Robert Paul Time Issues

[rjpalmer]

Agreed, we don't know for sure what time he left home. But if we don't know that, how can there be a time gap argument?

Because of Robert Paul. He's the source of the alleged time gap.

Robert Paul said Lechmere was 'by the woman' at around 3:46 and it only takes 8 minutes or so to walk from Doveton Street to Buck's Row.

So (the argument runs) Lechmere should have said that he left home at "about 3:38." Instead, he said it was "about 3:30"

They think they've caught Lechmere in a rather stupid lie.

They time gap is not truly contingent on when CAL left home; it's contingent on the discrepancy between the accounts given by Paul and Lechmere. That is, if Lechmere walked from his house to Buck's Row in a timely manner.

It's perhaps clearer to think of it as an alleged lie rather than as a time gap.

[Abby Normal]

the time gap argument is rather moot for either side. he was seen hesitating near her body and her wounds could have been inflicted in mere seconds. thats all that really matters.

[Newbie]

The fabricating of evidence isn’t an exercise it’s a fact. It was a cynical and deliberate attempt to fool James Scobie into stating that Cross had a case to answer. Remove the ‘gap’ and there is no case to answer. This is why it’s so important not to manipulate evidence. The case for this is proven:

In The Missing Evidence, Christer said this as he and Andy Griffiths were about to set out to walk Cross’s route from Doveton Street to Durward Street:

“He said at the inquest that he left at 3.30. Some reports say 3.20 but the more common reports say 3.30.”

So it can’t be clearer can it. Christer is saying that the majority of newspaper reports (which he’d obviously must have checked during his research) said that Charles Cross left his home at 3.30 - not ‘about 3.30’ not ‘around 3.30’ not ‘approximately 3.30’ but exactly 3.30.

Later, here on Casebook he conceded that:

“We must however accept that since the absolute bulk of the papers spoke of ”around 3.30”, that is by far the likeliest wording to have been given.”

The word ‘about’ was also omitted from his book ‘Cutting Point.’ In another part of the book he does use the word ‘about’ in relation to the time but vitally not in the part where he is trying to invent a gap to make Cross appear suspicious.

I asked Christer, on here, how is it possible that after seeing all of the Press reports and finding out (as he admits above) that Cross said ‘around 3.30’ that he went on to omit the word ‘around’ from both documentary and book? His response:

“It has always been obvious, and it was not intentionally omitted in my book. I have already explained a large number of times that there was no intention to mislead, and that I have the ”around” in a quotation from a paper plus that I urge people not to take timings as gospel. I also never say that SINCE he left at 3.30, he MUST have …, I say that IF he left at 3.30 and so on. So the only misleading there is, is if you call it an intentional effort to deceive.”

No honest person could deny the evasiveness of the above. No answer to how he managed leave the word out and we know why. Because it’s impossible that he could have omitted this accidentally….twice. No one can be so gullible as to accept that ‘explanation.’ On his use of the word ‘if’ he is being obviously deceptive. If someone says “If Fred left at 2.00 and arrived at 3.00…” no one can doubt that the person is saying that the journey took an hour. Not the first time he’s tried to mangle the language to make a point. And in Christer’s case of course he has stressed in the documentary that “He said at the inquest that he left at 3.30.“

So this was a deliberate effort to have Cross leave his house at exactly 3.30. He then tries to stretch the time that Paul met up with Cross to a minute or so before 3.45. Clearly this is done to ‘create’ a mysterious gap. Presented with this evidence Scobie can’t be blamed for thinking it suspicious behaviour when it was no such thing. If he’d have known the truth via an accurate representation of the evidence then he would have been aware that there is zero evidence of a mysterious gap. Remove that and the ‘case’ against Cross is an empty sack. He has no case to answer. Not a single reason to suspect him of anything.

A man on his way to work and 20 minutes before clocking on stops off to murder a woman (the first serial killer in history that we can name who has done that) At a spot where he would have passed at the same time 6 days a week (I’d imagine that he’d be the first serial killer to have done that) He then hears a stranger approach and waits for him to show up for a chat while he stands there with a bloodied knife in his pocket (the first time in history that the person who discovered a serial killers victim turned out to have been the killer himself) How unique can this man be? They then go together to speak to a police officer. Cross then shows up at the inquest. How can anyone find that believable. And yet what apparently is unbelievable is that the killer might have - lived nearby, been a known knife carrier, a drunkard, a criminal, knew prostitutes, was violent toward women, left London just after the Kelly murder, murdered and mutilated his wife, was found to have 2 pieces of Jack the Ripper-related grafitto in his flat and had the Police travel up to question him about the ripper murders. How can Bury be dismissed and the non-suspect Cross get support?

