Robert Paul Time Issues

[Newbie]

A quick check on Lech's Hanbury route to work using google map and I got roughly 2.1 miles.
Very different from the 1.55 mile version.

Anyways, its about a half mile longer than the Old Montague route to work

[Newbie]

BTW, it takes someone 31 minutes and 48 seconds to go 1.7 miles at the 'moderate' walking speed of 3.2 mph.

And that is for people walking straight line paths, not venturing forth veering side to side down a path, looking over pieces of tarpaulin, etc.

[Newbie]

The newspapers do not disagree on #2. One mentions Cross' home address, the others don't mention it.

Most newspapers don't mention Cross wearing an apron, so by your reasoning he didn't wear one.

Only one newspaper mentioned the apron: you think the reporter made it up?
Few instances period in which a newspaper mentioned the article of clothing of a witness at inquests - only victims.

All newspapers mentioned the addresses of most of the inquests witnesses who were not PCs, doctors or watchmen.
The one newspaper that did mention Lechmere's address was an evening newspaper: so the reporter had time to check it out before submitting his article to the editor.

The only thing those two things share is that they are unusual, like Lech's sudden usage of Cross: which are some reasons why people are making a big deal about Lechmere

[Newbie]

When Lechmere left Poly Nichol's body after such a brief interaction, it was explained that he was running late and had to abandon the body to get to work on time.

Okay, I'll accept that.

Then, given his lateness, why did he not follow the quickest way to work, which would have him choosing Old Montague street instead of Hanbury?

Can anyone explain this apparent contradiction to me?

[Newbie]

You provide a mix of assumptions, speculation, and double standards.

1. He called himself Charles Allen Cross of 22 Doveton Street, a carman who had worked for Pickford's for about 20 years and who shift started at 4am at the Broad Street Station. Who could ever have guessed that he might have been Charles Allen Lechmere, the stepson of Thomas Cross, who lived at 22 Doveton Street, a carman who had worked for Pickford's for about 20 years and who shift started at 4am at the Broad Street Station?

Cross was not the only Ripper witness to not mention all the names they went by at the inquest, yet you don't accuse the others of deliberate deception. Your double standard is noted.

2. Charles Allen Cross publicly gave his home address at the inquest. He had the right to not give it publicly, yet he chose to do so. The newspapers were full of omissions and errors, yet you assume malice on Cross' part. Your double standard is noted.

3. How is a carman showing up at the inquest dressed as a carman evidence of deception?

4. Charles Allen Cross' descendants didn't know anything about him. You treat the inquest if it was the only thing they didn't know and assume malice on his part. Your double standard is noted.

So far, I've provided a challenge that no one has taken up.

I've provided one item of speculation, of course: that Lechmere was trying to hide his appearance at the inquest from his wife, because of the time issue. Speculation is the nature of this site - otherwise they might as well shut the place down.

I've provided 4 facts involving Charles Lechmere's behavior, with the assumption that we should accept the majority representation of a matter, should there be conflict: the 3:30 am vs. 3:20 am (by one paper) departure time, and the lack of Lechmere's address vs. the 22 Doveton street (by one paper. That controversy only involves the address, everything else is indisputable.

I've challenged anyone to come up with a better explanation of mine, that ties together these 4 facts: so far crickets, as I expected.

I'll address each of your points backwards:
#4: It's questionable whether his descendant didn't know anything about him: I've heard otherwise. What they didn't know was that Charles Cross in the Ripper legend
was Charles Lechmere: no descendant making that correction. In probably most every East End family, that little story would get passed down.

#3: You are asking me a question with which I've already furnished an answer. Reread it and come up with a contrary explanation that covers all 4 items that I listed.
If Lechmere was Alfie Doolittle, he'd come in with his dustman's coat and not give a fig; Lechmere had petty bourgeiois aspirations and wealthy relatives: one
would very much expect him to come dressed to such an event as if he was going to church.

#2: Every newspaper, save one, failed to list Charles Lechmere's home address (22 Doveton street). The only paper that did (The Echo) was an evening paper,
so the reporter would have had time to go get the address from authorities. Most people gave an address .... except for police officers, doctors, etc...

