Robert Paul Time Issues

[Newbie]

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.

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

- 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?
- 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 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.

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.

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.

[Geddy2112]

I’ve never heard anything like this. What an embarrassment to the subject that people can make these points. Pathetic stuff.

It's unbelievable it really is. I often come on here in a morning, read some Lechmere posts and think surely they are just trying to wind us up for sh*ts and giggles. I mean I can't see any other sensible reason for it.

I'm still waiting for one of them to give me a valid reason on how Cross gained an advantage as a serial killer by giving his two Christian names, LEGAL surname, home and work address to the court. Not once have I seen a valid explanation for that, not once but it still gets trotted out... 'Oooo he lied to the Police.' (I think they even get Police and coroner/jury/inquest mixed up but I usually have pity and let that point slide...)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Meanwhile, what is the result of removing Fiver's rookie error from our analysis of the Star's execrable reporting? Isn't that the important issue here, all synthetic spluttering aside?

M.

I’ve removed nothing. I’m talking solely about the issue at hand which is that there is nothing suspicious in the slightest about a Woking class man like Charles Cross turning up to an inquest in his work clothes. How the hell can this fact in any way point to his guilt?

The answer is that it can’t. It’s simply another desperate attempt to manufacture points to be used against a clearly innocent man.

[Geddy2112]

Having said all this (out of spite).... I noticed that the East London Observer story came out on September 8th, and the depiction of the testimony seemed very similar to another paper's inquest reporting ... namely the Daily Telegraph - September 3rd.

Comparing the two and it appears quite likely that a reporter for the East London observer lifted the other paper's inquest reporting,
and then added descriptions of appearance at the beginning as a cover

You do know how the 'reporting' system worked back then do you not? You have heard of the Central News Agency I presume?

... it being quite possible that he wasn't even at the inquest. A carman testifying .... sure, let me throw a rough apron sack over him.

I'll have an ounce of whatever it is you are smoking thank you... I thought Stow's comments about the Lechmere Theory only dealing in facts was the biggest pile of crepe I've read about this case but no you go and top it with a golden cherry by stating you do not think Charles Cross was even present at the inquest..

Its a pity ... one of my favorite 'facts'; however, normalizing Lechmere showing up at the inquest in a sack apron was quite frankly weird:
the heated argumentativeness, always invariably off point - out on some tangent, or just flat out wrongheaded and bizarre.

Not sure what you are meaning here but it's been illustrated, contrary to the Lechmere Theory folk did not always turn up to court in their Sunday Best, so Cross wearing his work attrite was unbelievably nothing to be suspicious about and certainly not another sign of guilt.

[Geddy2112]

So, you came up with a few .... tremendous find!

But there is an important point that you've kind of missed: are the depictions of articles worn accurate?

Fiver found a fair few more as well. So you've lost your point even if I found just one.

There is zero evidence to doubt the descriptions. However even if they were not you still lost the point you were making.

For instance, do you doubt that Mary Ann Connally wore an old green shawl and no hat? Or that George Crow wore a shabby green overcoat?

That's the important thing ... no?

No not really.

Here's some more (from the East London Observer - this reporter was consistent in describing appearances: something I hadn't noticed)

A. John Neil. the police constable of the J Division of police who found the body - a tall, fresh-coloured man, with brown hair, and straw coloured moustache and imperial.

B. The first witness called was Inspector John Sparling [Spratling], a keen-eyed man with iron-grey hair and beard, dressed in the regulation blue of the force.

Do you doubt that he sported iron-grey hair and beard? He would have been 43 years old and retired from the force 9 years later.
* If someone can find a picture of him, that would be great ... I searched.

I do not doubt it no, I've no reason too. Just for reference my mother was completely grey in her late 20s. Did not have a beard though.

B. Emily Holland, an elderly woman in a brown dress, with a dolman and bonnet

Do you doubt that Emily Holland wore a brown dress and a bonnet?

No I do not, have no reason too. Not sure of your point however, are you?

