Robert Paul Time Issues

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[Abby Normal]

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

[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]

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.

[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.

[Lewis C]

As for the 'fabricating evidence', this is a tiresome excercise.

Remember, it was you who said that the stated departure time of around 3:30 am was proof that Lechmere was innocent ..... because then he would arrive at the body at around 3:38 am matching the timing of PC Neil just missing him (and later Mizen); but this is dramatically overstating things.

I merely rebutted this contention by saying that if Lech was the murderer (i'll stop using 'if' from now on, because it confuses people), he would have used a departure time that agrees with PC Neil's, not arriving at the murder site too soon or too late. Any murderer with half-a-wit would have chosen that time.

You do realize that the 3:30 am departure time is not evidence of Lechmere actually leaving at that time? He could have left at any time earlier
and only had to end up by the body at around 3:38 am.

Its factual only in respect to having testified to that time, and we can use it to still verify that his story checks out, or not ... only Lechmere's wife (or perhaps a neighbor) would know the actual departure time ... Mrs. Lechmere most likely considering it her duty to get up with her husband and help in the preparation for his departure .... the old housefrau of ancient lore.

And so i'm interested in the pacing of both Paul and Lech on their way to work, considering that most people set a pace and stick with it on a walk from point A to B, varying little from it during the course of the walk. One assumes that Lechmere and Paul did not have to stop for traffic.

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?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nichols was murdered sometime between 3:15am and 3:40am.

Exactly. The pair met Mizen at 3.45. Paul said that they found Mizen no more that 4 minutes after he’d met Cross. Any attempt to push it closer to 3.45 is done deliberately to create the illusion of a gap.

Any suspect that needs evidence manipulation, the mangling of the English language plus that long list of nonsense that either you or Geddy provided (below) cannot be a serious suspect. We see lots of this…pick and theory or a suspect and then defend it (him) at whatever cost.]:


* Lechmere must have resented the single mom that raised him, not the alcoholic, bankrupt, deadbeat Dad who dodged a manslaughter charge and abandoned the family to shack up with a teenager.

* Lechmere's mom, who waited the legally required 7 years before remarrying, was a bigamist. Lechmere's dad wasn't a bigamist because he never actually married the other woman.

* Lechmere's mom was a rigid moralist and/or completely promiscuous, which is why he hated prostitutes.

* Lechmere deliberately ran over a child with his van in 1876.

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

* Lechmere worked as a cats meat man. This would provide him with a good knowledge of anatomy.

* Lechmere's family moving several times is proof that he was the Ripper.

* The murders started right after Lechmere moved to the area.

* All the murders occurred during Lechmere's walk to work and on that route.

* The Ripper tried to hide Nichols' injuries.

* Bleed out times are easily calculated and a reliable means of determining time of death and prove that only Lechmere could have been the Ripper.

* Robert Paul caught Lechmere standing/crouching over the body of Polly Nichols .

* Lechmere was the only person near Nichols' body with no alibi.

* It's more credible for the Ripper to try to bluff Robert Paul and PC Mizen than to fade away into the darkness.

* Carmen wore hobnailed boots that echoed loudly down the street for at least a block. This is why Lechmere was able to escape silent and undetected from all the other murder scenes.

* Lechmere's refusal to prop up Nichols body proves that he is the Ripper.

* Lechmere's acting like an innocent man is proof that he is the Ripper.

* Robert Paul's time estimate is right. PC Mizen, PC Thain, PC Neil were wrong.

* Lechmere lied about when he left home.

* Lechmere lied to PC Mizen.

* Robert Paul lied about speaking to PC Mizen.

* Lechmere, Paul, and Mizen all lied about Paul and Lechmere being together when they met Mizen.

* Lechmere tried to avoid going to the police and only came forward because Robert Paul spoke to the press.

* Lechmere didn't give his home address at the inquest.

* Lechmere wearing his work uniform to the inquest is proof that he is the Ripper.

* Lechmere lied to his family about attending the inquest.

* Lechmere tried to hide his identity.

* Three eyewitnesses lied about Chapman's time of death.

* Lechmere left his van unattended and took tea a half hour into his 14+ hour shift so he could get murdery on Chapman.

* Lechmere had no problem getting up 3+ hours early on his only day off or staying up 23+ hours straight to murder Stride and Eddowes.

* The torn piece of Eddowes apron lies on a direct line between Eddowes body and Lechmere's home.

* The Ripper was the same person as the Torso Killer.

* Lechmere would have had no problem hiding trophy organs or even whole decomposing bodies from his large family.

* A bloody rag found near the London Hospital the day after the Pinchin Street Torso was found is tied to that crime and proves that Lechmere was the Ripper.

• Lechmere's great great grandchildren not knowing he attended the Nichols inquest is proof that Lechmere lied to his family.

