Robert Paul Time Issues

[Newbie]

"Three of us have shown you proof the distance is approx 1.55 miles"

You've shown me the picture of the northern route with a 1.55 mile signature at the end, but refuse to tell me or others your method for determining this and now are starting to get indignant that I request it.

You insult Ed Stowe, Google maps, myself, and now hold tightly to the secret of your wonderfully accurate method. Should I just laugh and give up?

Is this method a secret and would compromise national security? ..... at least throw me this nugget.

[Newbie]

Already answered, it was more than likely the name he was known at Pickfords as. It was his legal name. Are you going to answer my questions, like how did he gain an advantage as a serial killer by using the name Cross?



Again can you not read, it's been stated and shown both routes are neigh on identical. (However I'll show you a picture...) Paul said it took them 4 mins to get to Mizen, if this is correct and they were 'walking' at 3.1 mph then they would have travelled 332.6 metres. The picture shows how far up Hanbury Street this meeting would have happened. Why on earth then would Cross turn around to the end of Hanbury Street eastwards the way he had came so he could use old Montague street? So there is your 'innocent' explanation on why he continues up Hanbury Street... happy now?



Three of us have shown you proof the distance is approx 1.55 miles. I've also told you twice now how I measured it. It's not my fault you refuse to believe the truth when it's presented to you.



Basic maths - Time = distance/speed therefore time = 1.55miles divided by 3.1mph, therefore Cross journey took him 30 minutes. There him stating he left home about 3:30am to get to work for 4:00am is spot on. Proof of his leaving time using basic maths if you wish.

Is there a face palm emoji here Geddy?

His real name to any Victorian court was the name on his birth certificate and at baptism: probably the latter.
That would be Lechmere. Was it Jeff Hamm who compiled a list of people in front of magistrates who used dual names .... but in each case the court only recognized their baptismal name, even though they abandoned it as children?

But this is very much unimportant, the back and forth about which is his 'true' name: if its proposed that he was known by neighbors as Charley Cross, but the family went by Lechmere, again that's the normalization of weirdness .... good old Charlie the cuckold - what a guy!

The real question is which name should he furnish to the inquest .... meaning which would be most advantagous so that he would evade suspicion (and anyone would feel the heat, no doubt); if they knew that he's a Lechmere by birth (certificate), and Cross was a step dad, it would be Lechmere that they would use in court.

So, he deliberately chose Cross and omitted furnishing the police with the name of Lechmere. Why? How could he possibly benefit from choosing Cross?

Let's assume that he was known administratively as Cross, did any Pickford's administrator know that he left home at 3:30 am? ..... the answer is no.
Then what use are they to him? Pickford's could not give him an alibi, nor were they going to furnish him with legal help. Isn't it important to have an alibi?

Its stupid and taking a neeless risk for innocent Lech to use Cross and it be discovered that he goes by Lechmere at home, and that that's the name he uses on all the official documents that he has signed during the year. It might needlessly peek the interest of an inspector.


However, his wife, Mrs. Lechmere, could provide that information if need be .... why not avail himself of her testimony if necessary?

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?

Again, the ball is in your court but curiously no one is taking a swing at it.

[Newbie]

Cross did not abandon the body in the way you think because he did not murder anyone. IF, and he most certainly was not the killer he would have kept mutilating the body if Paul had not approached making him even later for work. So again common sense would tell us Cross was not the murderer. As explained by at least three people now the Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street routes where only seconds difference - why don't you believe proof when you are given it?

Sure he did .... he said that she was drunk, or dead and in one or more accounts, even outraged (but not harmed). Abandoned, meaning to leave someone in an uncertain state because you have better things to do. For Lechmere, his arrival time at work took precedent ... hence abandoned the body and maybe he'll run into a PC, and maybe he won't. What term would you use for that bit of callousness?

But it is also is an interesting sequence of events: Cross near the body, just going by his testimony.

A. He moves to the body, recognizes its a fallen female, hears a sound (finally), turns, and sees a guy some 30 - 40 yards away.
I don't know about you Geddy, but most people would see a prostrate body of a female and think "holy hell';
so they wouldn't wait 25 seconds for the guy to finally arrive, but continue to the body to attend to it ... and gather more info before stopping anyone.

Did Lechmere check for vital signs? No mention of it: only holding a hand and perhaps touching her forehead. He had Paul do all that,
despite being the first to the body and physically arresting Paul, he suddenly became very passive .... strange.

