Robert Paul Time Issues

[Fiver]

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.

Hanbury Street wasn't the longer route to work. This has been shown repeatedly. Do you nt understand how links work?

Robert Paul likely wouldn't have even looked at the body if Cross hadn't stopped him. And Paul left the body just as quickly as Cross.

As to how tolerant Victorian employers were:

"Mr. Paul says that after he made his statement to our representative, which appeared in Lloyd's, he was fetched up in the middle of the night by the police, and was obliged to lose a day's work the next day, for which he got nothing. He was then summoned to give evidence at the inquest on two different days, and he had to pay a man 5s. each day to do his work, or he would have lost his place. At the close of the inquest he got two shillings, being a shilling for each day." - Robert Paul, Lloyds Weekly News, 30th September, 1888.

[Newbie]

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?

Sure he did .... he said that she was drunk, or dead and in one or more accounts, even outraged (but not harmed). Abandoned, meaning to leave someone in an uncertain state because you have better things to do. For Lechmere, his arrival time at work took precedent ... hence abandoned the body and maybe he'll run into a PC, and maybe he won't. What term would you use for that bit of callousness?

But it is also is an interesting sequence of events: Cross near the body, just going by his testimony.

A. He moves to the body, recognizes its a fallen female, hears a sound (finally), turns, and sees a guy some 30 - 40 yards away.
I don't know about you Geddy, but most people would see a prostrate body of a female and think "holy hell';
so they wouldn't wait 25 seconds for the guy to finally arrive, but continue to the body to attend to it ... and gather more info before stopping anyone.

Did Lechmere check for vital signs? No mention of it: only holding a hand and perhaps touching her forehead. He had Paul do all that,
despite being the first to the body and physically arresting Paul, he suddenly became very passive .... strange.

Doesn't continue to the body before addressing Paul, doesn't check for vitals, abandons the body callously without exactly knowing the woman's state,

and yet he was so moved with sympathy in the first place that he forcibly arrested the progress of a complete stranger, who for all he knew might have a knife and was part of a ruse involving a prostate woman .... something that was not uncommon on those streets.

Innocent Lechmere of course hadn't a knife and evidently zero street smarts.

Its very strange in that this is not the manner in which most people would behave, in each one of those cases.
Perhaps you can disabuse me of this notion and explain to me which one of those you would have done exactly the same.

[Fiver]

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

A carman showing up dressed as a carman is proof that he was carman, nothing more.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

From #179

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.

From #180

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.

From #191

If Cross got to work at 4.00 as normal and his cart was loaded (as you said) then he was ready for work. We don’t know what time he was told to be at the inquest by but I used 10.00 as an example. If he worked from 4.00 until 9.00. Dropped the cart back at the yard and went on to the inquest that was 5 hours work.

How long would it have taken him to deliver an entire load? I can’t say and neither can you but he wasn’t driving an articulated lorry with a 40 foot trailer. It was a cart. It’s likely that during the course of a day he would have had to have returned to the yard to be loaded again. Maybe 2 or 3 times, who knows? But 5 hours work would have been easily enough to make a round of deliveries and it would have earned him money and it would have kept his ‘time off’ down to a minimum.


So how many answers do I have to provide before you acknowledge that I’ve answered? 8, 9 ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sure he did .... he said that she was drunk, or dead and in one or more accounts, even outraged (but not harmed). Abandoned, meaning to leave someone in an uncertain state because you have better things to do. For Lechmere, his arrival time at work took precedent ... hence abandoned the body and maybe he'll run into a PC, and maybe he won't. What term would you use for that bit of callousness?

But it is also is an interesting sequence of events: Cross near the body, just going by his testimony.

Not near the body….as per Robert Paul.

A. He moves to the body, recognizes its a fallen female, hears a sound (finally), turns, and sees a guy some 30 - 40 yards away.
I don't know about you Geddy, but most people would see a prostrate body of a female and think "holy hell';
so they wouldn't wait 25 seconds for the guy to finally arrive, but continue to the body to attend to it ... and gather more info before stopping anyone.

A guilty man would have scarpered. Cross didn’t. People who suspect Cross have to make things up to try and invent a case.

Did Lechmere check for vital signs? No mention of it: only holding a hand and perhaps touching her forehead. He had Paul do all that,
despite being the first to the body and physically arresting Paul, he suddenly became very passive .... strange.

