Robert Paul Time Issues

[Geddy2112]

Few instances period in which a newspaper mentioned the article of clothing of a witness at inquests - only victims.

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

[FrankO]

[QUOTE=Geddy2112;n856759]

They do not work as you need to share the drive so to speak.

Even using the rather inaccurate Google Maps - we have three routes ALL saying 1.5 miles. Astonishing.
Here are the measurements I did a number of years back, Ian. There's about 60 metres between one Hanbury Street route and the Old Montague route.



All of these routes assume that Cross/Lechmere entered the Broad Street Good's depot at the entrance in Eldon Street, while we don't know for a fact that this was the only entrance.

Cheers,
Frank

PS It was about 880 metres from Doveton to the meeting point with Mizen and about 300 m from the crossing of Bishopsgate/Liverpool Street to the entrance in Eldon St.

[Geddy2112]

[QUOTE=FrankO;n856764]

Here are the measurements I did a number of years back, Ian. There's about 60 metres between one Hanbury Street route and the Old Montague route.

Many thanks Like I said previously the distance in the two routes Hanbury and Old Monty Street is negligible and both approx 30 mins for a 3.1 mph walking speed. Which nicely ties in with a 'about 3:30am' for Cross to be leaving home like he said.

[Fiver]

A quick check on Lech's Hanbury route to work using google map and I got roughly 2.1 miles.
Very different from the 1.55 mile version.

Anyways, its about a half mile longer than the Old Montague route to work

Here's Bing - 1.7 miles, 32 minutes, best route is Hanbury Street.

Here's Google Maps - 1.7 miles, 38 minutes, best route is Hanbury Street.

How do you get 2.1 miles and Old Montague?

[Geddy2112]

1.7 miles, 32 minutes, best route is Hanbury Street.

1.7 miles, 38 minutes, best route is Hanbury Street.

On the odd occasion I've used Google Maps in real life it has been way way off for walking speeds. I think it was from the Science Museum to Harrods... walked it in about a 1/3 time Google stated and I'm not the quickest.

[Fiver]

Again, any psychopath carman would take off his apron before strangulating a prostitute ... its hard to eviscerate some woman with your apron dangling over the body when you kneel. With Annie Chapman, there was a lot of her blood sprayed on the wall .... was she strangled? I forget quite frankly. However, doesn't matter; the apron comes off before the murder, and then goes back on after, and you can cover up those nasty little red spots with your nice, clean apron.

Covered in blood & gore? Don't be so dramatic ... that would be a huge problem for anyone fleeing.

I'm not being dramatic. I'm looking at the actual evidence.

"A portion of the intestines, still connected with the body, were lying above the right shoulder, with some pieces of skin. There were also some pieces of skin on the left shoulder." - Joseph Chandler, Inspector H Division Metropolitan Police, Chapman inquest.

Annie Chapman's killer reached into her mutilated abdomen with his hands, pulled out her intestines, and placed them above her right shoulder. At a minimum, his hands and the sleeves of any coat or shirt he wore would be covered in blood and gore. No apron would cover that part of the killer's body and the killer would have to pick the apron up and put it on again with those blood-covered hands.

Is there any witness who saw someone wandering coated in blood and gore around the time of the murders?

Anyhow little van boys are easy to push around and intimidate if you are a clever homicidal maniac the age of the kid's father.

If Cross was the Ripper, he had to do a lot more than just intimidate a van boy. He had to walk into the busy Spitalfield's Market, past dozens of vendors and hundreds of shoppers with none of them noticing his hands and forearms are covered in fresh blood and gore. He then had to work another 12 to 16 hours, most of it in broad daylight, with none of the dozens of people he delivered to and none of the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people he drove by noticing the blood on his hands and clothes, blood which his job provided no explanation for. He then had to return the cart to Broad Street station with none of his dozens of coworkers noticing the unexplained bloodstains. He then had to walk home, again with none of the dozens that he passes noticing the unexplained bloodstains. He then has to try convince his wife and many children that there is nothing odd about the unexplained bloodstains.

The idea that Cross killed Chapman is ludicrous.

[Fiver]

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

That that's just the examples of people not as well dressed as Charles Cross.

"John Saunders Reeves - a short man, with a slight dark beard and moustache, a pale and a contracted face, dressed in corduroy trousers and a black overcoat, and wearing earrings - was called next." -- Tabram Inquest

"Detective-Inspector Reid, dressed in his usual dark blue serge coat and waistcoat, and light striped trousers, sat, cross legged, next to him and stared blankly at the assembled jurymen." - Tabram Inquest

"The first witness called was Henry Tabram - a sallow complexioned man with iron-grey hair, and wearing a moustache and imperial of the same colour, together with a dark blue serge coat." - Tabram Inquest

"Next there was called a young man dressed in a light tweed suit, with a pale face and a light moustache and imperial, who said his name was William Turner, and that he was a carpenter by trade, but was out of any regular employment just now." - Tabram Inquest

"Amelia Richardson took her stand before the Coroner next. She was a somewhat undersized woman, with a pale face and dark hair, just beginning to get streaked with grey. Her dress was very neat for her position in life, consisting as it did of a skirt of dark material, a heavy black dolman, and a black silk bonnet with violet trimmings." - Tabram Inquest

