Robert Paul Time Issues

[Newbie]

I think people are improperly framing two arguments around Crossmere the suspect that should be addressed. I'll start with the first improperly framed argument,
and move on to the 2nd in my next message

A. Which was his 'true' name: Cross or Lechmere?

Being that any person involved in such a situation - standing alone, next to a just murdered victim ... the amount of time being irrelevant here, but it could be for just a second - would be very much alarmed by the potential perception that others will associate you with the crime (let's say wrongly - for the sake of argument), it would behoove said person in presenting himself in the best possible light, and that would start with the name he presents to authorities.

caveats involved in the argument:

- Given that he lacked a criminal record under the name of Lechmere, and by its disuse was not attempting to hide something from his past from authorities - it was not illegal to use the name of Cross at the inquest ..... this is my understanding of the legal code at the time.
* unless new evidence is furnished as to Lechmere having a criminal record at that point, this should not be an argument

- Given that the custom of the Victorian legal & administrative system, if offered dual names, would have accepted the use only his Christian name during the proceedings - the one given to him at baptism, Lechmere only furnished the authorities with Cross.
* unless new evidence is furnished to the contrary about Victorian legal customs on this matter, this should not be an argument

New framing:
A*. Which name should Lechmere have chosen to best convey an appearance of innocence, or that addresses some outside factor beyond the deliberation of the court?

caveats involved in the new framing:
- the nature of the 'other factor' should be specified, articulatng some well reasoned motivation
- declarations of the form: 'he's innocent, irgo .....' is not one offered by anyone serious about debate: so why are you here?

[Newbie]

this was a duplicate that I accidently posted.

[Newbie]

Now that I've properly framed Argument A, two things stand out as to the use of the name Cross being a disadvantage to the innocent Crossmere:

#1. Although Crossmere had no court records involving the name of Lechmere, he did seem to have one involving the name of Cross: namely, running over and killing a young boy with his cart.

Now, although he was ruled to have not been negligent in the tragic death of the young boy before a magistrate, was it wise to direct authorities there? It is my understanding that the boy's father was of the oppinion that the act was deliberate.

#2. As I have already said, Pickford's management could never have offered Crossmere an alibi as to his leaving home at 3:30 am.

I've already opined about the importance of having a ready alibi; if anything, to slam shut any hint of guilt, immediately eliminating any suspicions cast your way.


Personally, if I were thrust in that situation, I wouldn't touch the name of Cross with a ten foot pole.

[Newbie]

I think people are improperly framing two arguments around Crossmere the suspect that should be addressed. I'll start with the first improperly framed argument,
and move on to the 2nd in my next message

A. Which was his 'true' name: Cross or Lechmere?

Being that any person involved in such a situation - standing alone, next to a just murdered victim ... the amount of time being irrelevant here, but it could be for just a second - would be very much alarmed by the potential perception that others will associate you with the crime (let's say wrongly - for the sake of argument), it would behoove said person in presenting himself in the best possible light, and that would start with the name he presents to authorities.

caveats involved in the argument:

- Given that he lacked a criminal record under the name of Lechmere, and by its disuse was not attempting to hide something from his past from authorities - it was not illegal to use the name of Cross at the inquest ..... this is my understanding of the legal code at the time.
* unless new evidence is furnished as to Lechmere having a criminal record at that point, this should not be an argument

- Given that the custom of the Victorian legal & administrative system, if offered dual names, would have accepted the use only his Christian name during the proceedings - the one given to him at baptism, Lechmere only furnished the authorities with Cross.
* unless new evidence is furnished to the contrary about Victorian legal customs on this matter, this should not be an argument

New framing:
A*. Which name should Lechmere have chosen to best convey an appearance of innocence, or that addresses some outside factor beyond the deliberation of the court?

caveats involved in the new framing:
- the nature of the 'other factor' should be specified, articulatng some well reasoned motivation
- declarations of the form: 'he's innocent, irgo .....' is not one offered by anyone serious about debate: so why are you here?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Astonishing isn't it... I've also asked Newbie to answer the following... but nothing.