Are you really wanting us to believe that it’s somehow weird not to be keen on the idea of touching a body? You previously asked for innocent explanations…I’ll give you three. 1) He was squeamish. 2) He wasn’t certain that she was dead therefore he didn’t want a drunken woman waking up and screaming at the top of her voice. 3) He wasn’t bothered about her and just wanted to get to work.

Doesn't continue to the body before addressing Paul, doesn't check for vitals, abandons the body callously without exactly knowing the woman's state,

and yet he was so moved with sympathy in the first place that he forcibly arrested the progress of a complete stranger, who for all he knew might have a knife and was part of a ruse involving a prostate woman .... something that was not uncommon on those streets.

Meanwhile, back on earth, He wasn’t so ‘moved with sympathy’ about anything. Read the evidence. He saw a shape from the other side of the street. He moved somewhere around the middle of the road and saw that it was a woman. At that very point he hears Paul approach. He waits for him to get there (no escaping as a murderer would definitely have done) before approaching the woman. When Paul sees Cross he’s in the road, not next to the body. Again, perhaps he didn’t want her waking up and accusing him of something so he waited for Paul to get there. If Paul hadn’t arrived who knows? He might have walked on and left her. None of this implies guilt though. Which you would see if you removed those Cross Goggles.

Innocent Lechmere of course hadn't a knife and evidently zero street smarts.

Strange point…we have zero suggestion that he carried a knife. Any suggestion that he ‘might’ have done is pointless. (Bury carried one though, but hey, who would suspect a murderer of being a murderer?)

Its very strange in that this is not the manner in which most people would behave, in each one of those cases.
Perhaps you can disabuse me of this notion and explain to me which one of those you would have done exactly the same.

It’s perfectly normal behaviour. Not everyone wears a halo. We’ve all seen TV video footage of people lying in the street injured with people just walking past. This is life. Those were dangerous streets. Prostitutes often had pimps and bully boys lying in wait to rob strangers of their wallets.

Not a single thing about Cross’s behaviour was suspicious. Nothing. You are simply inventing things. Which is what everyone who believes Cross was the ripper is forced to do. Cross has no case to answer and should be crossed off any serious list of suspects.

[Doctored Whatsit]

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.

Well, thanks only to me, I alleviated the anti-Lechmerites from the need to respond to D, but the other's are still very much in play and I got zero responses to my offer. What gives? ... refusing to attempt to offer innocent explanations about Lechmere's behavior


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.

This appears to be a request for one reason to explain four totally different issues. There are, of course, four very obvious answers.

A. Charles almost certainly used the name Cross because he had done so for very many years. Let's do something novel, and look at the facts. Lechmere senior abandoned the infant Charles and his mother, and the only father figure Charles ever had was Cross senior. Charles could surely have had no respect for his true father and the name Lechmere, and spent many years as a child in the family of Mr and Mrs Cross. In 1888 it would have been normal to take his step-father's name, and somewhat insulting to Cross if he called himself Lechmere. Charles was still part of the Cross family when he started work at Pickfords, and at the 1876 inquest involving the death of a child, which was investigated by the police, and in which Pickfords were directly involved, Charles gave his evidence as Charles Cross, employee of Pickfords. This would have been almost impossible if he was not working under the name Cross. Therefore it is a near certainty that Charles had taken the name Cross.

B. I think you just mean that newspapers, except one, didn't publish his address - there is no evidence that he did anything wrong.

C. As has been said, I haven't got the faintest idea what any of my ancestors did in 1888. In fact, without doing some research, I don't even know what ancestors I had in 1888. Newbie, having made what he considers to be a crucial point here, will presumably be able to write a small book on what all of his ancestors did in 1888. I suggest that most of us are unaware of our ancestors 1888 activities.

D. As we have said many times, Charles was not going to lose pay for a 12 hour day's work because of perhaps 30 minutes in an inquest. He probably started at 4 am and worked till his appointed hour at the inquest, and either parked up with a vanguard, or paid a friend to continue the shift.

As for the lying to his wife theory, I think we are all still waiting for any hint of evidence that he did this.

[Newbie]

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?

Sure he did .... he said that she was drunk, or dead and in one or more accounts, even outraged (but not harmed). Abandoned, meaning to leave someone in an uncertain state because you have better things to do. For Lechmere, his arrival time at work took precedent ... hence abandoned the body and maybe he'll run into a PC, and maybe he won't. What term would you use for that bit of callousness?