Bizarre.

Well, I actually endorse most of this .... and I'm glad that you fervently support the notion that one should favor the majority newspaper testimonies, when they differ on a certain point (see #2).

I fully accept the (around) 3:30 am departure time as the one expressed by Lechmere, ignore the 3:20 am time of the one paper, and think Paul's 3:45 am time was well out of sync with the time's of Thain, Niel & Mizen ... the majority prevails notion again. It was of the interest of beat cops and the police department that the PCs be very methodical & precise with their beat and the time at any one location ... and they had the means of being in sync with GT in 1888, if they wanted to achieve it. The Broad street station and Pickford's, along with the entire rail system also had this capability. So, if cops from two different divisions agree on the time of an event, go with it.

In fairness to Christer, 3:29 am or 3:28 Lechmere departure times would have well, suited his argument,
but then Christer would be forced to explain why Lechmere kept his inquest testimony away from his wife, and acted in such a strange manner:

1. Using Cross when the neighbors & family knew him as Lechmere.
2. Failed to audibly mention to the assembled reporters his home address at the inquest
- of course one paper actually included it, but we are being consistent and going by the majority - yes?
3. Showed up at the inquest in his works clothes
- he probably paid for a replacement, and if not, 22 Doveton street was only an 8 minute walk away
4. No descendents were aware of Lech's being the discoverer of the body, until his identification as being this Cross fellow
- strange that the descendents had absolutely no clue as to who this Cross guy was ....
Lechmere going by the name of Lechmere with his kids & neighbors ... go figure!

The only comprehensive and rational explanation for these 4 oddities is that Lechmere wanted to keep his inquest testimony away from the knowledge of his neighbors & wife. Was it the time of departure that Lechmere didn't want her to know about? He kept his inquest testimony a secret to his grave ... what was it he didn't want the wife and neighbors to know?

Mrs. Lechmere, most probably considered it her duty to get up with Lech at this ungodly hour to make his breakfast and see him off .... my mom was like that; Mrs. Lechmere would well know the time Lechmere left home on that eventful morning, and perhaps also a neighbor. If Lech had actually left at around 3:30 am, there would be no need that I can think of to hide from her or others his testimony, and no need for this circus. Embarrass high falutin relatives in Herdfordshire ... pfft!

So, the only good theory that covers all four Lechmere oddities is that Lechmere didn't want his wife to hear his (around) 3:30 am departure time testimony. One can come up with a crack pot idea that explains any one oddity: the authorities forcing Lech to wear his work clothes so that Mizen could identify him comes to mind; but these crackpot, unlikely explanations are not comprehensive - they are adhoc and don't explain all 4 at once... they are very weak explanations and should be ignored imho.

Only the idea that Lechmere left well earlier than 3:30 am, and his wife would know this, explains the oddities entirely.
And like any good theory, it has an additional explicative power in explaining why Paul didn't see or hear Lechmere walking some 50 yards behind him on Buck's row and beforehand.

Fishy needs to explain these things or his gap time theory, shaky as it is, will be so far in need of repair that we can just junk it and move on.

[Abby Normal]

hey newbie
not sure if youre aware of this, but Fisherman and Fishy are two different posters.

[Fiver]

If we choose the 5:30 am time that you prefer for Annie Chapman, Lech could have parked his wagon at Spitafields, and while the goods were offloaded there, he could have easily wandered off for a bit. There was a discussion here about boys who accompanied carmen on routes awhile back. Serial killers have been known to kill on the job and Spitafields was a very short walk to the murder site.

Leaving the cart unattended was illegal, plus it would would generally result in a carman being fired. Even if not immediately caught, there was a significant risk that something would have been pilfered from it, which would not just result in being fired, but have a significant risk of being charged for the theft.

But even in the probable event that he had a van boy, this would have been a rather stupid thing for a serial killer to do. Chapman's killer had reached into her mutilated abdomen, pulled out her intestines, and placed them over her right shoulder. It's impossible for the killer to avoid being liberally coated with blood and less nameable fluids. And then you have this killer walk into Spitalfield's market, in full view of not just a vanboy and the people receiving goods, but in front of dozens of vendors and hundreds of shoppers without a single person noting that the killer is covered in blood and gore.

Your theory makes no sense.

[Fiver]

Catherine Eddowes and Elizabeth Stride were killed early Sunday morning ..... it being committed near midnight fits with someone who had the following day off, and could stay out past midnight. it is these that strongly reinforces my notion.

