Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Geddy2112]

Corbet/Corbett's Court was about a modern city block past #29 Hanbury Street, west of Wilkes Street junction. Go to this link and Ed Stow has maps showing the location. See the posts made on 09-27-2013

Thanks, I've got Corbett's Court red spotted on my map, I was just wondering exactly on that map Robert Paul worked. Unless I'm being blind Stow does not mention that in his post... thank you.

[rjpalmer]

Thanks, I've got Corbett's Court red spotted on my map, I was just wondering exactly on that map Robert Paul worked. Unless I'm being blind Stow does not mention that in his post... thank you.

Ah--your map does have Wilkes Street and the dot in the right spot to the west. My mistake and I misunderstood.

Covent Garden has always been assumed to be just Covent Garden in the West End.

No one really knows why Paul said he worked there in his initial interview, but said he worked at Corbett's Court at the inquest. I've seen some argue it was a simple journalistic mistake, while others have suggested he left his cart in Corbett's Court at night--it was just a storage area for him--but his actual job was at Covent Garden.

I doubt we'll even know.

[Geddy2112]

I doubt we'll even know.

No let's instead go with he was a bloody liar so hence he is Jack the Ripper...

[TopHat]

Possible? Yes.
Probable? No.

Neither Robert Paul nor PC Mizen knew who Charles Cross was. Charles Cross could have chosen to not go to the police and nobody would have ever known who he was. Contacting the police was the action of an innocent man or of a very stupid murderer.

Paul had a full, in-person, close, interaction with Cross. The absolute worst way for Cross to deal with the situation is to wait for the police to eventually find him so that Paul can say "That was the man I saw!"

[TopHat]

Absolutely, they (Team Lechmere) use the 'in modern day policing' when in reality there is less likelihood of him being considered a suspect as they would have DNA, blood typing, CCTV, mobile phone tracking, fingerprints etc etc... When that is pointed out you get the 'well you know what I mean.' Yeah I know what you mean you want your bloody cake and eat it.

That's the exact point I'm making. We don't have any of those things for Cross. In a modern-day investigation, with what we DO have for Cross, he would not be ruled out.

[Pcdunn]

It's not an invention. It's a possible, and plausible, explanation for the sequence of events. It is plausible that Cross never intended to go to the inquest, until Paul publicly told everyone about the mystery man who found the body. We don't know, I accept that - but it doesn't negate that the possibility is there.

I think this is wrong. Cross showed up at the inquest earlier than Paul did. The cops appeared at Paul's door after the article came out, and encouraged Paul to go to the inquest.

[Lewis C]

That's the exact point I'm making. We don't have any of those things for Cross. In a modern-day investigation, with what we DO have for Cross, he would not be ruled out.

He can't be ruled out, but there are thousands of people that can't be ruled out.

[scottnapa]

We are not dealing with a well-lit modern tube station, though.

Paul and Cross walked to work in near pitch-black darkness between 3:30 and 4:00 a.m. Unless they were synchronized to be within a few feet of one another on their morning commutes, there is no reason to think they would have recognized one another. Fellow pedestrians would have been indistinct shadows in the gloom, and (has been already noted) Paul and Cross would have been walking in the same direction.

Let's do the math. Paul was certainly wrong about the time, but whatever the case, he thought it was 3:45 when he entered Buck's Row. It only took him a couple of minutes to reach that spot from Foster Street. Clearly, Paul assumed he could make it to work at 4:00, and as Steve Blomer calculated, from the murder spot to Corbett's court was 1123 yards. At 3 miles an hour, he could have made to work with a minute-and-a-half to spare.

Thus, Paul leaving home at around 3:43 was a reasonable time of departure.

As measured by multiple people, Cross leaving home at around 3:30 was a reasonable time of departure, putting him in Buck's Row at 3:38 or so.

On any given day, provided their clocks were right and their estimated time of departure was accurate, Cross would have been 4 or 5 minutes ahead of Paul, so there's no reason they would have needed to cross paths previously.