But it is also is an interesting sequence of events: Cross near the body, just going by his testimony.

A. He moves to the body, recognizes its a fallen female, hears a sound (finally), turns, and sees a guy some 30 - 40 yards away.
I don't know about you Geddy, but most people would see a prostrate body of a female and think "holy hell';
so they wouldn't wait 25 seconds for the guy to finally arrive, but continue to the body to attend to it ... and gather more info before stopping anyone.

Did Lechmere check for vital signs? No mention of it: only holding a hand and perhaps touching her forehead. He had Paul do all that,
despite being the first to the body and physically arresting Paul, he suddenly became very passive .... strange.

Doesn't continue to the body before addressing Paul, doesn't check for vitals, abandons the body callously without exactly knowing the woman's state,

and yet he was so moved with sympathy in the first place that he forcibly arrested the progress of a complete stranger, who for all he knew might have a knife and was part of a ruse involving a prostate woman .... something that was not uncommon on those streets.

Innocent Lechmere of course hadn't a knife and evidently zero street smarts.

Its very strange in that this is not the manner in which most people would behave, in each one of those cases.
Perhaps you can disabuse me of this notion and explain to me which one of those you would have done exactly the same.

[Newbie]

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?



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?



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.



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.

Is there a face palm emoji here Geddy?

His real name to any Victorian court was the name on his birth certificate and at baptism: probably the latter.
That would be Lechmere. Was it Jeff Hamm who compiled a list of people in front of magistrates who used dual names .... but in each case the court only recognized their baptismal name, even though they abandoned it as children?

But this is very much unimportant, the back and forth about which is his 'true' name: if its proposed that he was known by neighbors as Charley Cross, but the family went by Lechmere, again that's the normalization of weirdness .... good old Charlie the cuckold - what a guy!

The real question is which name should he furnish to the inquest .... meaning which would be most advantagous so that he would evade suspicion (and anyone would feel the heat, no doubt); if they knew that he's a Lechmere by birth (certificate), and Cross was a step dad, it would be Lechmere that they would use in court.

So, he deliberately chose Cross and omitted furnishing the police with the name of Lechmere. Why? How could he possibly benefit from choosing Cross?

Let's assume that he was known administratively as Cross, did any Pickford's administrator know that he left home at 3:30 am? ..... the answer is no.
Then what use are they to him? Pickford's could not give him an alibi, nor were they going to furnish him with legal help. Isn't it important to have an alibi?

Its stupid and taking a neeless risk for innocent Lech to use Cross and it be discovered that he goes by Lechmere at home, and that that's the name he uses on all the official documents that he has signed during the year. It might needlessly peek the interest of an inspector.


However, his wife, Mrs. Lechmere, could provide that information if need be .... why not avail himself of her testimony if necessary?

I have already hypothesized why a less than innocent Lechmere would use Cross, to deceive his wife; but no one has told me the advantage of innocent Lech using Cross?

Again, the ball is in your court but curiously no one is taking a swing at it.

[Newbie]

"Three of us have shown you proof the distance is approx 1.55 miles"

You've shown me the picture of the northern route with a 1.55 mile signature at the end, but refuse to tell me or others your method for determining this and now are starting to get indignant that I request it.

You insult Ed Stowe, Google maps, myself, and now hold tightly to the secret of your wonderfully accurate method. Should I just laugh and give up?

Is this method a secret and would compromise national security? ..... at least throw me this nugget.

[Newbie]

To summarize: a response I would like to see, but no longer anticipate: do I need to get on my knees and beg you guys for it?

Mrs. Lechmere, could provide innocent Lech with an alibi before authorities, leaving around 3:30 am.... why not avail himself of her testimony if necessary? Why cut himself off from it by using the name Cross? What is advantageous in using Cross, when Pickford's administrators can not furnish him with an alibi?

I have already hypothesized why a less than innocent Lechmere would use Cross, to deceive his wife; but no one has told me the advantage of innocent Lech using Cross? To me, it would seem needlessly stupid and reckless.

Again, the ball is in your court, but curiously no one is taking a swing at it.
I'm starting to think no one is serious here, just a lot of trolls.