Murdering Eddowes and Stride would require Cross staying up for at least 23 hours. While not impossible, it is wildly unlikely, especially for a man whose infant might have just started sleeping through the night.

[Fiver]

And btw, who the hell is Cross? Nobody who went around by the name of Cross, has any involvement in the Ripper case.

"Charles Allen Cross, a carman, in the employ of Messrs. Pickford, said - On Friday morning I left home at half past three. I went down Parson Street, crossed Brady Street, and through Buck's row." - Morning Advertiser, 4 September 1888

"I beg to report that about 3.40. am 31st Ult. as Charles Cross, “carman” of 22 Doveton Street, Cambridge Road, Bethnal Green was passing through Bucks Row, Whitechapel (on his way to work) he noticed a woman lying on her back on the footway (against some gates leading into a stable yard) - Inspector Abberline, Police Report, 19 September 1888.

"3.45 a.m. 31st. Augst. The body of a woman was found lying on the footway in Bucks Row, Whitechapel, by Charles Cross & Robert Paul carmen, on their way to work." Chief Inspector Swanson, Police Report, 19 September 1888.

[Fiver]

the time gap argument is rather moot for either side. he was seen hesitating near her body and her wounds could have been inflicted in mere seconds. thats all that really matters.

He was seen standing in the middle of the street, not hovering over Nichol's body.

And there's a lot more to the time element. Cross being the killer requires that Robert Paul neither see nor hear Lechmere clean and put away a knife, move from facing west crouched over the body on the south pavement to standing in the middle of the road facing east. Some versions also throw in Lechmere lifting up the body to try to pull the skirts down. If Paul had noticed any of this, then Lechmere's story would have been an obvious lie to Paul.

[Fiver]

In fairness to Christer, 3:29 am or 3:28 Lechmere departure times would have well, suited his argument,
but then Christer would be forced to explain why Lechmere kept his inquest testimony away from his wife, and acted in such a strange manner:

1. Using Cross when the neighbors & family knew him as Lechmere.
2. Failed to audibly mention to the assembled reporters his home address at the inquest
- of course one paper actually included it, but we are being consistent and going by the majority - yes?
3. Showed up at the inquest in his works clothes
- he probably paid for a replacement, and if not, 22 Doveton street was only an 8 minute walk away
4. No descendents were aware of Lech's being the discoverer of the body, until his identification as being this Cross fellow
- strange that the descendents had absolutely no clue as to who this Cross guy was ....
Lechmere going by the name of Lechmere with his kids & neighbors ... go figure!

The only comprehensive and rational explanation for these 4 oddities is that Lechmere wanted to keep his inquest testimony away from the knowledge of his neighbors & wife. Was it the time of departure that Lechmere didn't want her to know about? He kept his inquest testimony a secret to his grave ... what was it he didn't want the wife and neighbors to know?

You provide a mix of assumptions, speculation, and double standards.

1. He called himself Charles Allen Cross of 22 Doveton Street, a carman who had worked for Pickford's for about 20 years and who shift started at 4am at the Broad Street Station. Who could ever have guessed that he might have been Charles Allen Lechmere, the stepson of Thomas Cross, who lived at 22 Doveton Street, a carman who had worked for Pickford's for about 20 years and who shift started at 4am at the Broad Street Station?

Cross was not the only Ripper witness to not mention all the names they went by at the inquest, yet you don't accuse the others of deliberate deception. Your double standard is noted.

2. Charles Allen Cross publicly gave his home address at the inquest. He had the right to not give it publicly, yet he chose to do so. The newspapers were full of omissions and errors, yet you assume malice on Cross' part. Your double standard is noted.

3. How is a carman showing up at the inquest dressed as a carman evidence of deception?

4. Charles Allen Cross' descendants didn't know anything about him. You treat the inquest if it was the only thing they didn't know and assume malice on his part. Your double standard is noted.

[Doctored Whatsit]

4. No descendents were aware of Lech's being the discoverer of the body, until his identification as being this Cross fellow
- strange that the descendents had absolutely no clue as to who this Cross guy was ....

This frequently quoted suggestion totally bewilders me. Please tell us all you know about what your ancestors did in 1888.

[Geddy2112]

the time gap argument is rather moot for either side. he was seen hesitating near her body and her wounds could have been inflicted in mere seconds. thats all that really matters.