*Lechmere walked past every Ripper murder site at the exact time that each murder occurred.

*Lechmere couldn't run when Paul approached because if he had run, that would have proved he was the murderer, so he had no choice but to bluff his way out of it.

[Fiver]

Nichols was murdered at 3:40 am....

Nichols was murdered sometime between 3:15am and 3:40am.

[rjpalmer]

Nichols was murdered at 3:40 am and Chapman at lets say 5:30 am fits with someone who had woke up in the morning and went out to eventually kill. Those murders were not committed by someone who hung out all night, with really nothing to do but wander and be seen.
Why wait until 5:30 am?

It sounds like you're begging the question. There were thousands of people in East London---how can you know what hours they kept?

Alfred Crow, a witness at Tabram's inquest, worked as a cabdriver and didn't finish work until 3 a.m. If so inclined, he could have wandered the streets after work.

Patrick Mulshaw, witness at the Nichols' inquest, was a nightwatchman and was out on the streets all night, working alone and unsupervised.

Aaron Kozminski, perhaps Scotland Yard's prime suspect, is said to have been the 'sole occupant of certain premises after nightfall.' His relatives probably ran a sweat shop and installed him as a watchman to get what little work they could out of him, which gave him unsupervised leisure between midnight and morning.

George Hutchinson, on the night of the Kelly murder, was doing what you said is improbable--having missed curfew at his lodgings, he 'hung out all night' on the streets including directly opposite the court where one of the victims was murdered. On any given night, there could have been dozens of such people.

If anything, Lechmere's work hours cast considerable doubt about his availability for the crimes.

I'm also struck by how many witnesses at the various inquests confessed to being insomniacs or spending sleepless nights or even visiting relatives or friends well after 1 a.m.

The streets of East London were certainly not deserted in the wee hours.

[Geddy2112]

Remember, it was you who said that the stated departure time of around 3:30 am was proof that Lechmere was innocent ..... because then he would arrive at the body at around 3:38 am matching the timing of PC Neil just missing him (and later Mizen); but this is dramatically overstating things.

The burden of proof is never on the defence. I said the about 3:30am leaving time corresponds to the timings of three serving PC under oath, Abberline's police report, the doctors estimated time of death AND his probably length of walk to work.

I merely rebutted this contention by saying that if Lech was the murderer (i'll stop using 'if' from now on, because it confuses people), he would have used a departure time that agrees with PC Neil's, not arriving at the murder site too soon or too late. Any murderer with half-a-wit would have chosen that time.

But he did not have to adjust anything because his story, the one we have zero evidence for is false matches all the other players timings. Also he is clearly innocent.

You do realize that the 3:30 am departure time is not evidence of Lechmere actually leaving at that time? He could have left at any time earlier and only had to end up by the body at around 3:38 am.

He could have left home at 2am but we have no evidence of that and we have no evidence he lied. And like I said the about 3:30am fits like a jigsaw with all the other testimonies.

And so i'm interested in the pacing of both Paul and Lech on their way to work, considering that most people set a pace and stick with it on a walk from point A to B, varying little from it during the course of the walk. One assumes that Lechmere and Paul did not have to stop for traffic.

Who knows, they could have stopped for a pee, tied their boots, spoke to someone... no body knows or really will ever know. We also do not know their walking speeds or in Cross' case his actual route to work on any given morning. We kind of know Paul's from 31st Aug though.

[Geddy2112]

By assumption .... the initial inquest was on Saturday afternoon, and Lechmere would have read it in a Saturday evening or Sunday morning paper.

By assumption - no value then.

Forget about my times, and focus on yours? Timing on route length and pacing of the participants is important to me.

I've just plotted one possible route from Doveton Street via Bucks Row, Hanbury Street, Lamb, Fort, Stewart Street, Bushfield and Bishopgate and it comes to 1.55 miles. So at an average walking speed of 3.1mph which is more or less the average human walking speed it would have taken Cross 30 mins 35 seconds to make the journey, of course that nicely fits in with his 'about 3:30am' leaving home time.

I used a document posted by Ed Stowe on Lechmere's route to work: and then I used Google maps to match it in a satisfactory fashion, quite easily. Stowe's map has the route end on the entrance to Broad Street - currently 'sun street passage', and where along Broad Street Lechmere turned in to get to his station, one cannot say. However, up to the corner of Liverpool street and Broad street, its fairly easy.

There is your first mistake...

I came up with 1.72 miles from the middle of sun street passage to 22 Doveton street and will post details later.
As I told you before, I believe the 1.55 miles is well off, and tweeks the necessary pace of walk well lower than what was actual.
There of course is no need to synchronize times for this little exercise, only using Lechmere's stated time of departure.

I've attached one possible route from using the measuring tools of a contemporary map. 1.55 miles is accurate enough.