Robert Paul Time Issues

[Geddy2112]

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

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

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

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

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

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

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

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

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

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

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

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

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

Further proof of his obvious innocence.

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

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

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

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

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

How unique can this man have been so unique.

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

[Mark J D]

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

Really? The Star of 3 September, 1888?

Perhaps you would be so kind as to show us where...?

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s880903.html

M.

[Geddy2112]

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

How unique can this man have been so unique.

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

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

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

[Geddy2112]

Really? The Star of 3 September, 1888?

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

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

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

[Mark J D]

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

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

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

Yes. Your friend Fiver was quoting the wrong newspaper, wasn't he? It wasn't The Star that wrote of 'Chas. Andrew Cross'.

Which makes garbage of the point he imagined he was trying to make...

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

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

M.

[Newbie]

Au contraire...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...you're welcome

So, you came up with a few .... tremendous find!

But there is an important point that you've kind of missed: are the depictions of articles worn accurate?


For instance, do you doubt that Mary Ann Connally wore an old green shawl and no hat? Or that George Crow wore a shabby green overcoat?

That's the important thing ... no?

Here's some more (from the East London Observer - this reporter was consistent in describing appearances: something I hadn't noticed)

A. John Neil. the police constable of the J Division of police who found the body - a tall, fresh-coloured man, with brown hair, and straw coloured moustache and imperial.


PC John Neil as depicted in a contemporary illustration.

B. The first witness called was Inspector John Sparling [Spratling], a keen-eyed man with iron-grey hair and beard, dressed in the regulation blue of the force.

Do you doubt that he sported iron-grey hair and beard? He would have been 43 years old and retired from the force 9 years later.
* If someone can find a picture of him, that would be great ... I searched.

B. Emily Holland, an elderly woman in a brown dress, with a dolman and bonnet

Do you doubt that Emily Holland wore a brown dress and a bonnet?

C. Charles A. Cross, a carman, who appeared in court with a rough sack apron on

Do you doubt that Charles A. Cross was wearing a rough sack apron?

[Newbie]

Having said all this (out of spite).... I noticed that the East London Observer story came out on September 8th, and the depiction of the testimony seemed very similar to another paper's inquest reporting ... namely the Daily Telegraph - September 3rd.

Comparing the two and it appears quite likely that a reporter for the East London observer lifted the other paper's inquest reporting,
and then added descriptions of appearance at the beginning as a cover ... it being quite possible that he wasn't even at the inquest.
A carman testifying .... sure, let me throw a rough apron sack over him.

Its a pity ... one of my favorite 'facts'; however, normalizing Lechmere showing up at the inquest in a sack apron was quite frankly weird:
the heated argumentativeness, always invariably off point - out on some tangent, or just flat out wrongheaded and bizarre.

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


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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes. Your friend Fiver was quoting the wrong newspaper, wasn't he? It wasn't The Star that wrote of 'Chas. Andrew Cross'.

Which makes garbage of the point he imagined he was trying to make...


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

M.

‘Denialism!’

Desperately trying to con people in to thinking that those who favour reason, evidence and logic are simply ‘denying a truth.’

This is how con men work. First add a label.

Clueless.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So, you came up with a few .... tremendous find!

But there is an important point that you've kind of missed: are the depictions of articles worn accurate?


For instance, do you doubt that Mary Ann Connally wore an old green shawl and no hat? Or that George Crow wore a shabby green overcoat?

That's the important thing ... no?

Here's some more (from the East London Observer - this reporter was consistent in describing appearances: something I hadn't noticed)

A. John Neil. the police constable of the J Division of police who found the body - a tall, fresh-coloured man, with brown hair, and straw coloured moustache and imperial.


PC John Neil as depicted in a contemporary illustration.

B. The first witness called was Inspector John Sparling [Spratling], a keen-eyed man with iron-grey hair and beard, dressed in the regulation blue of the force.

Do you doubt that he sported iron-grey hair and beard? He would have been 43 years old and retired from the force 9 years later.
* If someone can find a picture of him, that would be great ... I searched.

B. Emily Holland, an elderly woman in a brown dress, with a dolman and bonnet

Do you doubt that Emily Holland wore a brown dress and a bonnet?

C. Charles A. Cross, a carman, who appeared in court with a rough sack apron on

Do you doubt that Charles A. Cross was wearing a rough sack apron?

Cross could have turned up at the inquest wearing a dress. It makes no difference. In 40 years of looking into this case this issue of what Cross was wearing at the inquest is without a shadow of a doubt one of dumbest things I’ve ever heard. It’s not an issue. He wore his work clothes. So ******** what?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve never heard anything like this. What an embarrassment to the subject that people can make these points. Pathetic stuff.

[Newbie]

Cross could have turned up at the inquest wearing a dress. It makes no difference. In 40 years of looking into this case this issue of what Cross was wearing at the inquest is without a shadow of a doubt one of dumbest things I’ve ever heard. It’s not an issue. He wore his work clothes. So ******** what?

This is an excellent example of the bizarre normalization that needs to be checked.

What exactly would Lechmere have done at work if he had to show up at an inquest around noon? Explain!
The most he could have done is load up the cart at 4 am and have someone else drive it around that day.

According to you, he fires out of his stall at 4 am sharp .. remember? So the cart is already loaded up and ready to rumble.

Then, even if you can spin something with a vaguely remote chance of happening, home was only a 7 - 8 minute walk away where he could easily change into something more appropriate for the proceedings.

[Herlock Sholmes]

How many of the witness quoted by Geddy turned up in their Sunday best (if they had one)? Cross was a working class man working for a pittance. There were no tribunals in those days. Bosses did what they want and people like Cross lived in fear of ever losing their jobs and as their wages just about covered their living expenses they couldn’t afford to miss time from work. He wasn’t on a salary. Clocked hours. No show, no pay. Is this difficult to understand for some?

Given that he’d have been told turn turn up at the inquest at a specific time then he would have been able to decide if he could get in a few hours work before the inquest and then make up his hours either after they had finished with him or another time.

I can’t even think of a reason why his wearing of his apron might point to guilt.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is an excellent example of the bizarre normalization that needs to be checked.

What exactly would Lechmere have done at work if he had to show up at an inquest around noon? Explain!
The most he could have done is load up the cart at 4 am and have someone else drive it around that day.

According to you, he fires out of his stall at 4 am sharp .. remember? So the cart is already loaded up and ready to rumble.

Then, even if you can spin something with a vaguely remote chance of happening, home was only a 7 - 8 minute walk away where he could easily change into something more appropriate for the proceedings.

We don’t know what time he was told to be at the inquest. It might have been 10.00 for example. So he could get into work for 4.00 do 5 hours worth of deliveries then go to the inquest. That’s a half a days money earned. If he was lucky enough to testify early he might then have been able to go back to at say 1.00 or 2.00 and do another 4 hours or so. Or he could have done more hours during the rest of the week.

Simple.