Robert Paul Time Issues

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

FrankO says that there was a mere 60 metres between the two. Fiver asked how you got your calculation. It appears to be a negligible difference. Maybe he thought that one street was a bit ‘dodgy.’

[Geddy2112]

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:

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.

Charles Cross was not on trial, it was a coroner's inquest into the death of Polly Nichols. Nobody was on trial. So astonishingly your point is mute. (Again.)

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.

You do know it's the job of the prosecution, Team Lechmere in this case to prove he was guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not the job of the defence (the rest of us) to prove he was innocent, so your points are mute again. However I'll humour you...

A) So what.
B) Did he, so how did it appear in the paper?
C) My son and daughter does not know I found a murdered woman when I was a teenager. In fact my friend 'found' me standing near the body of a freshly killed woman, guess who was never once under suspicion. Astonishing.
D) So what. Like mentioned and proved so did many others. Are they all serial killers?

The argument isn't whether Cross was his real name (it isn't by any sense - which is not the issue), its why he chose to use Cross - what was the advantage in doing so?

However it is his legal name. Read Deed Poll the authority on names in the UK and you will learn this fact. Again you have to prove he gained an advantage by using the name Cross not the other way around.

And why did he not mention his address in his inquest testimony - why steer the inquest towards Broad Street and away from Doveton street?

He did mention it. I dunno maybe he did not want the real killer to know where his wife and daughters lived... or is that too simple an explanation for you? (Although speculation on my behalf...)

And why did his descendants not know about his involvement in the Polly Nichol's case? Everyone thought it was a Charles Cross, with no correction coming from family members.

I very much doubt many people know anything about a relative that was alive 140 or so years ago. (see above) Although how do you know none of his descendants did not know about his involvement, have you interviewed then all? Again making claims without evidence.

And the result of this challenge is consistently failing to get anyone who can give an innocent explanation for these things. Then why are people here if they refuse to answer these type of things? I don't expect the hand waiving nonsense about these things being answered back on October 17, 2021 and that they are too tired to repeat it.

However it's okay for you to dodge question after question. We are still waiting for the answers to my questions above....

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.

It's only on this overheated site that posters come here spreading misinformation about a hard working family man and thus dishonouring the memories of the poor victims and claiming things like Cross lied to his wife etc without ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT SUCH CLAIMS is seen as outrageous. Never have I seen any of these outlandish claims by yourself or Team Lechmere backed up with any solid evidence. Nothing, ever... just speculation and lie after lie. I mean when the main author of the theory has to tell lies in his book, on a documentary and more than likely lie to the expert to get the conclusions he is after it speaks volumes about how sound the theory is, as stated it's a house of cards built in a tornado.

[Fiver]

I take it you are not from Buenos Aires.

I'm fairly sure the Ripper wasn't from Buenos Aires, either.

[Newbie]

The only bizarre thing is people who think it strange that a carman was dressed as a carman.



Congratulation on refuting something nobody claimed. It's also irrelevant to the fact that it is perfect normal for a carman to be dressed as a carman.



As has been shown, few people wore their Sunday best to inquests. The travel time between his house and the court is irrelevant. And a round trip would have taken half an hour, since he would have to change clothing and walk back.

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?

[Newbie]

You talk of ‘normalisation.’ The real problem is the opposite. It’s people reading something and then assuming the sinister. They do this by reading between the lines instead of focusing on the lines themselves.

There isn’t one single thing that remotely points to Cross’s guilt which we get so many lies and manipulations from the fan club.

So, I take it that you absolutely refuse to give an innocent explanation (singular) for the 3 items of which I am referring.

[Fiver]

This is an excellent example of the bizarre normalization that needs to be checked.

The only bizarre thing is people who think it strange that a carman was dressed as a carman.

According to you, he fires out of his stall at 4 am sharp .. remember? So the cart is already loaded up and ready to rumble.

Congratulation on refuting something nobody claimed. It's also irrelevant to the fact that it is perfect normal for a carman to be dressed as a carman.

Then, even if you can spin something with a vaguely remote chance of happening, home was only a 7 - 8 minute walk away where he could easily change into something more appropriate for the proceedings.

As has been shown, few people wore their Sunday best to inquests. The travel time between his house and the court is irrelevant. And a round trip would have taken half an hour, since he would have to change clothing and walk back.

[Newbie]

Thanks for catching my error, but it doesn't invalidate my main point.

Cross' address appeared in the 3 September, 1888 Star, not the Echo. The Star, being an evening paper, was one of the first papers to report the testimony of Charles Cross. Morning papers, like the Daily News, Daily Telegraph, Manchester Guardian, Morning Advertiser, and the Times didn't report the Inquest until the next day, 4 September, 1888. The East London Observer and the Illustrated Police News didn't report the Inquest until 8 September, 1888. Lloyds Weekly News reported the Inquest on 9 September, 1888.

The Star was one of the first a papers to put Charles Cross' testimony into print, not one of the last.

That's right ... I also made that error but checked up on it.

[Newbie]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

How is a carman showing up dressed as a carman weird?

Isn’t it the stupidest thing that you’ve ever heard Fiver? How riddled with desperation can someone get? Apparently he should have turned up dressed like Bertie Wooster.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

I’ll explain it to you again then.