It would matter if it was true but according to the sworn statements he was seen in the middle of the road. If we use a reported version of Cross' testimony he was at the Wool Warehouse when he spotted the bundle, this was 61 feet away from the body, so in the middle of the road on that diagonal he would have been no closer than 30.5 feet away from the body alone. No one I suggest notices something on the opposite side of a road they are walking up until they are completely adjacent to it unless they have eyes on the side of their heads.

Her wounds according to Holmgren's expert would have taken two minutes. What he neglected to include is the at least minutes it would have to killed her via manual strangulation which if you add together dissolves the mythical time gap right there and then.

[Geddy2112]

* Lechmere was a meat cart driver. This would provide him with an excuse for fresh bloodstains acquired on his walk to work.

Love this one, even though the only time he was seen by an actual witness anywhere near a murder scene he did not appear to have a drop of blood on him after one of the murders he supposedly committed. We want the best of both worlds shouts Team Lechmere!!!

[Geddy2112]

And there's a lot more to the time element. Cross being the killer requires that Robert Paul neither see nor hear Lechmere clean and put away a knife, move from facing west crouched over the body on the south pavement to standing in the middle of the road facing east. Some versions also throw in Lechmere lifting up the body to try to pull the skirts down. If Paul had noticed any of this, then Lechmere's story would have been an obvious lie to Paul.

Add to that he would have had to (according to the theory on hearing Paul from 40 yards away) pull down her skirts, cut her throat twice, clean knife and hands on a rag, hide knife and rag about his person, calculate his bluff, jump back to the middle of the road and appear all calm after coming down from a struggle and murderous rage not knowing what Paul had seen or heard. All this in less than 12 seconds... absolute b/s it really is.

[Geddy2112]

Christer would be forced to explain why Lechmere kept his inquest testimony away from his wife, and acted in such a strange manner:

Where is the evidence he acted in a strange manner?

1. Using Cross when the neighbors & family knew him as Lechmere.

Evidence for this claim?

2. Failed to audibly mention to the assembled reporters his home address at the inquest.

So not sure how it appeared in the papers then.

3. Showed up at the inquest in his works clothes

Sign of guilt how? Read how many witnesses in the Tabram and Chapman inquests turned up in their 'less than Sunday best...'

4. No descendents were aware of Lech's being the discoverer of the body, until his identification as being this Cross fellow
- strange that the descendents had absolutely no clue as to who this Cross guy was ....
Lechmere going by the name of Lechmere with his kids & neighbors ... go figure!

My paternal grandparents were both born in 1896. They lived long lives until the late 1980s and 1990s. The only thing I knew about them was my grandmother owned some fish and chip shops and my grandfather was a miner. I have no idea who their parents or siblings were who would have been alive in 1888.

How do you know Cross' neighbours knew him as 'Lechmere?'

The only comprehensive and rational explanation for these 4 oddities is that Lechmere wanted to keep his inquest testimony away from the knowledge of his neighbors & wife. Was it the time of departure that Lechmere didn't want her to know about? He kept his inquest testimony a secret to his grave ... what was it he didn't want the wife and neighbors to know?

It isn't because we do not know IF Cross wanted to keep it a secret, however he 'might' have been worried about the safety of his wife and children from this horrible murderer so did not wish for his address to be public so the killer could come and exact some revenge, you know like he did with Robert Paul over the Remarkable Statement and subsequent dumping of Annie near his work place [/sarcasm]

Mrs. Lechmere, most probably considered it her duty to get up with Lech at this ungodly hour to make his breakfast and see him off .... my mom was like that; Mrs. Lechmere would well know the time Lechmere left home on that eventful morning, and perhaps also a neighbor. If Lech had actually left at around 3:30 am, there would be no need that I can think of to hide from her or others his testimony, and no need for this circus. Embarrass high falutin relatives in Herdfordshire ... pfft!

There is no evidence he hid anything from anybody. It's all speculation in an attempt to frame an innocent man.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, I actually endorse most of this .... and I'm glad that you fervently support the notion that one should favor the majority newspaper testimonies, when they differ on a certain point (see #2).

I fully accept the (around) 3:30 am departure time as the one expressed by Lechmere, ignore the 3:20 am time of the one paper, and think Paul's 3:45 am time was well out of sync with the time's of Thain, Niel & Mizen ... the majority prevails notion again. It was of the interest of beat cops and the police department that the PCs be very methodical & precise with their beat and the time at any one location ... and they had the means of being in sync with GT in 1888, if they wanted to achieve it. The Broad street station and Pickford's, along with the entire rail system also had this capability. So, if cops from two different divisions agree on the time of an event, go with it.