"Mrs. Ann Norris, a pale looking woman, whose pallor was increased by her totally black, but neat attire." - Tabram Inquest

"The coroner, however, on this occasion was Mr. Wynne Baxter, who, fresh from his Scandinavian tour, appeared at the inquest in a pair of black and white checked trousers, a dazzling white waistcoat, a crimson scarf and a dark coat." - Nichols Inquest

"The husband of the woman - William Nicholls - is a printer's machinist, and he came to the mortuary dressed in a long black coat, with a black tie, trousers of dark material, and a tall silk hat. He carried an umbrella, and looked very quiet and very gentlemanly. He is very pale, with a full light brown beard and moustache." - Nichols Inquest

"Emily Holland, an elderly woman in a brown dress, with a dolman and bonnet, whose naturally pale face was flushed with excitement, and who gave her address in a frightened manner, which necessitated the coroner frequently urging her to speak up, was then called." - Nichols Inquest

"Mary Ann Monk - a young woman with a flushed face and a haughty air, who wore a long grey ulster - was the last witness." - Nichols Inquest

"The neighbouring clocks had just struck two on Wednesday afternoon when Mr. Wynne Baxter, the Coroner - still dressed in his resplendent white waistcoat, check trousers, and crimson tie - entered the Alexandra Room of the Working Lads' Institute." - Chapman Inquest

"The first witness called was F. Smith, one of the brothers of the deceased woman, a tall man, with dark hair and a heavy brown moustache - evidently about thirty years old. He wore a dark morning coat, black and white striped trousers, and, evidently considerably downcast at the identification of his sister, gave his evidence in a low voice." - Chapman Inquest

"Mary Hardman, the proprietress of the cat's meat store kept on the ground floor of the house near which the murder was committed in Hanbury-street, accordingly took her place. She was a medium-sized, well-proportioned woman, with a very pale face and a curiously rounded chin, and dressed in a black skirt, blue body, white apron, black shawl, and a black crape-trimmed bonnet." - Chapman Inquest

"Detective-sergeant Wm. Thicke, otherwise known as "Johnny Upright", who was "flashily" attired in a suit of loud checks, was a fresh-coloured, youngish-looking man, with dark hair and a heavy, drooping brown moustache." - Chapman Inquest

Yet somehow they think the following is suspicious.

"Charles A. Cross, a carman, who appeared in court with a rough sack apron on, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford & Co. for some years.' - Nichols Inquest

[Mark J D]

... given his lateness, why did [Lechmere] not follow the quickest way to work, which would have him choosing Old Montague street instead of Hanbury?

Can anyone explain this apparent contradiction to me?

Yes.
(i) The shorter southern route was the one on which he'd recently murdered Tabram. Mizen wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but even he might have thought twice if a guy reporting a likely corpse in Buck's Row at 03:45 walked off alone down that southern route.
(ii) He needed to find out everything Paul knew, including what he'd seen and heard, and where he was headed. So he walked with Paul down Hanbury Street. That moves us forward 8 days...

M.

[Fiver]

So far, I've provided a challenge that no one has taken up.

You posted a mix of standard Lechmerian assumptions and speculation that has been repeatedly debunked before and after you posted it.

I've provided one item of speculation, of course: that Lechmere was trying to hide his appearance at the inquest from his wife, because of the time issue. Speculation is the nature of this site - otherwise they might as well shut the place down.

I've provided 4 facts involving Charles Lechmere's behavior, with the assumption that we should accept the majority representation of a matter, should there be conflict: the 3:30 am vs. 3:20 am (by one paper) departure time, and the lack of Lechmere's address vs. the 22 Doveton street (by one paper. That controversy only involves the address, everything else is indisputable.

Lets look at your "facts".

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!

1. Him using Cross is a fact. His family and neighbors not knowing that he used Cross is an assumption on your part.
2. Only one paper mentioned Cross address. Cross deliberately being inaudible so most papers wouldn't hear him is an assumption on your part.
3. Cross showing up in his work clothes is a fact. Cross doing this to attempt to deceive is an assumption on your part.
4. No descendants knowing that he found the body is a fact. Cross doing this to attempt to deceive is an assumption on your part.

And these points have been answered repeatedly.

1. Cross got the job at Pickfords when his stepfather Thomas Cross was still alive. There are plenty of examples of people using a stepfather's surname. Cross was one of at least three Ripper witnesses to be known by multiple surnames, but mention only one surname at the Inquest. He had been listed as Cross before in a Census and probably in a 1876 Inquest.

2. Cross could have asked the court to not give his name publicly. That would have been an easy way to help hide his identity. The Inquest probably had poor acoustics, for example "Robert Baul", yet you don't even suggest this as evidence against any other witness.

3. Charles Cross was not the only witness to attend the Inquest in his work clothes. Doing so was not unusual, let alone evidence of deception.

4. His descendants knew nothing about him, not just that he wasn't a Ripper witness. Knowing nothing about your great-grandparents is completely normal.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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.