* note: outrage, it's just one of those things, we've already given it to you & we're too tired to point you to it, his real name was Cross are laughable and would inform me that you are not really serious here

**note: that step dad was a PC 20 years ago, from a different division, and probably forgotten hardly explains why to not submit Lechmere as well as Cross.

Come up with something good guys!

[Newbie]

And another issue I proposed about Lechmere: the oddity of his behaviour encountering the body & Paul, and the dichotomy between abandoning the body of Polly Nichol's prematurely, supposedly uncertain of her state, due to the time issue of getting to work on time, and then Lechmere not taking the more direct route of Old Montague street.

I'm looking for comments surrounding the oddity of his behavior around the body ... am I wrong in my assumption in how most people would behave in similar circumstances?

And no screeches, furious wing flapping, or other such unseemly behavior please!
No quibbling about the definition of the word abandon (departing most regrettably if you like )

[Fiver]

But it is also is an interesting sequence of events: Cross near the body, just going by his testimony.

A. He moves to the body, recognizes its a fallen female, hears a sound (finally), turns, and sees a guy some 30 - 40 yards away.

Incorrect.

"As I got up Buck's row I saw something lying on the north side, in the gateway to a tool warehouse. It looked to me like a man's tarpaulin, but on going into the centre of the road I saw it was the figure of a woman. At the same time I heard a man coming up the Street in the same direction as I had come, so I waited for him to come up."

Cross moved towards the body, not to the body. He stopped in the middle of the road as confirmed by Robert Paul.

I don't know about you Geddy, but most people would see a prostrate body of a female and think "holy hell';
so they wouldn't wait 25 seconds for the guy to finally arrive, but continue to the body to attend to it ... and gather more info before stopping anyone.

Your "most people" doesn't match any of the people who found a Ripper victim.

Did Lechmere check for vital signs? No mention of it: only holding a hand and perhaps touching her forehead.

That is checking for vital signs.

He had Paul do all that, despite being the first to the body and physically arresting Paul, he suddenly became very passive .... strange.

It would be strange if it were true.

... abandons the body callously without exactly knowing the woman's state.

Just like Robert Paul. And John Reeves. And John Davis. Notably better than Alfred Crow.

Innocent Lechmere of course hadn't a knife and evidently zero street smarts.

Cross had grown up in Tiger Bay, one of the worst parts of the East End. Robert Paul was afraid to walk down Bucks Row - Cross wasn't.

Its very strange in that this is not the manner in which most people would behave, in each one of those cases.
Perhaps you can disabuse me of this notion and explain to me which one of those you would have done exactly the same.

At 3:40am, I probably wouldn't have been awake enough to even notice Nichols.

Everything that Charles Cross is known to have done is either the act of an innocent man or a stupendously stupid killer.

* He didn't just walk off into the darkness.
* He stopped Robert Paul instead of letting Paul walk on by.
* He refused to prop up the body, which would have provided an innocent excuse for any blood on his hands or clothes.
* He stayed with Paul when looking for a policeman instead of splitting up and disappearing into the darkness.
* He took the lead in talking to PC Mizen, which would make it easier for the constable to recognize him and to spot blood on his hands or clothing.
* He continued to walk with Robert Paul almost to Spitalfield's Market, which would make it easier for the other carman to recognize him and to spot blood on his hands or clothing.
* He chose to go to the police even though neither PC Mizen nor Robert Paul knew who he was.
* He testified that he hadn't seen anyone else. Even a remotely clever killer would have claimed to have heard footsteps disappearing around the corner as he approached the body.

[Newbie]

This comes from fiver:

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


He's innocent and so he uses the name of Cross? Of course this is not an answer to the question ... which involves why an innocent Lechmere
would only furnish the authorities with Cross - how does he benefit from this? He doesn't.

If he's innocent, its in his interest to furnish them with the name of Cross and Lechmere, or just Lechmere, his wife being an important alibi for his time of departure. Do you know of another witness that can furnish him such an alibi ...... its not Paul, unfortunately.

As for his descendants not correcting the mistake of Polly Nichol's body being found by the family scion: one Charles Alen Lechmere?
We are not just talking about descendants of today ..... his children, grandchildren, great grandchildren .... none of these generations intervened to inform others of his participation in the events. Which means they didn't know any Charles Cross .... didn't have a clue: none of these generations knew that Charles Cross was Charles Lechmere.

But I like your style fiver.
You are here to debate. You don't like my takes,
but do not wing flap furiously, or use a silly flood of emojis to make a point.