#1. The other's are not suspects up to this point. If you want to nominate one of the few other persons at the inquest who failed to provide their home address, then
go ahead ... and then we'll take it from there. This is a lot like proposing Diemshutz as a suspect, because he was also the first to find a body ... again, go ahead,
but I would need a lot more to get animated about the guy.

With Lechmere, there is more than just:
A. He was first to the body
B. He used the name Cross

You need to add in
C. He was not forthcoming with his wife that he was a key witness in a famous local event,
D. He was not noticed by Paul visually or audibly, on a street that acted like a sound wave guide

And here's another problem that I'll post on my next message

[Newbie]

Murdering Eddowes and Stride would require Cross staying up for at least 23 hours. While not impossible, it is wildly unlikely, especially for a man whose infant might have just started sleeping through the night.

I take it you are not from Buenos Aires.

[Newbie]

Leaving the cart unattended was illegal, plus it would would generally result in a carman being fired. Even if not immediately caught, there was a significant risk that something would have been pilfered from it, which would not just result in being fired, but have a significant risk of being charged for the theft.

But even in the probable event that he had a van boy, this would have been a rather stupid thing for a serial killer to do. Chapman's killer had reached into her mutilated abdomen, pulled out her intestines, and placed them over her right shoulder. It's impossible for the killer to avoid being liberally coated with blood and less nameable fluids. And then you have this killer walk into Spitalfield's market, in full view of not just a vanboy and the people receiving goods, but in front of dozens of vendors and hundreds of shoppers without a single person noting that the killer is covered in blood and gore.

Your theory makes no sense.

Again, any psychopath carman would take off his apron before strangulating a prostitute ... its hard to eviscerate some woman with your apron dangling over the body when you kneel. With Annie Chapman, there was a lot of her blood sprayed on the wall .... was she strangled? I forget quite frankly. However, doesn't matter; the apron comes off before the murder, and then goes back on after, and you can cover up those nasty little red spots with your nice, clean apron.

Covered in blood & gore? Don't be so dramatic ... that would be a huge problem for anyone fleeing.
Is there any witness who saw someone wandering coated in blood and gore around the time of the murders?

Anyhow little van boys are easy to push around and intimidate if you are a clever homicidal maniac the age of the kid's father.

[Newbie]

hey newbie
not sure if youre aware of this, but Fisherman and Fishy are two different posters.

Hey Abby Normal: Fishy is Christer & Fisherman I do not know. What happened to 'Lechmere'?

[Newbie]

Here's the path I used from Ed Stowe's map:

Step I: 22Doveton to 212OldMontague: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DFE...DYIGAoG-N/view

Step II: 212OldMontague to A10: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K9b...ot2OSfYS3/view

Step III: A10 to Broad street entrance: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y-B...47y5rU_vH/view

[Newbie]

I used Google maps:


I. 22 Doveton Street to 212 Old Montague street: distance = 0.6 & (3/8th of 0.1) miles

II. 212 Old Montague street to A10(10 Artillery lane): distance = 0.8 & (1/8 of 0.1) mils

III. A10(10 Artillery lane) to Broad street entrance: distance = 0.2 miles


Total distance from 22 Doveton to Broad street entrance:


... Step I .... Step II .... Step III

( 0.6375 + 0.8125 + 0.2 ) miles


= 1.65 miles to the entrance of Broad street


Plus the distance along broad street to work: anywhere from 0.025 to 0.1 miles


Total distance: 1.675 to 1.75 miles



& this is the shorter route, so go over thoroughly how you got the 1.55 mile figure with the longer route: it seems well off.

[Newbie]

By assumption - no value then.




I've just plotted one possible route from Doveton Street via Bucks Row, Hanbury Street, Lamb, Fort, Stewart Street, Bushfield and Bishopgate and it comes to 1.55 miles. So at an average walking speed of 3.1mph which is more or less the average human walking speed it would have taken Cross 30 mins 35 seconds to make the journey, of course that nicely fits in with his 'about 3:30am' leaving home time.