A. The suspect used Cross instead of Lechmere

We cannot assume that he didn’t use the name Cross at Pickford’’s . If he was the same person that ran over the child then he did. The obvious point though is that he gained no advantage from using his stepfathers name along with his correct Christian names, his correct address and his correct place of work. If this is subterfuge then there must be an alternative definition of the word. If Cross was hiding something then it’s the equivalent of a man playing hide and seek by standing in the corner of a room with a lampshade on his head. Let this silliness go. It’s an embarrassment to the subject.

B. The suspect failed to audibly furnish his address at the beginning of his inquest testimony

Drivel. I’m not wasting my time on that.

C. Lechmere's descendants had no knowledge of his

Irrelevant. Nothing vaguely suspicious about that.

D. Lechmere showed up in court in his work clothes.

The dumbest point in the history of ripperology. Perhaps he should have slipped on his best suit and spats or a rabbit costume. Can’t you do better than this?

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

Ignoring explantations doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.

The argument isn't whether Cross was his real name (it isn't by any sense - which is not the issue), its why he chose to use Cross - what was the advantage in doing so? None.
And why did he not mention his address in his inquest testimony - why steer the inquest towards Broad Street and away from Doveton street?
And why did his descendant not know about his involvement in the Polly Nichol's case?

And I consistently fail to get anyone who can give an innocent explanation for this things. Then why are people here if they refuse to answer these type of things.
And I don't expect the hand waiving nonsense about these things being answered back on October 17, 2021 and that they are too tired to repeat it.

Its only at this overheated site that a theory involving a husband lying to his wife is treated as outrageous

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

.

You talk of ‘normalisation.’ The real problem is the opposite. It’s people reading something and then assuming the sinister. They do this by reading between the lines instead of focusing on the lines themselves.

There isn’t one single thing that remotely points to Cross’s guilt which we get so many lies and manipulations from the fan club.

[Fiver]

Its a pity ... one of my favorite 'facts'; however, normalizing Lechmere showing up at the inquest in a sack apron was quite frankly weird:

How is a carman showing up dressed as a carman weird?

[Fiver]

Do you doubt that Charles A. Cross was wearing a rough sack apron?

Nobody has doubted that Charles A. Cross wore a sack apron at the Nichols Inquest, so what was the the point of your post?

[Geddy2112]

A. For God's sake, what measuring tool - tell us? You haven't shown any inclination to furnish us with a means of repeating the measurement - this is unacceptable.

Oooo now I'm getting lectured. Erm if you care to read my post I said (and you quoted me) 'The measuring tool is included in the maps.'

You have given us no evidence to prove Cross is a serial killer, how he gained an advantage of using the name Cross at the inquest, how he was able to be at work for 90 mins and murder poor Annie, how he was present at the other 4 murder sites at the required time. How wearing his work clothes at the inquest is a sign of guilt. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE GODDAMIT!!!!!

B. I used 212 Old Montague street, .... but present day Sainsbury's would do if I had used it as a marker ... it lying along the correct route.

Whatever that means...

C. We have no evidence what-so-ever that Lechmere left at around 3:30 am ....evidence would be some other witness (Paul) identifying his presence sometime before standing by Polly Nichol's body ... or Lechmere's wife commenting that he left around 3:30 am.

We have more evidence he left home around 3:30am than we don't. Unless you have some evidence he left home at a different time, you know maybe from his wife or another witness.

What you have is speculation that he left around 3:30 am ... but zero proof - Lechmere's testimony either being truthful or contrived, which leaves us nowhere.

It's not speculation, it's in the evidence, from an inquest that a coroner signed off on amongst others. It's also fairly easy when using basic maths, i.e. subtraction and using the time, distance, speed formula to work out that indeed Cross most certainly left home that morning at about 3:30am.

However since we are in the proof game... let's have proof of a time gap. Proof the blood evidence pinpoints Cross only. Proof giving your legal name in court is a sign of guilt. Proof he was at any other crime scene at the required time. Proof wearing an apron in court is a sign of guilt. Proof he visited his mother on the night of the double event. Proof he dropped a bloody apron in Goulston Street. Proof he parked up his cart to murder Annie Chapman.

Come on Newbie, lets have some God damn proof to hang old Charlie Boy... come on... spit it out!!!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Doing what? Taking the Cart out in the morning and bringing it back to Pickford's at 9:00 am? Or did he just leave it unattended for a while in the middle of his route, and re-encountered it at 1 pm.

And he was so pressed for time under the strict dictates of the man, despite being there for 20 years, that even 30 minutes to change would have the hammer brought down on him.

You're funny .... I guess I now see what your purpose is here Herlock.

For me, its no longer an issue if you bothered to read one of my missives; but you guys never fail to amuse me.

Can you really not understand this?

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.

Im not going to keep explaining the obvious to you Newbie. For Christ’s sake it couldn’t be simpler.

[Fiver]

Really? The Star of 3 September, 1888?

Perhaps you would be so kind as to show us where...?

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s880903.html

M.

Thanks for catching my error, but it doesn't invalidate my main point.

Cross' address appeared in the 3 September, 1888 Star, not the Echo. The Star, being an evening paper, was one of the first papers to report the testimony of Charles Cross. Morning papers, like the Daily News, Daily Telegraph, Manchester Guardian, Morning Advertiser, and the Times didn't report the Inquest until the next day, 4 September, 1888. The East London Observer and the Illustrated Police News didn't report the Inquest until 8 September, 1888. Lloyds Weekly News reported the Inquest on 9 September, 1888.

The Star was one of the first a papers to put Charles Cross' testimony into print, not one of the last.