Doesn't continue to the body before addressing Paul, doesn't check for vitals, abandons the body callously without exactly knowing the woman's state,

and yet he was so moved with sympathy in the first place that he forcibly arrested the progress of a complete stranger, who for all he knew might have a knife and was part of a ruse involving a prostate woman .... something that was not uncommon on those streets.

Innocent Lechmere of course hadn't a knife and evidently zero street smarts.

Its very strange in that this is not the manner in which most people would behave, in each one of those cases.
Perhaps you can disabuse me of this notion and explain to me which one of those you would have done exactly the same.

[Doctored Whatsit]

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.

A. The suspect used Cross instead of Lechmere
B. The suspect failed to audibly furnish his address at the beginning of his inquest testimony
C. Lechmere's descendants had no knowledge of his
D. Lechmere showed up in court in his work clothes.

Well, thanks only to me, I alleviated the anti-Lechmerites from the need to respond to D, but the other's are still very much in play and I got zero responses to my offer. What gives? ... refusing to attempt to offer innocent explanations about Lechmere's behavior


Its only at this overheated site that a theory involving a husband lying to his wife is treated as outrageous. It doesn't even directly implicate Lechmere as JtR in accepting it.

This appears to be a request for one reason to explain four totally different issues. There are, of course, four very obvious answers.

A. Charles almost certainly used the name Cross because he had done so for very many years. Let's do something novel, and look at the facts. Lechmere senior abandoned the infant Charles and his mother, and the only father figure Charles ever had was Cross senior. Charles could surely have had no respect for his true father and the name Lechmere, and spent many years as a child in the family of Mr and Mrs Cross. In 1888 it would have been normal to take his step-father's name, and somewhat insulting to Cross if he called himself Lechmere. Charles was still part of the Cross family when he started work at Pickfords, and at the 1876 inquest involving the death of a child, which was investigated by the police, and in which Pickfords were directly involved, Charles gave his evidence as Charles Cross, employee of Pickfords. This would have been almost impossible if he was not working under the name Cross. Therefore it is a near certainty that Charles had taken the name Cross.

B. I think you just mean that newspapers, except one, didn't publish his address - there is no evidence that he did anything wrong.

C. As has been said, I haven't got the faintest idea what any of my ancestors did in 1888. In fact, without doing some research, I don't even know what ancestors I had in 1888. Newbie, having made what he considers to be a crucial point here, will presumably be able to write a small book on what all of his ancestors did in 1888. I suggest that most of us are unaware of our ancestors 1888 activities.

D. As we have said many times, Charles was not going to lose pay for a 12 hour day's work because of perhaps 30 minutes in an inquest. He probably started at 4 am and worked till his appointed hour at the inquest, and either parked up with a vanguard, or paid a friend to continue the shift.

As for the lying to his wife theory, I think we are all still waiting for any hint of evidence that he did this.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sure he did .... he said that she was drunk, or dead and in one or more accounts, even outraged (but not harmed). Abandoned, meaning to leave someone in an uncertain state because you have better things to do. For Lechmere, his arrival time at work took precedent ... hence abandoned the body and maybe he'll run into a PC, and maybe he won't. What term would you use for that bit of callousness?

But it is also is an interesting sequence of events: Cross near the body, just going by his testimony.

Not near the body….as per Robert Paul.

A. He moves to the body, recognizes its a fallen female, hears a sound (finally), turns, and sees a guy some 30 - 40 yards away.
I don't know about you Geddy, but most people would see a prostrate body of a female and think "holy hell';
so they wouldn't wait 25 seconds for the guy to finally arrive, but continue to the body to attend to it ... and gather more info before stopping anyone.

A guilty man would have scarpered. Cross didn’t. People who suspect Cross have to make things up to try and invent a case.

Did Lechmere check for vital signs? No mention of it: only holding a hand and perhaps touching her forehead. He had Paul do all that,
despite being the first to the body and physically arresting Paul, he suddenly became very passive .... strange.

Are you really wanting us to believe that it’s somehow weird not to be keen on the idea of touching a body? You previously asked for innocent explanations…I’ll give you three. 1) He was squeamish. 2) He wasn’t certain that she was dead therefore he didn’t want a drunken woman waking up and screaming at the top of her voice. 3) He wasn’t bothered about her and just wanted to get to work.

Doesn't continue to the body before addressing Paul, doesn't check for vitals, abandons the body callously without exactly knowing the woman's state,

and yet he was so moved with sympathy in the first place that he forcibly arrested the progress of a complete stranger, who for all he knew might have a knife and was part of a ruse involving a prostate woman .... something that was not uncommon on those streets.