[Newbie]

I'll just respond to this first one fiver, and that will be it for me.

Incorrect.

"As I got up Buck's row I saw something lying on the north side, in the gateway to a tool warehouse. It looked to me like a man's tarpaulin, but on going into the centre of the road I saw it was the figure of a woman. At the same time I heard a man coming up the Street in the same direction as I had come, so I waited for him to come up."

Cross moved towards the body, not to the body. He stopped in the middle of the road as confirmed by Robert Paul.

You evidently misunderstood my point.

I wrote that most people, seeing someone alone and on the ground at 3:40 am would be greatly alarmed and have some sense of urgency; they would not mark a sound turn around, and stand there gaping at the oncomer for 20 - 25 seconds.

This of course is what Lechmere told us he did at the inquest.

Most people would continue towards the prostrate body to assess her current state: thinking that it might very well be critical; then they would address the newcomer.

Again, imagine what you would do in Lechmere's place.

If one wants to say that Lechmere could have been germaphobic and he could get the newcomer to do all that dirty touching of vitals, yuck! .... but when this newcomer got too enthusiastic about his role and wanted to move the body ..... germaphobic Lech put a stop to that and just wanted to get away from that dirty diseased thing ..... okeedoke!

There is no mention of Lech checking out heart beat / breathing ... just held her hand. Kind of sweet & gentle if you ask me.

Why did he not check for vitals? Strange, no! He discovered the body and then demurred from these very basic and necessary tasks.
Bold enough to stop Paul and then suddenly became very passive about everything.

Explanation? Oh! Germaphobic Crossmere.

[Herlock Sholmes]

To summarize: a response I would like to see, but no longer anticipate: do I need to get on my knees and beg you guys for it?

Mrs. Lechmere, could provide innocent Lech with an alibi before authorities, leaving around 3:30 am.... why not avail himself of her testimony if necessary? Why cut himself off from it by using the name Cross? What is advantageous in using Cross, when Pickford's administrators can not furnish him with an alibi?

I have already hypothesized why a less than innocent Lechmere would use Cross, to deceive his wife; but no one has told me the advantage of innocent Lech using Cross? To me, it would seem needlessly stupid and reckless.

Again, the ball is in your court, but curiously no one is taking a swing at it.
I'm starting to think no one is serious here, just a lot of trolls.

* note: outrage, it's just one of those things, we've already given it to you & we're too tired to point you to it, his real name was Cross are laughable and would inform me that you are not really serious here

**note: that step dad was a PC 20 years ago, from a different division, and probably forgotten hardly explains why to not submit Lechmere as well as Cross.

Come up with something good guys!

I didn’t think that this was a serious point….be cause it’s not a serious point. Could the answer be less obvious?

Cross didn’t “avail himself” of his wife’s testimony because he hadn’t needed to. He wasn’t under suspicion. He gave the police a time of ‘around 3.30’ and they accepted it. Cross didn’t need his wife.

What is advantageous in using Cross, when Pickford's administrators can not furnish him with an alibi?

I have already hypothesized why a less than innocent Lechmere would use Cross, to deceive his wife; but no one has told me the advantage of innocent Lech using Cross? To me, it would seem needlessly stupid and reckless

Youhave no evidence that he deceived his wife; a point that you’ve arrived at via faulty reasoning. You believe that the non-point of Cross being a witness not passing down through the generations is important (how often, on TV, have we seen family members finding out that their ancestor was decorated in the First World War, for eg. What about the point I made about no one in Nicholas Winton’s family knowing that he’d helped save over 600 children during WW2? Things don’t always get passed on. All that it takes is one person keeping quiet for whatever reason (maybe just not thinking it important) Maybe there was a bit of snobbery and someone didn’t want the family name mentioned in connection to the murders? Maybe someone died before they got around to mentioning it? Millions of facts don’t get passed on; this is perfectly normal. The Ripper murders isn’t a point of interest for everyone. Have you seen the TV series Murder, Mystery and My Family? People who only found out about family tragedies (murders, hangings, arrests, acquittals etc) after genealogical research. But apart from all this I did ask you for proof that Cross’s wife lied and, understandably, I’ve received no response from you whilst at the same to you repeatedly demand answers for questions that have largely been answered. Cross might have told his wife but she decided not to mention it.

Another point answered fully. Another desperate point shown for what it is.