Buck’s row to Polly Nichols body - 130 yards

D: Total distance from corner of Bath/Forster to body - 190 yards

E: Distance of Paul from Lechmere once spotted on Buck’s row:

30 - 40 yards


Assumptions:

1. Both Lechmere and Paul both walk at constant rates of speed
2. Lechmere is 55 + yards ahead of Paul, once Paul enters Bath street

• this ensures that Paul does not see Lechmere under the lights of the Albion brewery 3. We will consider Paul as 40 yards away from Lechmere once spotted

on Buck’s row.

1. Lechmere’s daily rate of speed to Pickfords to arrive at 4 am:

1.8 miles/30 minutes = 3.6 mph
2. Paul’s expected rate of speed to arrive at corbett’s court - Spitafields by 4 am that day:

1600 yards /900 seconds = 1.78 y/s

= 3.64 mph

• from the entrance of Buck’s row, Paul believes he has 15 minutes to go 1600 yards

Additional assumptions:

1. Lechmere does not stop until standing in the middle of Buck’s row
2. It takes Lechmere 4 seconds to leave curb, walk to middle of street, hear sound and look back down Buck’s row
3. An additional time will be added to this for Lechmere to see Paul enter his field of vision from the darkness:

total time between leaving street and seeing Paul:


t = 6 to 12 seconds


Equations employed:


t = time from start to when Lechmere sees body

Total distance to body from Forster entrance: d = 200 yards

Lech

1. A ⨶ t = 200 - D : D = starting distance from Bath street entrance
2. A = 3.6 mph = 1.76 yards/second

Paul

1. B ⨶ t = 200 - ( 40 + x) :

x = distance Paul walks between Lech leaving curb & seeing Paul
2. B ⨶ 6 = x


Boundary conditions:

At start: Lechmere has a 55 + yard lead {60 & 70 yards}

At end: Lechmere is 40 yards ahead, when Paul is spotted.

There’s no need for any of the above.


Is it physically possible that when Cross entered Bucks Row, Robert Paul might have been around 70 yards behind him?

Yes it is.

Is it possible that one human being might not have heard another human being when they are 70 yards apart (if neither of them were playing a saxophone at the time)?

Yes it is.

Is it possible that one person might make less noise when walking than another person?

Yes it is.

Is it possible for one person to have hearing that isn’t as good as another persons?

Yes it is.

Is it the case that the transcript of an inquest isn’t a verbatim account of what was said?

Yes it is.

Is it possible that Cross might have been undecided as to what to do, causing an unknown time period of hesitation, before he heard Paul?

Yes it is.

Is it true to say that people don’t all act in a uniform, prescribed way when faced with an unusual/stressful situation?

Yes it is.

Do we have a single piece of evidence that precludes another killer who fled the scene just before Cross arrived?

No we don’t.

Did Cross gain even the slightest of advantages from using his stepfather’s name instead of his birth name?

No he didn’t.

Can we assume that Mizen’s version of what was said was correct and that Cross and Paul were wrong (or lied)?

No we can’t.

Is there anything at all in the evidence that suggests that Cross might have been at the scene longer than he claimed?

No there isn’t.

Can we name a serial killer who committed murder in the street on his way to work?

No we can’t.

Can we name a serial killer who stayed with the corpse (rather than fleeing) to chat to a passerby?

No we can’t.

Is there anything about Cross that we know that leaves us suspicious of him as a person?

No there isn’t.

Is it fair to assume that the police questioned him?

Yes it is.

Did they find anything even remotely suspicious about him?

No they didn’t.

Is it likely that Cross would have committed murder whilst he was on duty for Pickford’s?

No it isn’t.

Can we name anyone who found a body in the street who turned out to have been the killer?

No we can’t.

Is there a single thing that so much as causes a raised eyebrows in terms of anything that Cross said or did that morning which might lead anyone to suspect him of being the killer?