The debate over these timings centers, in part, on what may or may not have gone wrong on this particular day that they did cross paths. But even here, the only reason they did is a) Cross stopped at the 'tarpaulin' and waited for the approaching Paul; and b) Paul seems to have been off about 5 minutes in his estimate of time, for reasons unknown, but not particularly rare or suspicious.

Cheers.

Yes we are not talking about a well lit metro. I am talking about skills, emotions and paths. Over the course of months, a person will rarely leave at the exact same time, your comment about "no reason they would have needed to cross paths previously" is stated as if it is a fact when it is conjecture. Same for me.
I do not look at the stated times as fact. No expects the crime so no one gives any extra thought to the time. I assume Cross and Paul would not carry pocket watches that could be easily noticed and stolen. Some seem to present time witness times as if it is a train schedule. We are on Ripper time.
I am surprised you listed Paul's exit from home at 3:43. Did you mean 3:43 as the time Cross and Paul leave to find Mizen at 3:45. I would think Paul leaves home 5 to 7 minutes earlier.

[Fiver]

Paul had a full, in-person, close, interaction with Cross. The absolute worst way for Cross to deal with the situation is to wait for the police to eventually find him so that Paul can say "That was the man I saw!"

Robert Paul doesn't know Charles Cross' name. Paul doesn't know where Cross lives. Paul doesn't know where Cross works.

How exactly are the police supposed to find Charles Cross?

[Fiver]

That's the exact point I'm making. We don't have any of those things for Cross. In a modern-day investigation, with what we DO have for Cross, he would not be ruled out.

* There is no physical evidence against Cross.
* There is no eyewitness evidence against Cross.
* There is no evidence of violence or criminal behavior by Cross.
* Cross had no knowledge of anatomy.
* The idea of hiding bloodstained clothing and trophy organs in a house full of small children is laughable.
* The timing of the Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes murders make it wildly unlikely that Cross killed them.

Cross would be quickly ruled out as a suspect in any modern investigation that looked at all the evidence.

[rjpalmer]

I am surprised you listed Paul's exit from home at 3:43. Did you mean 3:43 as the time Cross and Paul leave to find Mizen at 3:45. I would think Paul leaves home 5 to 7 minutes earlier.

On the day in question? Yes, I think Paul left home 5 or 6 minutes earlier than what he estimated (around 3:38 or so instead of 3:43) and thus he was at the crime scene at "around 3.40"--just as Abberline wrote in his report. I don't think there is a jot of evidence for "missing time." I think that is an invention based on faulty reasoning.

But that's not what I was referring to.

What I'm saying is that, based on the distance from Paul's home to Corbett's Court, and based on the distance from Cross's home to Broad Street, if both men were the sort who would arrive at work a few minutes early (and this is admittedly another unknowable) and both walked at a normal speed, they would be about 5 or 6 minutes apart on any given day, so their mutual claim of not knowing each other is entirely plausible and I don't find it suspicious.

Good night.

[drstrange169]

"The absolute worst way for Cross to deal with the situation is to wait for the police to eventually find him so that Paul can say "That was the man I saw!""

Why?

Just like Anderson's Jewish identifier, Cross could simply say, "i don't want to be involved".

End of story.

What is it you think the police could do?

[Geddy2112]

That's the exact point I'm making. We don't have any of those things for Cross. In a modern-day investigation, with what we DO have for Cross, he would not be ruled out.

But in a modern day investigation WE WOULD have those things, or in the case of Cross the absence of those things so it's a pointless scenario. You are comparing apples to oranges.

The fact of the matter is he was questioned and cleared, Abberline said in his Police report “but after the most exhaustive inquiries no useful result has been attained. Numerous witnesses have been examined.”

Do you honestly think Abberline missed the co-finder of the body in the "numerous witness" category? Remember Charles Cross did not hang. It's that simple.