Robert Paul Time Issues

[Herlock Sholmes]

How is a carman showing up dressed as a carman weird?

Isn’t it the stupidest thing that you’ve ever heard Fiver? How riddled with desperation can someone get? Apparently he should have turned up dressed like Bertie Wooster.

[Newbie]

And my 2nd question involving the need for Lechmere to abandon the body so quickly, supposedly because he needed to get to work on time by 4 am: Pickford's management being eager to can him for the slightest of infractions as Herlock feverishly imagines; but then, choosing the longer route to get to work when he 'was behind time myself'?

What is the innocent explanation? This dichotomy of purposes begs for an explanation.

[Newbie]

Thanks for catching my error, but it doesn't invalidate my main point.

Cross' address appeared in the 3 September, 1888 Star, not the Echo. 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.

That's right ... I also made that error but checked up on it.

[Fiver]

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

The only bizarre thing is people who think it strange that a carman was dressed as a carman.

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.

Congratulation on refuting something nobody claimed. It's also irrelevant to the fact that it is perfect normal for a carman to be dressed as a carman.

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.

As has been shown, few people wore their Sunday best to inquests. The travel time between his house and the court is irrelevant. And a round trip would have taken half an hour, since he would have to change clothing and walk back.

[Newbie]

You talk of ‘normalisation.’ The real problem is the opposite. It’s people reading something and then assuming the sinister. They do this by reading between the lines instead of focusing on the lines themselves.

There isn’t one single thing that remotely points to Cross’s guilt which we get so many lies and manipulations from the fan club.

So, I take it that you absolutely refuse to give an innocent explanation (singular) for the 3 items of which I am referring.

[Newbie]

The only bizarre thing is people who think it strange that a carman was dressed as a carman.



Congratulation on refuting something nobody claimed. It's also irrelevant to the fact that it is perfect normal for a carman to be dressed as a carman.



As has been shown, few people wore their Sunday best to inquests. The travel time between his house and the court is irrelevant. And a round trip would have taken half an hour, since he would have to change clothing and walk back.

You missed my post on appearing at court as a carman fiver, as well as Herlock.

But I've realized that Herlock skims through the first sentence and that's it, and then throws a temper tantrum when it isn't headed his way.

But you too Fiver?

[Fiver]

I take it you are not from Buenos Aires.

I'm fairly sure the Ripper wasn't from Buenos Aires, either.

[Geddy2112]

I dug this up from GUT in a 2014 thread that ended up in the type of hysterical screeching and indulgence in emojis that Herlock & Geddy would love:

A judge in a criminal trial must give the jury a direction that if there is an explanation that is consistent with innocence they MUST acquit.

With the spirit of this in mind, I challenged the anti-Lechmere crowd to do just that,
come up with an innocent explanation for the following 4 facts: not adhoc explanations for each one, but one universal explanation such as I have given.

Charles Cross was not on trial, it was a coroner's inquest into the death of Polly Nichols. Nobody was on trial. So astonishingly your point is mute. (Again.)

A. The suspect used Cross instead of Lechmere
B. The suspect failed to audibly furnish his address at the beginning of his inquest testimony
C. Lechmere's descendants had no knowledge of his
D. Lechmere showed up in court in his work clothes.

You do know it's the job of the prosecution, Team Lechmere in this case to prove he was guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not the job of the defence (the rest of us) to prove he was innocent, so your points are mute again. However I'll humour you...

A) So what.
B) Did he, so how did it appear in the paper?
C) My son and daughter does not know I found a murdered woman when I was a teenager. In fact my friend 'found' me standing near the body of a freshly killed woman, guess who was never once under suspicion. Astonishing.
D) So what. Like mentioned and proved so did many others. Are they all serial killers?

The argument isn't whether Cross was his real name (it isn't by any sense - which is not the issue), its why he chose to use Cross - what was the advantage in doing so?

However it is his legal name. Read Deed Poll the authority on names in the UK and you will learn this fact. Again you have to prove he gained an advantage by using the name Cross not the other way around.

And why did he not mention his address in his inquest testimony - why steer the inquest towards Broad Street and away from Doveton street?

He did mention it. I dunno maybe he did not want the real killer to know where his wife and daughters lived... or is that too simple an explanation for you? (Although speculation on my behalf...)

And why did his descendants not know about his involvement in the Polly Nichol's case? Everyone thought it was a Charles Cross, with no correction coming from family members.