Meanwhile, back on earth, He wasn’t so ‘moved with sympathy’ about anything. Read the evidence. He saw a shape from the other side of the street. He moved somewhere around the middle of the road and saw that it was a woman. At that very point he hears Paul approach. He waits for him to get there (no escaping as a murderer would definitely have done) before approaching the woman. When Paul sees Cross he’s in the road, not next to the body. Again, perhaps he didn’t want her waking up and accusing him of something so he waited for Paul to get there. If Paul hadn’t arrived who knows? He might have walked on and left her. None of this implies guilt though. Which you would see if you removed those Cross Goggles.

Innocent Lechmere of course hadn't a knife and evidently zero street smarts.

Strange point…we have zero suggestion that he carried a knife. Any suggestion that he ‘might’ have done is pointless. (Bury carried one though, but hey, who would suspect a murderer of being a murderer?)

Its very strange in that this is not the manner in which most people would behave, in each one of those cases.
Perhaps you can disabuse me of this notion and explain to me which one of those you would have done exactly the same.

It’s perfectly normal behaviour. Not everyone wears a halo. We’ve all seen TV video footage of people lying in the street injured with people just walking past. This is life. Those were dangerous streets. Prostitutes often had pimps and bully boys lying in wait to rob strangers of their wallets.

Not a single thing about Cross’s behaviour was suspicious. Nothing. You are simply inventing things. Which is what everyone who believes Cross was the ripper is forced to do. Cross has no case to answer and should be crossed off any serious list of suspects.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I asked you, nay begged you for it last year and that was the same response.

Two years ago? No, I didn't propose it then.

That's okay: we both know you don't have any response to it, much less a good one.

From #179

Cross was a working class man working for a pittance. There were no tribunals in those days. Bosses did what they want and people like Cross lived in fear of ever losing their jobs and as their wages just about covered their living expenses they couldn’t afford to miss time from work. He wasn’t on a salary. Clocked hours. No show, no pay. Is this difficult to understand for some?

Given that he’d have been told turn turn up at the inquest at a specific time then he would have been able to decide if he could get in a few hours work before the inquest and then make up his hours either after they had finished with him or another time.

From #180

We don’t know what time he was told to be at the inquest. It might have been 10.00 for example. So he could get into work for 4.00 do 5 hours worth of deliveries then go to the inquest. That’s a half a days money earned. If he was lucky enough to testify early he might then have been able to go back to at say 1.00 or 2.00 and do another 4 hours or so. Or he could have done more hours during the rest of the week.

From #191

If Cross got to work at 4.00 as normal and his cart was loaded (as you said) then he was ready for work. We don’t know what time he was told to be at the inquest by but I used 10.00 as an example. If he worked from 4.00 until 9.00. Dropped the cart back at the yard and went on to the inquest that was 5 hours work.

How long would it have taken him to deliver an entire load? I can’t say and neither can you but he wasn’t driving an articulated lorry with a 40 foot trailer. It was a cart. It’s likely that during the course of a day he would have had to have returned to the yard to be loaded again. Maybe 2 or 3 times, who knows? But 5 hours work would have been easily enough to make a round of deliveries and it would have earned him money and it would have kept his ‘time off’ down to a minimum.


So how many answers do I have to provide before you acknowledge that I’ve answered? 8, 9 ?

[Fiver]

You missed my post on appearing at court as a carman fiver, as well as Herlock.

A carman showing up dressed as a carman is proof that he was carman, nothing more.

[Newbie]

Cross did not abandon the body in the way you think because he did not murder anyone. IF, and he most certainly was not the killer he would have kept mutilating the body if Paul had not approached making him even later for work. So again common sense would tell us Cross was not the murderer. As explained by at least three people now the Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street routes where only seconds difference - why don't you believe proof when you are given it?

Sure he did .... he said that she was drunk, or dead and in one or more accounts, even outraged (but not harmed). Abandoned, meaning to leave someone in an uncertain state because you have better things to do. For Lechmere, his arrival time at work took precedent ... hence abandoned the body and maybe he'll run into a PC, and maybe he won't. What term would you use for that bit of callousness?

But it is also is an interesting sequence of events: Cross near the body, just going by his testimony.

A. He moves to the body, recognizes its a fallen female, hears a sound (finally), turns, and sees a guy some 30 - 40 yards away.
I don't know about you Geddy, but most people would see a prostrate body of a female and think "holy hell';
so they wouldn't wait 25 seconds for the guy to finally arrive, but continue to the body to attend to it ... and gather more info before stopping anyone.