C. Charles A. Cross, a carman, who appeared in court with a rough sack apron on

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

No I do not, what I do doubt though is that it's a sign of guilt he is a multiple murderer. To think it is, well that's beyond silly tbh.

[Geddy2112]

Take-away point: As Lechmere denialism becomes more ingrained, more raging, more sheerly reflexive, so does its relation to reality decline even further.

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.

[Newbie]

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.

Simple.

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.

[Mark J D]

‘Denialism!’

Desperately trying to con people in to thinking that those who favour reason, evidence and logic are simply ‘denying a truth.’

This is how con men work. First add a label.

Clueless.

Meanwhile, what is the result of removing Fiver's rookie error from our analysis of the Star's execrable reporting? Isn't that the important issue here, all synthetic spluttering aside?

M.

[Newbie]

The route along Hanbury Street vs Old Monty Street are only different by a matter of seconds at 3.1mph. The measuring tool is included in the maps. Untrusting, seems so I even gave you the evidence in 'black and white' so to speak and you still refute it.

You used Google Maps. That is your first mistake. I'm fairly sure Sainsbury's did not have a huge supermarket at the end of Durward Street back in 1888.

Regardless Cross left home about 3:30 am on the 31st Aug 1888 and we have absolutely no evidence to doubt this.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

What exactly would Lechmere have done at work if he had to show up at an inquest around noon? Explain!
The most he could have done is load up the cart at 4 am and have someone else drive it around that day.

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.

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.

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.

Simple.

[Herlock Sholmes]

How many of the witness quoted by Geddy turned up in their Sunday best (if they had one)? 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.

I can’t even think of a reason why his wearing of his apron might point to guilt.

[Newbie]

Cross could have turned up at the inquest wearing a dress. It makes no difference. In 40 years of looking into this case this issue of what Cross was wearing at the inquest is without a shadow of a doubt one of dumbest things I’ve ever heard. It’s not an issue. He wore his work clothes. So ******** what?

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

What exactly would Lechmere have done at work if he had to show up at an inquest around noon? Explain!
The most he could have done is load up the cart at 4 am and have someone else drive it around that day.

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.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve never heard anything like this. What an embarrassment to the subject that people can make these points. Pathetic stuff.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So, you came up with a few .... tremendous find!

But there is an important point that you've kind of missed: are the depictions of articles worn accurate?


For instance, do you doubt that Mary Ann Connally wore an old green shawl and no hat? Or that George Crow wore a shabby green overcoat?

That's the important thing ... no?

Here's some more (from the East London Observer - this reporter was consistent in describing appearances: something I hadn't noticed)

A. John Neil. the police constable of the J Division of police who found the body - a tall, fresh-coloured man, with brown hair, and straw coloured moustache and imperial.


PC John Neil as depicted in a contemporary illustration.

B. The first witness called was Inspector John Sparling [Spratling], a keen-eyed man with iron-grey hair and beard, dressed in the regulation blue of the force.

Do you doubt that he sported iron-grey hair and beard? He would have been 43 years old and retired from the force 9 years later.
* If someone can find a picture of him, that would be great ... I searched.

B. Emily Holland, an elderly woman in a brown dress, with a dolman and bonnet

Do you doubt that Emily Holland wore a brown dress and a bonnet?

C. Charles A. Cross, a carman, who appeared in court with a rough sack apron on

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

Cross could have turned up at the inquest wearing a dress. It makes no difference. In 40 years of looking into this case this issue of what Cross was wearing at the inquest is without a shadow of a doubt one of dumbest things I’ve ever heard. It’s not an issue. He wore his work clothes. So ******** what?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes. Your friend Fiver was quoting the wrong newspaper, wasn't he? It wasn't The Star that wrote of 'Chas. Andrew Cross'.

Which makes garbage of the point he imagined he was trying to make...


Take-away point: As Lechmere denialism becomes more ingrained, more raging, more sheerly reflexive, so does its relation to reality decline even further.

M.

‘Denialism!’

Desperately trying to con people in to thinking that those who favour reason, evidence and logic are simply ‘denying a truth.’

This is how con men work. First add a label.

Clueless.