In fairness to Christer, 3:29 am or 3:28 Lechmere departure times would have well, suited his argument,
but then Christer would be forced to explain why Lechmere kept his inquest testimony away from his wife, and acted in such a strange manner:

1. Using Cross when the neighbors & family knew him as Lechmere.
2. Failed to audibly mention to the assembled reporters his home address at the inquest
- of course one paper actually included it, but we are being consistent and going by the majority - yes?
3. Showed up at the inquest in his works clothes
- he probably paid for a replacement, and if not, 22 Doveton street was only an 8 minute walk away
4. No descendents were aware of Lech's being the discoverer of the body, until his identification as being this Cross fellow
- strange that the descendents had absolutely no clue as to who this Cross guy was ....
Lechmere going by the name of Lechmere with his kids & neighbors ... go figure!

The only comprehensive and rational explanation for these 4 oddities is that Lechmere wanted to keep his inquest testimony away from the knowledge of his neighbors & wife. Was it the time of departure that Lechmere didn't want her to know about? He kept his inquest testimony a secret to his grave ... what was it he didn't want the wife and neighbors to know?

Mrs. Lechmere, most probably considered it her duty to get up with Lech at this ungodly hour to make his breakfast and see him off .... my mom was like that; Mrs. Lechmere would well know the time Lechmere left home on that eventful morning, and perhaps also a neighbor. If Lech had actually left at around 3:30 am, there would be no need that I can think of to hide from her or others his testimony, and no need for this circus. Embarrass high falutin relatives in Herdfordshire ... pfft!

So, the only good theory that covers all four Lechmere oddities is that Lechmere didn't want his wife to hear his (around) 3:30 am departure time testimony. One can come up with a crack pot idea that explains any one oddity: the authorities forcing Lech to wear his work clothes so that Mizen could identify him comes to mind; but these crackpot, unlikely explanations are not comprehensive - they are adhoc and don't explain all 4 at once... they are very weak explanations and should be ignored imho.

Only the idea that Lechmere left well earlier than 3:30 am, and his wife would know this, explains the oddities entirely.
And like any good theory, it has an additional explicative power in explaining why Paul didn't see or hear Lechmere walking some 50 yards behind him on Buck's row and beforehand.

Fishy needs to explain these things or his gap time theory, shaky as it is, will be so far in need of repair that we can just junk it and move on.

If we allow for the fact that he might have left the house after 3.30 then we have to allow that he could have left the house before (as you say). We can’t say that Cross didn’t have time to kill Nichols. The issue was that Christer, in his documentary and book, wasn’t suggesting the possibility of a gap (ie that he had sufficient time) he was stating as a fact that there was a gap.

This reminds me of an issue recently with Trevor. He claims that the killer didn’t have time to remove organs in Mitre Square but this can’t be stated as we don’t know how long the actions required and we don’t know how long the killer had available to him. It’s a similar thing in Buck’s Row. It’s impossible for us to know what time he left the house (even Cross was estimating) We can only estimate the walk time as we don’t know how quickly/slowly Cross walked. And we have no way of tying down the time that Paul met Cross. The majority of the evidence points to a discovery time of around 3.40 though.

So the ‘there was a mysterious gap’ is a lie. It requires claims to know things for certain that we don’t know.

On the four points:

1. A problem for us is that we don’t know which name he used at Pickford’s. If he was the same person that ran over the child then he was using Cross. But the big issue for me though is that if this is seen as a suspicious act then we can see so legitimate reason why. He gave the inquest both of his correct Christian names, his correct address and his correct place of work so he was hiding nothing. The fact that he used his stepfathers name and not Smith or Thompson or Wilson again shows us that he wasn’t trying to deceive the police.

2. But just because only one newspaper mentioned it that doesn’t mean that he didn’t say it. Another point is the question of how could he have refused to give his name and address. Surely he couldn’t have done. All witness were required to identify themselves.

3. I’ve never understood this point. Surely the answer is obvious. Time was much needed money so he either put in a few hours before going to the inquest or he intended to return to work immediately after he had given his evidence.

4. That his descendants weren’t aware of him being the guy that found a ripper victim can’t be that unusual. It wasn’t until his family found a book in his attic 40 years or so later that the family of Sit Nicholas Winton had helped rescue 669 Jewish children from Czechoslovakia. That was down to modesty. How many men in history have never spoken about their experiences in war. Of course I’m not comparing the finding of a body in the streets with someone experiences on The Somme but people do keep quiet about things. Others must have known…his employer for example. If he told a small number of people it can’t be anything remarkable if they didn’t bother telling anyone else and with that the information dies.