I very much doubt many people know anything about a relative that was alive 140 or so years ago. (see above) Although how do you know none of his descendants did not know about his involvement, have you interviewed then all? Again making claims without evidence.

And the result of this challenge is consistently failing to get anyone who can give an innocent explanation for these things. Then why are people here if they refuse to answer these type of things? I don't expect the hand waiving nonsense about these things being answered back on October 17, 2021 and that they are too tired to repeat it.

However it's okay for you to dodge question after question. We are still waiting for the answers to my questions above....

Its only at this overheated site that a theory involving a husband lying to his wife is treated as outrageous. It doesn't even directly implicate Lechmere as JtR in accepting it.

It's only on this overheated site that posters come here spreading misinformation about a hard working family man and thus dishonouring the memories of the poor victims and claiming things like Cross lied to his wife etc without ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT SUCH CLAIMS is seen as outrageous. Never have I seen any of these outlandish claims by yourself or Team Lechmere backed up with any solid evidence. Nothing, ever... just speculation and lie after lie. I mean when the main author of the theory has to tell lies in his book, on a documentary and more than likely lie to the expert to get the conclusions he is after it speaks volumes about how sound the theory is, as stated it's a house of cards built in a tornado.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And my 2nd question involving the need for Lechmere to abandon the body so quickly, supposedly because he needed to get to work on time by 4 am: Pickford's management being eager to can him for the slightest of infractions as Herlock feverishly imagines; but then, choosing the longer route to get to work when he 'was behind time myself'?

What is the innocent explanation? This dichotomy of purposes begs for an explanation.

FrankO says that there was a mere 60 metres between the two. Fiver asked how you got your calculation. It appears to be a negligible difference. Maybe he thought that one street was a bit ‘dodgy.’

[Herlock Sholmes]

You missed my post on appearing at court as a carman fiver, as well as Herlock.

But I've realized that Herlock skims through the first sentence and that's it, and then throws a temper tantrum when it isn't headed his way.

But you too Fiver?

I’ve answered the point more than once and in detail.

[Newbie]

So which point of the Lechmere Theory that is not speculation or fabrication tells us he is guilty of multiple murder? (Because I've not seen one posted yet.)

Time gap - made up.
Mizen Scam - made up.
False name - made up.
Blood evidence - not accurate.
Routes to work so he can be at a crime scene when needed - not known.
Walking speed - not known so can't be placed at a crime scene.
Time he left home on any given day - can't be known so can't be placed at any other crime scene.
Activities on day off - unknown so he can't be placed at a crime scene.
Routinely covered in blood - Pickfords hardly delivered any meat and if so it would have been wrapped in muslin and wicker baskets. Scotch Fish & Meat only arrived at 4:15am.
Strong Alibi for Chapman murder - would have been at work at least 90 mins.

Have I missed anything?

Then theory even relies on the shoddy baseless point that even though there is not one jot of evidence for him being at any other crime scene or described by any other witness that the 'fact' it's impossible for there to be two serial killers at large in the same city at the same time means without doubt that if he killed Polly Nichols he murdered the rest as well. (Let's flip that since he did not kill Polly then he did not kill the rest... or do the Cult of Lechmere demand their cake and eat it?) I'm astonished that on what we know anyone with any sense still believes this crock I really am. It's amazing.

A. What's the advantage in using Cross?

B. Why wouldn't he use Old Montague /Wenworth street ..... it seems like the quickest way to work?
You don't think that would be a very basic rule?

C. There is the time a commuter having to go about 1.7 miles should head on off, unless you opt for Geddy's 1.55 miles - which is actually about 2 miles, until Geddy informs us as to his method of determination which I'm not expecting anytime soon. It's not complicated.

Walking a brisk rate of 3.2 mph gets him to work in 32 minutes ... so, typically people in his shoes wouldn't leave before 3:30 am ... unless Pickford's management was very loosey/goosey about it, which is quite possible.

[Geddy2112]

And my 2nd question involving the need for Lechmere to abandon the body so quickly, supposedly because he needed to get to work on time by 4 am: Pickford's management being eager to can him for the slightest of infractions as Herlock feverishly imagines; but then, choosing the longer route to get to work when he 'was behind time myself'?

What is the innocent explanation? This dichotomy of purposes begs for an explanation.

Cross did not abandon the body in the way you think because he did not murder anyone. IF, and he most certainly was not the killer he would have kept mutilating the body if Paul had not approached making him even later for work. So again common sense would tell us Cross was not the murderer. As explained by at least three people now the Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street routes where only seconds difference - why don't you believe proof when you are given it?