1) How does giving your two Christian names, legal surname, home and work address at an inquest give you an advantage as a serial killer?

2) How does wearing your work clothes at an inquest imply guilt?

3) Can you tell me Cross' exact leaving time from home on any given day, his walking speed and his exact routes to work?

4) Can you show me evidence to prove there was a time gap?

5) Can you show me evidence to prove the Mizen scam?

6) Can you show me any evidence linking Charles Cross to any of the other C5 murders?

7) Can you show me any evidence on when Charles visited his mother or anything else regarding his social time?

I get it all the time Geddy. They ask questions but when you don’t give the answer that they want they suddenly go word blind. I ask a question and it’s a) ignore, b) change the subject, c) answer a different question, or d) tell you what a stupid question it is.

[FrankO]

I wrote that most people, seeing someone alone and on the ground at 3:40 am would be greatly alarmed and have some sense of urgency; they would not mark a sound turn around, and stand there gaping at the oncomer for 20 - 25 seconds.

This of course is what Lechmere told us he did at the inquest.

Most people would continue towards the prostrate body to assess her current state: thinking that it might very well be critical; then they would address the newcomer.

This is what poster ohrocky wrote almost 4 years ago on these boards:
"Here's what happened to me.........

A couple of years ago, late one cold winters evening I was returning home from a late football match. Turning the corner into my quiet, tree-lined steet I saw "something" up against the churchyard wall. I approached and saw that it was a young woman lying there, motionless. I didn't know whether she had been attacked, had a medical episode, or had collapsed through drink and / or drugs.

I didn't want to be observed touching the young woman or her posessions so moved a couple of yards away from her. Whilst contemplating what to do I saw a woman passing on her way home from a late shift so I attracted her attention and asked her over. Being a female she had no compunction touching the young lady and eventually rousing her and rifling through her handbag. A nearly empty bottle of vodka was found in her bag so the cause of her collapse soon became apparent.

The rest of the tale doesn't really matter. But I now realise that the way I reacted on finding a woman's body out on the street was not too disimilar at all from the way Lechmere reacted on finding Polly Nichols."

I can very well imagine that Cross would have had a very similar sentiment as ohrocky. It doesn't particularly strike me as odd.

[Geddy2112]

I nearly forgot……

After Newbie said this - “Its only at this overheated site that a theory involving a husband lying to his wife is treated as outrageous.”

I asked - “Prove that he lied to his wife and I’ll send you a thousand apologies.”


Silence.

Astonishing isn't it... I've also asked Newbie to answer the following... but nothing.

1) How does giving your two Christian names, legal surname, home and work address at an inquest give you an advantage as a serial killer?

2) How does wearing your work clothes at an inquest imply guilt?

3) Can you tell me Cross' exact leaving time from home on any given day, his walking speed and his exact routes to work?

4) Can you show me evidence to prove there was a time gap?

5) Can you show me evidence to prove the Mizen scam?

6) Can you show me any evidence linking Charles Cross to any of the other C5 murders?

7) Can you show me any evidence on when Charles visited his mother or anything else regarding his social time?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I nearly forgot……

After Newbie said this - “Its only at this overheated site that a theory involving a husband lying to his wife is treated as outrageous.”

I asked - “Prove that he lied to his wife and I’ll send you a thousand apologies.”


Silence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is there some weird tech issue on this forum that renders some posts invisible to some people? Or has there been an outbreak of selective shortsightedness? On other threads I’ve asked questions and others have claimed to have answered them when no such answers are visible in any existing post anywhere. Then on here we keep getting asked questions to which answers are certainly given but they are followed by accusations that we haven’t answered them. It’s like being in an alternate universe.

[Fiver]

I wrote that most people, seeing someone alone and on the ground at 3:40 am would be greatly alarmed and have some sense of urgency; they would not mark a sound turn around, and stand there gaping at the oncomer for 20 - 25 seconds.

This of course is what Lechmere told us he did at the inquest.

Your summary contradicts the statements of both Charles Cross and Robert Paul.