NO. NOT A THING

Is the ‘case’ against Cross an embarrassing mish-mash of manipulated evidence, the misuse of the English language, gross exaggeration, opinion stated as fact and rank self-interest?

Yes it certainly is.

[Fiver]

You mean dead?

Than I agree,
absolutely no urgency required if it was a dead woman.

Are you arguing that Lechmere knew the woman was dead?

Again, I agree.

Good point!

All you have demonstrated is your double standard and an attempt to twist my words.

Getting back to what I actually said:

This wasn't a struggling victim, crying for help. It was a prone, unmoving, body - clearly not an urgent situation. Neither Lechmere or Paul ever treated the situation as urgent.

Let me repeat that last part, since you clearly missed it - Neither Lechmere or Paul ever treated the situation as urgent.

Both men lived in a bad part of town for decades. They had almost certainly seen prone, unmoving, bodies before. Some were the abject poor, sleeping rough in the street. Some were people passed out drunk. Neither of these was an urgent case in need of immediate attention. And if the woman was dead, that wasn't an urgent case in need of immediate attention, either, since she would be beyond help.

[Geddy2112]

Is the ‘case’ against Cross an embarrassing mish-mash of manipulated evidence, the misuse of the English language, gross exaggeration, opinion stated as fact and rank self-interest?

Yes it certainly is.

Soooo you are ruling Cross out?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Soooo you are ruling Cross out?

On consideration….yes.

[Geddy2112]

On consideration….yes.

To be honest, since it's probably one of the most debated suspects I'm surprised there are many left believing he did it. All the points I've seen posted in favour of him being Jack have been debunked many many times. It's bizarre...

[Fiver]

Soooo you are ruling Cross out?

Charles Allen Lechmere should be Crossed off of the suspect list.

[Herlock Sholmes]

To be honest, since it's probably one of the most debated suspects I'm surprised there are many left believing he did it. All the points I've seen posted in favour of him being Jack have been debunked many many times. It's bizarre...

As Roger pointed out recently Cross seems more of a suspect to some because we can place him at the scene. He feels more real as a suspect for them. This resonates with many people especially with one of Christer’s mantra’s added, the ‘next to a freshly killed…’ bit as if that narrows it down to Cross alone. Apparently it’s ok to suggest that Paul disturbed Cross but it’s fantasy to suggest that Cross might have disturbed someone else. Every single point has been shown to be nothing. The case against Cross wouldn’t have made it to court. Take away the misinformation given to Scobie and he’s have said the same. Honesty John Richardson is a better suspect than Cross. And he’s a totally crap suspect.

[Lewis C]

All you have demonstrated is your double standard and an attempt to twist my words.

Getting back to what I actually said:

This wasn't a struggling victim, crying for help. It was a prone, unmoving, body - clearly not an urgent situation. Neither Lechmere or Paul ever treated the situation as urgent.

Let me repeat that last part, since you clearly missed it - Neither Lechmere or Paul ever treated the situation as urgent.

Both men lived in a bad part of town for decades. They had almost certainly seen prone, unmoving, bodies before. Some were the abject poor, sleeping rough in the street. Some were people passed out drunk. Neither of these was an urgent case in need of immediate attention. And if the woman was dead, that wasn't an urgent case in need of immediate attention, either, since she would be beyond help.

Hi Fiver,

To give an example from the case of seeing a body not being viewed as an urgent situation, Albert Crow saw Martha Tabram's body after she had been murdered, but he figured that it was just a sleeping vagrant, so he didn't even stop to check it out.

[Fiver]

Hi Fiver,

To give an example from the case of seeing a body not being viewed as an urgent situation, Albert Crow saw Martha Tabram's body after she had been murdered, but he figured that it was just a sleeping vagrant, so he didn't even stop to check it out.

There's a decent chance that Robert Paul would have just kept walking if Charles Lechmere hadn't stopped him.

[Geddy2112]

There's a decent chance that Robert Paul would have just kept walking if Charles Lechmere hadn't stopped him.

Yeah because he knew she was dead, he killed her.... [/devils advocate]