Robert Paul Time Issues

[Newbie]

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 ... 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.

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.

Very sloppy on the part of the Anti-Lechmerites that a Lechmerite came up with this.


Still interested in a photo of Spratling ... if anyone can find one.

[Newbie]

Au contraire...

The East London Observer, which provided a lot of description compared to the other newspapers we have the following descriptions of inquest attire.

"Before the coroner sat the woman who had identified the deceased as Martha Turner, with a baby in her arms, and accompanied by another woman - evidently her mother - dressed in an old, brown figured pompadour.” - Tabram Inquest

"The first witness called was a Mrs. Elizabeth Mahoney - a young woman of some 25 or 26 years, plainly clad in a rusty-black dress, with a black woollen shawl pinned round her shoulders." - Tabram Inquest

"Alfred George Crow was the next witness. In appearance, he was a young man of about twenty-three or four, with closely cropped hair, and a beardless, but intelligent face, and wore a shabby green overcoat." - Tabram Inquest

"Mary Ann Connolly, otherwise known as "Pearly Poll", was next introduced, wearing simply an old green shawl and no hat, her face being reddened and soddened by drink." - Tabram Inquest

" Amelia Palmer, the next witness, a pale dark-haired woman, who was poorly clad, said: I live at 35, Dorset-street, Spitalfields, a common lodging-house." - Chapman Inquest

"The next witness was James Cable, a man from Shadwell. A youngish-looking man, with a bullet head and closely cropped hair, and a sandy close-cut moustache; he wore a long overcoat that had once been green, and into the pockets of which he persistently stuck his hands." - Chapman Inquest

"Her evidence was not very material, and she was soon replaced by John Richardson, a tall, stout man, with a very pale face - the result, doubtless, of the early hours he keeps as a market porter - a brown moustache, and dark brown hair. He was shabbily dressed in a ragged coat, and dark brown trousers." - Chapman Inquest

"Piser wore a dark overcoat, brown trousers, and a brown and very battered hat, and appeared somewhat splay-footed - at all events, he stood before the Coroner with his feet meeting at the heels and then diverging almost at right angles." - Chapman Inquest

...you're welcome

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?

[Mark J D]

Day 2, Monday, September 3, 1888
(The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday, September 4, 1888, Page 2)

Chas. Andrew Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for over twenty years. About half-past three on Friday he left his home to go to work, and he passed through Buck's-row....

https://www.casebook.org/official_documents/inquests/inquest_nichols.html

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...

The Star reporter called the witness "Chas. Andrew Cross" [uh, no], an error that makes no sense if the reporter had access to the court records.

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

M.

[Geddy2112]

Really? The Star of 3 September, 1888?

Day 2, Monday, September 3, 1888
(The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday, September 4, 1888, Page 2)

Chas. Andrew Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for over twenty years. About half-past three on Friday he left his home to go to work, and he passed through Buck's-row....

https://www.casebook.org/official_documents/inquests/inquest_nichols.html

[Geddy2112]

For Cross to have been the ripper he would have to have been 1) the first person in history (as far as we know) to have discovered the body of a serial killer’s victim and turned out be the killer himself, 2) the first serial killer in history (as far as we know) to have killed someone 20 minutes before being due at work, and 3) the only serial killer in history (as far as we know) to have killed a victim on a spot that he was known to pass at around that same time for 6 days a week.

How unique can this man have been so unique.

Cross is a joke suspect and it's way past time that people admitted this.[/B]

4) To cover up his handiwork then stop the first passer-by to erm look at his handiwork.
5) Tap the first passer-by he sees on the shoulder with a probably bloody hand.
6) Go and find the first policeman to alert them to his crime carrying the murder weapon.

It's the power of TV Media that is keeping it going. The number of folk I've seen 'explain' themselves because they have seen the Missing Evidence or a HoL YouTube video is astonishing. Of course none of them seem 'bright' enough to question the content and just take it as absolute Gospel. Rather sad to be honest.

[Mark J D]

The Star reporter called the witness "Chas. Andrew Cross" [...]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The ‘gap’ is an invention. This is a matter of fact not of interpretation. It was deliberately invented by the manipulation of evidence.

Therefore we have no reason to suggest that Cross spent an unexplained amount of time in Buck’s Row.

Cross was in the road when Paul saw him and not next to the body. Anyone that suggests or states that he was ‘next to’ or ‘crouching over’ a body is a liar.

Therefore Cross wasn’t in a suspicious position. In fact he’s just where you would have found him at that time 6 days a week.

That Cross didn’t flee when he had ample opportunity.

Further proof of his obvious innocence.

That he didn’t want to handle a body or someone that was drunk and might have jumped up screaming is just about as normal human behaviour as possible.

Absolutely nothing even remotely approaching suspicious in this. The only thing suspicious are the dishonest attempts by Cross obsessive to fit up a clearly innocent man.

The disagreement on what exactly was said to Mizen is unimportant.

Cross had a complete stranger with him who he couldn’t possibly have expected to back up a lie. (It’s why Christer invented the lamentable, and easily rebutted, Mizen Scam)

For Cross to have been the ripper he would have to have been 1) the first person in history (as far as we know) to have discovered the body of a serial killer’s victim and turned out be the killer himself, 2) the first serial killer in history (as far as we know) to have killed someone 20 minutes before being due at work, and 3) the only serial killer in history (as far as we know) to have killed a victim on a spot that he was known to pass at around that same time for 6 days a week.

How unique can this man have been so unique.