"At the same time he heard a man about forty yards away coming up Buck's row in the direction witness had himself come. He stepped back and waited for the newcomer, who started on one side, as if he feared that the witness meant to knock him down." - Charles Cross, Daily News, 4 September 1888.

"It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." - Robert Paul, Lloyds Weekly News, 2 September 1888.

Most people would continue towards the prostrate body to assess her current state: thinking that it might very well be critical; then they would address the newcomer.

That's not what Albert Crow did. That's not what John Reeves did. That's not what Robert Paul did. That's not what John Davis did. That's not what Lewis Diemschutz did. That's not what Thomas Bowyer did.

The only people who did what you claim most people would do were the police - PC Neil, PC Watkin, PC Andrews.

[Fiver]

He's innocent and so he uses the name of Cross? Of course this is not an answer to the question ... which involves why an innocent Lechmere
would only furnish the authorities with Cross - how does he benefit from this? He doesn't.

Using the name Cross neither helps nor hurts him, just like the other witnesses who used multiple surnames, but only mentioned one. All you have proved is your double standard.

As for his descendants not correcting the mistake of Polly Nichol's body being found by the family scion: one Charles Alen Lechmere?
We are not just talking about descendants of today ..... his children, grandchildren, great grandchildren .... none of these generations intervened to inform others of his participation in the events. Which means they didn't know any Charles Cross .... didn't have a clue: none of these generations knew that Charles Cross was Charles Lechmere.

Why do you keep repeating speculation as fact? The fact is that none of his modern descendants knew anything about Charles Allen Lechmere. This is typical, few people know anything about their great-grandparents, let alone great-great-grandparents.

There is no evidence that his wife and children did not know that that he found Nichols body. There is no evidence that his wife and children did not know that he used both Cross and Lechmere as surnames. There is no evidence that these facts were deliberately suppressed by anyone.

[Fiver]

And another issue I proposed about Lechmere: the oddity of his behaviour encountering the body & Paul, and the dichotomy between abandoning the body of Polly Nichol's prematurely, supposedly uncertain of her state, due to the time issue of getting to work on time, and then Lechmere not taking the more direct route of Old Montague street.

I'm looking for comments surrounding the oddity of his behavior around the body ... am I wrong in my assumption in how most people would behave in similar circumstances?

You have yet to show that Charles Cross' behaviour was odd, let alone proof of guilt.

Cross did not abandon the body. He did exactly like Robert Paul, he found the closest police officer and informed them.

Your nonsense about Old Montague Street was debunked by FrankO in Post #152.

You ignoring the facts does not make them go away.

[Fiver]

Mrs. Lechmere, could provide innocent Lech with an alibi before authorities, leaving around 3:30 am.... why not avail himself of her testimony if necessary? Why cut himself off from it by using the name Cross? What is advantageous in using Cross, when Pickford's administrators can not furnish him with an alibi?

I have already hypothesized why a less than innocent Lechmere would use Cross, to deceive his wife; but no one has told me the advantage of innocent Lech using Cross? To me, it would seem needlessly stupid and reckless.

His use of Cross has been explained at least half-a-dozen times in this thread, most recently by Doctored Whatsit. You ignoring what other people said doesn't mean they didn't say it.

Your example makes no sense. The police had Charles Cross' home address. If they wanted to check when he left home, they would have gone to 22 Doveton and asked his wife.

Using Cross could not cut him off from having an alibi.

[FrankO]

With the spirit of this in mind, I challenged the anti-Lechmere crowd to do just that,
come up with an innocent explanation for the following 4 facts: not adhoc explanations for each one, but one universal explanation such as I have given.

Okay, I'll play your game: because Cross was very strict about his private life and working life. So, when he got involved in the case he was on his way to work and because of that, he did A, B & D because of that. C, as a number of us have shared from experience, isn't weird or suspicious at all; it rather seems to be rule than exception. And, of course, I'm assuming here that he was known as Cross at work.

[Geddy2112]

**note: that step dad was a PC 20 years ago, from a different division, and probably forgotten hardly explains why to not submit Lechmere as well as Cross.

But you expect people to know something about their relatives from nearly 140 years ago.... oooookaaaay.. makes sense... not.