[Newbie]

I’ve answered the point more than once and in detail.

I asked you, nay begged you for it last year and that was the same response.

Two years ago? No, I didn't propose it then.

That's okay: we both know you don't have any response to it, much less a good one.

[Geddy2112]

A. What's the advantage in using Cross?

Already answered, it was more than likely the name he was known at Pickfords as. It was his legal name. Are you going to answer my questions, like how did he gain an advantage as a serial killer by using the name Cross?

B. Why wouldn't he use Old Montague /Wenworth street ..... it seems like the quickest way to work?
You don't think that would be a very basic rule?

Again can you not read, it's been stated and shown both routes are neigh on identical. (However I'll show you a picture...) Paul said it took them 4 mins to get to Mizen, if this is correct and they were 'walking' at 3.1 mph then they would have travelled 332.6 metres. The picture shows how far up Hanbury Street this meeting would have happened. Why on earth then would Cross turn around to the end of Hanbury Street eastwards the way he had came so he could use old Montague street? So there is your 'innocent' explanation on why he continues up Hanbury Street... happy now?

C. There is the time a commuter having to go about 1.7 miles should head on off, unless you opt for Geddy's 1.55 miles - which is actually about 2 miles, until Geddy informs us as to his method of determination which I'm not expecting anytime soon. It's not complicated.

Three of us have shown you proof the distance is approx 1.55 miles. I've also told you twice now how I measured it. It's not my fault you refuse to believe the truth when it's presented to you.

Walking a brisk rate of 3.2 mph gets him to work in 32 minutes ... so, typically people in his shoes wouldn't leave before 3:30 am ... unless Pickford's management was very loosey/goosey about it, which is quite possible.

Basic maths - Time = distance/speed therefore time = 1.55miles divided by 3.1mph, therefore Cross journey took him 30 minutes. There him stating he left home about 3:30am to get to work for 4:00am is spot on. Proof of his leaving time using basic maths if you wish.

[Fiver]

I dug this up from GUT in a 2014 thread that ended up in the type of hysterical screeching and indulgence in emojis that Herlock & Geddy would love:

From GUT

G'day Fisherman

WRONG

A judge in a criminal trial must give the jury a direction that if there is an explanation that is consistent with innocence they MUST acquit.

With the spirit of this in mind, I challenged the anti-Lechmere crowd to do just that,
come up with an innocent explanation for the following 4 facts: not adhoc explanations for each one, but one universal explanation such as I have given.

A. The suspect used Cross instead of Lechmere
B. The suspect failed to audibly furnish his address at the beginning of his inquest testimony
C. Lechmere's descendants had no knowledge of his
D. Lechmere showed up in court in his work clothes.[/quote]

Your challenge was answered repeatedly long before you posted it. You ignoring the facts doesn't change them.

A. He identified himself as Charles Allen Cross, who lived at 22 Doveton Street, had been a carman at Pickfords for about 20 years, and whose shift began at Broad Street Station at 4am. Who would ever guess that he was Charles Allen Lechmere, the stepson of Thomas Cross, who lived at 22 Doveton Street, had been a carman at Pickfords for about 20 years, and whose shift began at Broad Street Station at 4am? What a puzzler! Sherlock Holmes would be stumped!

Back in the real world, someone using his stepfather's surname is not evidence of a crime. Cross was one of at least three Ripper witnesses who had multiple surnames, but only mentioned one at the inquest. He clearly was not trying to hide his identity from the police, the press, the public, his employers, his coworkers, his neighbors or his family.

B. is not a fact. It is unproven speculation and makes no sense.

C. Lechmere's descendants knew nothing about him. That is typical, not evidence of anything, let alone anything sinister.

D. A carman showing up dressed as a carman is evidence that he was a carman. Trying to portray it as sinister is laughable.

Your "universal explanation" explains nothing and makes no sense. Demanding a single explanation for all 4 of your points is you assuming, without proof, that the four points are connected.

But if you want a "universal explanation", the explanation was he was innocent.

A. He had used the name Cross before in court, which is a strong indication that he was known by his stepfather's surname at work.

B. Acoustics were not good at the Inquest, thus things like "Robert Baul". There is nothing that implies any errors or omissions by the press were deliberate deceptions by any witness.

C. Family stories generally end at grandchildren. It would be more surprising if his great-great grandchildren knew anything about him.

D. A carman showing up dressed as a carman is evidence that he was a carman.