Did Lechmere check for vital signs? No mention of it: only holding a hand and perhaps touching her forehead. He had Paul do all that,
despite being the first to the body and physically arresting Paul, he suddenly became very passive .... strange.

Doesn't continue to the body before addressing Paul, doesn't check for vitals, abandons the body callously without exactly knowing the woman's state,

and yet he was so moved with sympathy in the first place that he forcibly arrested the progress of a complete stranger, who for all he knew might have a knife and was part of a ruse involving a prostate woman .... something that was not uncommon on those streets.

Innocent Lechmere of course hadn't a knife and evidently zero street smarts.

Its very strange in that this is not the manner in which most people would behave, in each one of those cases.
Perhaps you can disabuse me of this notion and explain to me which one of those you would have done exactly the same.

[Fiver]

And my 2nd question involving the need for Lechmere to abandon the body so quickly, supposedly because he needed to get to work on time by 4 am: Pickford's management being eager to can him for the slightest of infractions as Herlock feverishly imagines; but then, choosing the longer route to get to work when he 'was behind time myself'?

What is the innocent explanation? This dichotomy of purposes begs for an explanation.

Hanbury Street wasn't the longer route to work. This has been shown repeatedly. Do you nt understand how links work?

Robert Paul likely wouldn't have even looked at the body if Cross hadn't stopped him. And Paul left the body just as quickly as Cross.

As to how tolerant Victorian employers were:

"Mr. Paul says that after he made his statement to our representative, which appeared in Lloyd's, he was fetched up in the middle of the night by the police, and was obliged to lose a day's work the next day, for which he got nothing. He was then summoned to give evidence at the inquest on two different days, and he had to pay a man 5s. each day to do his work, or he would have lost his place. At the close of the inquest he got two shillings, being a shilling for each day." - Robert Paul, Lloyds Weekly News, 30th September, 1888.

[Fiver]

I dug this up from GUT in a 2014 thread that ended up in the type of hysterical screeching and indulgence in emojis that Herlock & Geddy would love:

From GUT

G'day Fisherman

WRONG

A judge in a criminal trial must give the jury a direction that if there is an explanation that is consistent with innocence they MUST acquit.

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.

A. The suspect used Cross instead of Lechmere
B. The suspect failed to audibly furnish his address at the beginning of his inquest testimony
C. Lechmere's descendants had no knowledge of his
D. Lechmere showed up in court in his work clothes.[/quote]

Your challenge was answered repeatedly long before you posted it. You ignoring the facts doesn't change them.

A. He identified himself as Charles Allen Cross, who lived at 22 Doveton Street, had been a carman at Pickfords for about 20 years, and whose shift began at Broad Street Station at 4am. Who would ever guess that he was Charles Allen Lechmere, the stepson of Thomas Cross, who lived at 22 Doveton Street, had been a carman at Pickfords for about 20 years, and whose shift began at Broad Street Station at 4am? What a puzzler! Sherlock Holmes would be stumped!

Back in the real world, someone using his stepfather's surname is not evidence of a crime. Cross was one of at least three Ripper witnesses who had multiple surnames, but only mentioned one at the inquest. He clearly was not trying to hide his identity from the police, the press, the public, his employers, his coworkers, his neighbors or his family.

B. is not a fact. It is unproven speculation and makes no sense.

C. Lechmere's descendants knew nothing about him. That is typical, not evidence of anything, let alone anything sinister.

D. A carman showing up dressed as a carman is evidence that he was a carman. Trying to portray it as sinister is laughable.

Your "universal explanation" explains nothing and makes no sense. Demanding a single explanation for all 4 of your points is you assuming, without proof, that the four points are connected.

But if you want a "universal explanation", the explanation was he was innocent.

A. He had used the name Cross before in court, which is a strong indication that he was known by his stepfather's surname at work.

B. Acoustics were not good at the Inquest, thus things like "Robert Baul". There is nothing that implies any errors or omissions by the press were deliberate deceptions by any witness.

C. Family stories generally end at grandchildren. It would be more surprising if his great-great grandchildren knew anything about him.

D. A carman showing up dressed as a carman is evidence that he was a carman.

[Geddy2112]

A. What's the advantage in using Cross?

Already answered, it was more than likely the name he was known at Pickfords as. It was his legal name. Are you going to answer my questions, like how did he gain an advantage as a serial killer by using the name Cross?