Cross is a joke suspect and it's way past time that people admitted this.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The propaganda machine is working well it seems, saw these beauties this morning...

"Lechmere had connection with slaughter houses, though, due to his job. I think he assisted slaughterers with slaughtering farm animals, to say the least. He probably learned how to do slaughtering on his job, like a trainee. Then after some practice, he became able to slaughter no less than experienced slaughterers."

"I guess, the most credible suspects - although at least two didn't have opportunity (in my opinion) and others minimal. The only with proven opportunity is Lechmere."

"I would suggest that it would have been prudent to regard Lechmere with a degree of suspicion. Indeed some anti-theorists hold that the circumstances were so suspicious that the police would have been unfeasibly negligent had they not investigated him, although the evidence clearly tells us they didn't. Other anti-theorists maintain that the circumstances were not in the least suspicious and so no wonder the police didn't bother with him. Of course the truth is, his circumstances were very suspicious but the police were negligent."

Someone once called those that favoured Gull ‘Gullibles.’ That title has now passed to the Cross fantasists. It has gone way past a joke. So far so that I really do struggle to believe that anyone genuinely favours him as a suspect. Surely they can’t really believe him guilty?

[Geddy2112]

How is it possible that after all of this time there are still people that think that Cross was the killer? Oh yes “he was there, he was there, he was there.

The propaganda machine is working well it seems, saw these beauties this morning...

"Lechmere had connection with slaughter houses, though, due to his job. I think he assisted slaughterers with slaughtering farm animals, to say the least. He probably learned how to do slaughtering on his job, like a trainee. Then after some practice, he became able to slaughter no less than experienced slaughterers."

"I guess, the most credible suspects - although at least two didn't have opportunity (in my opinion) and others minimal. The only with proven opportunity is Lechmere."

"I would suggest that it would have been prudent to regard Lechmere with a degree of suspicion. Indeed some anti-theorists hold that the circumstances were so suspicious that the police would have been unfeasibly negligent had they not investigated him, although the evidence clearly tells us they didn't. Other anti-theorists maintain that the circumstances were not in the least suspicious and so no wonder the police didn't bother with him. Of course the truth is, his circumstances were very suspicious but the police were negligent."

[Herlock Sholmes]

How is it possible that after all of this time there are still people that think that Cross was the killer? Oh yes “he was there, he was there, he was there.”

Just imagine a world where people were so in danger of being convicted on the strength of such a weak mixture of non-existent evidence and invented evidence. Manipulated evidence and mangled language. How a man clearly on his way to work, who clearly acts exactly like a man who finds a body on his way to work, who does nothing remotely suspicious, becomes a potential suspect in the eyes of some. This is a very clear example of the down side of suspectology. A suspect gets supported and defended like a favourite team. A defend at all costs mentality comes through. The apron is a classic example of them using anything….ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING…..to try and turn this obvious witness into a killer.

Just to be clear…I’m not talking about the Goulston Street apron but the one that Cross wore at the inquest (which had stamped on the back Member of the Worshipful Guild of Serial Killers…how did we miss that?)

[Herlock Sholmes]

How is it possible that after all of this time there are still people that think that Cross was the killer? Oh yes “he was there, he was there, he was there.”

Just imagine a world where people were so in danger of being convicted on the strength of such a weak mixture of non-existent evidence and invented evidence. Manipulated evidence and mangled language. How a man clearly on his way to work, who clearly acts exactly like a man who finds a body on his way to work, who does nothing remotely suspicious, becomes a potential suspect in the eyes of some. This is a very clear example of the down side of suspectology. A suspect gets supported and defended like a favourite team. A defend at all costs mentality comes through. The apron is a classic example of them using anything….ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING…..to try and turn this obvious witness into a killer.

[Fiver]

Only one newspaper mentioned the apron: you think the reporter made it up?

If you applied the same "logic" to aprons that you did to addresses, I can see you coming to that conclusion, but you are applying different standards to evidence depending on whether you think it helps your case.

[Fiver]

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

C is an assumption on your part. You have provided no evidence that Charles Allen Cross tried to hide his being a witness from his wife or anyone else. If he had wanted to hide anything, he never would have contacted the police in the first place.

D a mix of falsehood and assumption on your part. You have provided no evidence that Bucks Row was a "sound wave guide", whatever you mean by that. Robert Paul testified that he saw Charles Cross, he just didn't say at what distance. Robert Paul never testified that he could not hear Charles Cross, that just one of many figments of Lechmerian imagination.

[Fiver]

#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...

First you claimed that Cross was deliberately so inaudible that only one newspaper got his address. Now you're claiming that the Echo reporter for some inexplicable reason decided to track down and publish that address after even he didn't hear it.

For starters, his address appeared in the 3 September, 1888 Star, not the Echo. The Star reporter called the witness "Chas. Andrew Cross", an error that makes no sense if the reporter had access to the court records. 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.

[Fiver]

#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.

You create an imaginary Charles Lechmere and and then try to use this figment of your imagination as proof. He had wealthy relatives, but there is no evidence Charles ever met them, let alone that they ever helped his family in any way. Charles was not "petty bourgeiois". His mother was the daughter of a servant who couldn't even write his own signature. His father was a bootmaker who got a policeman so drunk the man died, went bankrupt, and abandoned the family before Charles turned two years old. His mother raised Charles and his sister in Tiger Bay, one of the worst parts of East London, getting by on prestigious jobs like bonnet maker, dressmaker, horse flesh dealer, and corn chandler. Charles married the illiterate daughter of a lighterman. He worked for over three decades as a carman before becoming a grocer.