There is your first mistake...

[U]

I've attached one possible route from using the measuring tools of a contemporary map. 1.55 miles is accurate enough.

And you took the longer route along Hanbury street.
You used what measuring tool again? With that sort of measuring tool Paul's walk must have been 5 minutes.

I'll show you in detail what I did, and then you'll be a bit more specific with how you came up with your distance.

Quite frankly, I'm a suspicious, untrusting bloke.

[Lewis C]

Because of Robert Paul. He's the source of the alleged time gap.

Robert Paul said Lechmere was 'by the woman' at around 3:46 and it only takes 8 minutes or so to walk from Doveton Street to Buck's Row.

So (the argument runs) Lechmere should have said that he left home at "about 3:38." Instead, he said it was "about 3:30"

They think they've caught Lechmere in a rather stupid lie.

They time gap is not truly contingent on when CAL left home; it's contingent on the discrepancy between the accounts given by Paul and Lechmere. That is, if Lechmere walked from his house to Buck's Row in a timely manner.

It's perhaps clearer to think of it as an alleged lie rather than as a time gap.

I re-watched the relevant part of The Missing Evidence video, starting at about 19:03, and I still think that what they're arguing is that Cross was ahead of Paul by a suspiciously long amount of time, not that Cross lied about when he left home.

If your interpretation is right, that seems to me at least as weak an argument as what I think they're saying. (I understand that you aren't claiming that it's a good argument.) They would be assuming that if there's a discrepancy between the times that Cross and Paul gave and Paul walking only a little bit behind Cross, then we must believe Paul rather than Cross, even though Cross' estimate fits better with the times given by other witnesses. Also, if someone gives an inaccurate time, he can't have just been mistaken, he must be lying. And in this case, it would have been a lie that didn't benefit his story.

[Geddy2112]

If he’d have missed the apostrophe in Buck’s Row on a written statement they would call it evidence of guilt.

****... is there a definitive answer on if it's Bucks Row or Buck's Row? A lot of mentions on here use the apostrophe but other sites do not and neither does Steven Blomer in his book 'Inside Bucks Row.'

Depending on your answer I could be in for a bit of editing...

[FrankO]

I wrote my original question about us not knowing much about our ancestors back in 1888, fully aware of my own ignorance of my relatives. I only ever knew three of my grandparents, my mother's father having died young with diabetes. I know nothing about him, have never seen a photograph of him, I don't know what his job was, and I don't even know his full name.

Thanks for sharing, DW. I know the names of all my grandparents and the jobs of both my grandfathers: one was a very self-centered hairdresser and the other was a strict school master who read books with a red pen at hand, so that he could correct the errors he found in them. I didn't get to know him, as he died of a disease when I was 4 or 5. The hairdresser was an only child and much spoilt by his mother, who died when I was around 5 years old. She died when she was around the age of 95. My mother's mother died when my mother was only 5. When she was 10 her father, the hairdresser, remarried and his new wife wasn't pleasant with my mother. Although my mother later had a very good life with my father, it left her scarred.

Wait, isn't this suspicious ... why do I know so little about him ... they've been keeping something from me ... perhaps he was Jack the Ripper ... or perhaps I've been reading too many silly theories built on desperately collected non-evidence on these threads ...

Thanks for the laugh!

[Doctored Whatsit]

Indeed, DW. On my father's side I know nothing beyond my grandparents, who were born around 1905. On my mother's side more or less the only thing I know beyond my grandparents, is that my mother's maternal grandfather regularly travelled some 70-80 kilometers by boat to sell vegetables and fruit. No big stories, nothing particular.

I wrote my original question about us not knowing much about our ancestors back in 1888, fully aware of my own ignorance of my relatives. I only ever knew three of my grandparents, my mother's father having died young with diabetes. I know nothing about him, have never seen a photograph of him, I don't know what his job was, and I don't even know his full name.

Wait, isn't this suspicious ... why do I know so little about him ... they've been keeping something from me ... perhaps he was Jack the Ripper ... or perhaps I've been reading too many silly theories built on desperately collected non-evidence on these threads ...