B. Why wouldn't he use Old Montague /Wenworth street ..... it seems like the quickest way to work?
You don't think that would be a very basic rule?

Again can you not read, it's been stated and shown both routes are neigh on identical. (However I'll show you a picture...) Paul said it took them 4 mins to get to Mizen, if this is correct and they were 'walking' at 3.1 mph then they would have travelled 332.6 metres. The picture shows how far up Hanbury Street this meeting would have happened. Why on earth then would Cross turn around to the end of Hanbury Street eastwards the way he had came so he could use old Montague street? So there is your 'innocent' explanation on why he continues up Hanbury Street... happy now?

C. There is the time a commuter having to go about 1.7 miles should head on off, unless you opt for Geddy's 1.55 miles - which is actually about 2 miles, until Geddy informs us as to his method of determination which I'm not expecting anytime soon. It's not complicated.

Three of us have shown you proof the distance is approx 1.55 miles. I've also told you twice now how I measured it. It's not my fault you refuse to believe the truth when it's presented to you.

Walking a brisk rate of 3.2 mph gets him to work in 32 minutes ... so, typically people in his shoes wouldn't leave before 3:30 am ... unless Pickford's management was very loosey/goosey about it, which is quite possible.

Basic maths - Time = distance/speed therefore time = 1.55miles divided by 3.1mph, therefore Cross journey took him 30 minutes. There him stating he left home about 3:30am to get to work for 4:00am is spot on. Proof of his leaving time using basic maths if you wish.

[Newbie]

I’ve answered the point more than once and in detail.

I asked you, nay begged you for it last year and that was the same response.

Two years ago? No, I didn't propose it then.

That's okay: we both know you don't have any response to it, much less a good one.

[Geddy2112]

And my 2nd question involving the need for Lechmere to abandon the body so quickly, supposedly because he needed to get to work on time by 4 am: Pickford's management being eager to can him for the slightest of infractions as Herlock feverishly imagines; but then, choosing the longer route to get to work when he 'was behind time myself'?

What is the innocent explanation? This dichotomy of purposes begs for an explanation.

Cross did not abandon the body in the way you think because he did not murder anyone. IF, and he most certainly was not the killer he would have kept mutilating the body if Paul had not approached making him even later for work. So again common sense would tell us Cross was not the murderer. As explained by at least three people now the Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street routes where only seconds difference - why don't you believe proof when you are given it?

[Newbie]

So which point of the Lechmere Theory that is not speculation or fabrication tells us he is guilty of multiple murder? (Because I've not seen one posted yet.)

Time gap - made up.
Mizen Scam - made up.
False name - made up.
Blood evidence - not accurate.
Routes to work so he can be at a crime scene when needed - not known.
Walking speed - not known so can't be placed at a crime scene.
Time he left home on any given day - can't be known so can't be placed at any other crime scene.
Activities on day off - unknown so he can't be placed at a crime scene.
Routinely covered in blood - Pickfords hardly delivered any meat and if so it would have been wrapped in muslin and wicker baskets. Scotch Fish & Meat only arrived at 4:15am.
Strong Alibi for Chapman murder - would have been at work at least 90 mins.

Have I missed anything?

Then theory even relies on the shoddy baseless point that even though there is not one jot of evidence for him being at any other crime scene or described by any other witness that the 'fact' it's impossible for there to be two serial killers at large in the same city at the same time means without doubt that if he killed Polly Nichols he murdered the rest as well. (Let's flip that since he did not kill Polly then he did not kill the rest... or do the Cult of Lechmere demand their cake and eat it?) I'm astonished that on what we know anyone with any sense still believes this crock I really am. It's amazing.

A. What's the advantage in using Cross?

B. Why wouldn't he use Old Montague /Wenworth street ..... it seems like the quickest way to work?
You don't think that would be a very basic rule?

C. There is the time a commuter having to go about 1.7 miles should head on off, unless you opt for Geddy's 1.55 miles - which is actually about 2 miles, until Geddy informs us as to his method of determination which I'm not expecting anytime soon. It's not complicated.

Walking a brisk rate of 3.2 mph gets him to work in 32 minutes ... so, typically people in his shoes wouldn't leave before 3:30 am ... unless Pickford's management was very loosey/goosey about it, which is quite possible.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You missed my post on appearing at court as a carman fiver, as well as Herlock.

But I've realized that Herlock skims through the first sentence and that's it, and then throws a temper tantrum when it isn't headed his way.

But you too Fiver?

I’ve answered the point more than once and in detail.