Robert Paul Time Issues

[FrankO]

I suspect most people are like that - family stories go back to grandparents, or possibly great-grandparents, but no further.

That's the very reason why those celebrity genealogy series on TV exist in various countries.

That's how I learned one great-father wasn't initially allowed to date my great-grandmother, because he was a baseball player. (Shock and horror!)

I am fortunate. On the different branches on my father's side, someone put together a genealogy of one branch in 1900, my great grandmother put together a genealogy of another branch in 1975, and my father's cousin put together genealogies for several other branches starting around 1975, as well as interviewing as many of the older generation as he could. On my Mom's side, someone put together a genealogy of one branch in 1975 and an aunt put together another branch in 2000, as well as interviewing as many of the older generation as she could.

Thanks to their work, I know one direct ancestor survived dinner at the Bender Gang roadhouse in Kansas. He was a circuit riding Methodist preacher and either they balked at murdering a preacher or he didn't look prosperous enough to be worth the effort.

But it was my own research that found another ancestor survived nearly a year in Andersonville Prison and then was incorrectly listed as not surviving the sinking of the Sultana. (I still don't know if he survived the sinking or was incorrectly listed as being on board.) You would think the story of either surviving, or at least avoiding, the worst maritime disaster in US history would have been passed down, but it doesn't appear even his grandchildren knew.

And only this last year my father told me I had an aunt who died as an infant. My father was two at the time and does not recall her name or the date.

Thanks for sharing, Fiver. I'm sure that there are such stories lurking in my family tree too.

[Fiver]

Indeed, DW. On my father's side I know nothing beyond my grandparents, who were born around 1905. On my mother's side more or less the only thing I know beyond my grandparents, is that my mother's maternal grandfather regularly travelled some 70-80 kilometers by boat to sell vegetables and fruit. No big stories, nothing particular.

I suspect most people are like that - family stories go back to grandparents, or possibly great-grandparents, but no further. That's how I learned one great-father wasn't initially allowed to date my great-grandmother, because he was a baseball player. (Shock and horror!)

I am fortunate. On the different branches on my father's side, someone put together a genealogy of one branch in 1900, my great grandmother put together a genealogy of another branch in 1975, and my father's cousin put together genealogies for several other branches starting around 1975, as well as interviewing as many of the older generation as he could. On my Mom's side, someone put together a genealogy of one branch in 1975 and an aunt put together another branch in 2000, as well as interviewing as many of the older generation as she could.

Thanks to their work, I know one direct ancestor survived dinner at the Bender Gang roadhouse in Kansas. He was a circuit riding Methodist preacher and either they balked at murdering a preacher or he didn't look prosperous enough to be worth the effort.

But it was my own research that found another ancestor survived nearly a year in Andersonville Prison and then was incorrectly listed as not surviving the sinking of the Sultana. (I still don't know if he survived the sinking or was incorrectly listed as being on board.) You would think the story of either surviving, or at least avoiding, the worst maritime disaster in US history would have been passed down, but it doesn't appear even his grandchildren knew.

And only this last year my father told me I had an aunt who died as an infant. My father was two at the time and does not recall her name or the date.

[Fiver]

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

Most people can't tell you who their ancestors were in 1888, let alone what they did that year.

[FrankO]

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

Indeed, DW. On my father's side I know nothing beyond my grandparents, who were born around 1905. On my mother's side more or less the only thing I know beyond my grandparents, is that my mother's maternal grandfather regularly travelled some 70-80 kilometers by boat to sell vegetables and fruit. No big stories, nothing particular.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is one of my 'irritations' - maybe I should put it in the thread. Folks spout claims about X or Y but when asked for evidence to support those claims they disappear. I've read nearly every word on these forums relating to Cross and I do not think I've seen anyone post a valid reason on how giving both your Christian names, your legal surname, your home and work address amounts to deception or giving one an advantage as a serial killer. Especially when Mizen the PC he spoke to that morning was sitting near him at the inquest and could obviously identify him if needs be.

I suspect that’s because no one has ever given a remotely valid reason Geddy. Ever. I’ve certainly never heard one, yet I’ve never known anyone that proposes Cross fail to mention the ‘name thing’ at every opportunity. If he’d have missed the apostrophe in Buck’s Row on a written statement they would call it evidence of guilt. Have they mentioned star signs yet? Or leylines? Or the Knght’s Templar? Or mysterious lights seen in the sky? Or am I giving them ideas?

[Fiver]

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).

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?

The newspapers do not disagree on #2. One mentions Cross' home address, the others don't mention it.

Most newspapers don't mention Cross wearing an apron, so by your reasoning he didn't wear one.

[Geddy2112]

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

His missus gets her knickers in a twist when I 'cross' post so I'll do it again. An astonishing quote from one of the main Team Lechmere supporters, Mr Stow himself...

they aren't my suspects, they are the suspects chosen by the editor of the book as being, 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.

This is what we are dealing with, so called fantastic researchers coming out with complete and utter fabrication like this. If one studies the sworn statements enough there is no time gap, it has been invented. The only way Cross could have killed Polly on what we know is by inventing this time gap. So since the time gap is NOT proven how does Cross have a 'proven opportunity' to kill Polly? What evidence is there he had 'proven opportunity' to murder Annie, Liz, Catherine or Mary Jane? (Or anyone else for that matter.) It's astonishing this level of fabrication is being posted in a vain attempt to finger Cross as a multiple murderer. However the gullible YouTube sheep love it...

[Geddy2112]

1. ... 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.

This is one of my 'irritations' - maybe I should put it in the thread. Folks spout claims about X or Y but when asked for evidence to support those claims they disappear. I've read nearly every word on these forums relating to Cross and I do not think I've seen anyone post a valid reason on how giving both your Christian names, your legal surname, your home and work address amounts to deception or giving one an advantage as a serial killer. Especially when Mizen the PC he spoke to that morning was sitting near him at the inquest and could obviously identify him if needs be.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Thats a good point Doc. How can we know that some were aware of this fact. Maybe some old chap who died in the 1950’s remembered being told about it when he was a kid but he never bothered passing it on. Maybe he assumed that everyone knew?

[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.

[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.

[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]

* 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]

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.

[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.