Robert Paul Time Issues

[Herlock Sholmes]

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 )

There is no dichotomy. Your ‘distances’ have now been questioned by 3 people so I’m not satisfied that you are correct. Whatever the truth any difference in distance between routes was clearly negligible. But what we have to remember is that Cross didn’t have access to these tools and he wasn’t making a judgment about the distance from the Mizen meeting to work. He would have been taking his normal route from home to work. People often tend to pick a route, for whatever reason, and stick to it. Perhaps he misjudged that the route that he’d chosen was actually slightly longer? Perhaps he’d once taken the other route but got harassed in some way so he avoided it? Maybe there was someone living on the other route that he knew and wanted to avoid for some reason?

His ‘abandonment’ of Polly is perfectly normal behaviour. As I’ve said before, not everyone is kind and selfless. We see it today and times in 1888 were vastly tougher. A boss in a bad mood could sack someone for being late knowing that there would be no repercussions for him or his company. Both Cross and Paul’s priority was simply to get to work and someone lying in the street wouldn’t have been seen as their problem. Also, there were no trained first aiders in those days. Cross and Paul drove a horse and cart for a living; they wouldn’t have had a clue what to do except pass the information on to a Police Officer whose job it was to deal with such matters.

Again…absolute non-issues viewed in a kind of conspiracy theorist light. Just read the evidence. There isn’t a single thing suspicious about his behaviour that you don’t have to ‘imagine’ or invent. The problem is that anyone can do this with any suspect as long as they name things that aren’t physically impossible. We can easily make a case for a ‘guilty’ Robert Paul or a ‘guilty’ George Hutchinson or a ‘guilty’ John Richardson. Low hanging fruit.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

When you say “most” people does that mean that you’ve conducted a survey or are you simply claiming the most convenient option to allow you to make a point. I’d suggest the latter. He didn’t “mark a sound.” It wasn’t a distant train noise or someone closing a window or a nearby badger trudging home after a nights foraging this was a man’s footsteps. For a start, as he heard him forst, have you ever considered that he might initially have wondered if it was a Constable? So after a very few seconds he sees that it’s a man and waits a few seconds for him to arrive. What could Cross have done if he’d dashed straight over to the body? Absolutely nothing. He had no medical training and wouldn’t have known what to do. There’s no way that he’d have been thinking “well if I delay going over for 20 seconds or so it could prove fatal.” We have to be realistic and not fly off into the realms of fantasy.

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!

Thats a nice bit of twisting there. As if you’re trying to imply/imagine/invent that he somehow enjoyed watching Paul check the body.

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

You do realise that Cross was a Carman in 1888 and not a First Aid trained IT Consultant in 2025 don’t you?

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.

Germophobia is the clearest of straw man arguments. No one has ever suggested it. But if you think that there aren’t millions of people around who wouldn’t be keen to touch a corpse then I can’t help you. And as I’ve suggested (and of course, you’ve ignored) Cross couldn’t be certain that she wasn’t drunk and would jump up screaming or accusing him of something. Or that she had a bloke lying in wait somewhere to relieve Cross of his wallet.

All perfectly reasonable stuff. No need for yet another trip to Fantasy Island.

[FrankO]

We don’t know what time he was told to be at the inquest. It might have been 10.00 for example.

According to the Morning Advertiser the inquest was opened at 10 o'clock, so, yes, he was possibly if not probably there at 10 o'clock.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

The emboldened and underlined part is a perfect example of the kind of muddy thinking that we get when someone is looking for every possible angle that allows a suggestion of ‘suspicious.’ Here you are saying ‘if Cross was innocent then using just the name Cross doesn’t benefit him.’

If he was an innocent man (which he clearly was) and no one was accusing him of anything (which they weren’t) then he had no need to be thinking of things to ‘benefit’ him and make him look innocent.

IF he was guilty…

Why didn’t he say that he’d left home at exactly 3.35 (giving him no time to commit the murder)?
Why didn’t he walk off into the dark as soon as he heard someone approach?
Why didn’t he agree to move the body (giving him an excuse if he was found to have blood on him)?
Why didn’t he suggest that he and Paul split up to ‘increase’ their chances of finding a PC?
Why would he have lied to Mizen with a complete stranger standing next to him who had no reason to back him up?
Why would he have killed at that spot? There’s no way he’d have been able to explain it away if they had questioned him near the site of one of the other murders.
Why would he have taken the ludicrous (and impossible) risk of killing during work hours? Even if he hadn’t been caught as he killer being AWOL for half an hour (whilst being paid by Pickford’s) would have almost certainly have resulted in the sack.
How could he have lived what was apparently a normal life, wife, family, job and yet he had so little control over himself that he exploded and murdered a woman 20 minutes before being due at work just because he passed her in the street? Had he never passed a woman before?

And the points in favour of his guilt are….Zilch.

[Geddy2112]

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?

What callousness? He attracted the attention of a passer-by and went to find a policeman. That is raising the alarm, alerting the authorities of the situation. However here is a quote from a fantastic new book.. it's called 'Jack The Ripper - Double Cross.'

What did the other first finders do in exactly the same situation? Let me help you out:
Annie Chapman – John Davis runs out of the back of 29 Hanbury Street and attracts the attention of three other men.
Liz Stride - Louis Diemschutz on discovery ran inside the Social Club to check on his wife to make sure she was safe and sound.
Catherine Eddowes - PC Edward Watkins on discovering the horribly mutilated victim called for assistance from the night watchman at the Kearley and Tonge warehouse which bordered Mitre Square.
Mary Jane Kelly – Thomas Bowyer. Bowyer ran to report his discovery to John McCarthy (Mary’s Landlord.)

Are all these over first finders guilty of murder, did they act in any way different to Cross?

Since they basically did the exact same as Cross are they callous. Once he noticed it was a woman the fact he went closer with Paul demonstrates the lack of callousness, unless the word 'callous' has a different meaning from where you are.

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.

Hears a guy 30-40 yards away. You do know what shock is I presume. 25 seconds to travel 30 to 40 yards when in a hurry, I do not think so. Closer to 12. Did Cross know how to check for vital signs? He held her hand to test for temperature, much the same as the doctor did. Funny that.

Doesn't continue to the body before addressing Paul

Ding ding ding we have a winner, so now you acknowledge Cross was never at the body alone, praise the lord.

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.

Although all the other first finders in the case as shown in their testimonies acted in near exactly the same way. Astonishing. I'm getting to the point of now believing you are some form of bastard son of Holmgren or something of the ilk and I consider you are basically just some wind up merchant. I'm not getting wound up at all. I just die a little inside every time I read someone who supports Cross as a killer and shake my head in disbelief that someone who is competent to switch on a PC, mobile phone etc and access an online forum is so bloody stupid.

[Herlock Sholmes]

According to the Morning Advertiser the inquest was opened at 10 o'clock, so, yes, he was possibly if not probably there at 10 o'clock.

Thanks Frank. So he could have done 4 or 5 hours work before going to the inquest. It might even have been possible for him to have gone in early that day to make up his hours. This apron point is certainly the strangest point that I’ve heard made in the case.

(Apart from Plimmer’s wine glass of course)

[FrankO]

A. For God's sake, what measuring tool - tell us? You haven't shown any inclination to furnish us with a means of repeating the measurement - this is unacceptable.

As Geddy said, the measuring tool is included in the map(s). See here: Georeferenced Maps viewer - Map images - National Library of Scotland. You'll find the tool in the upper right corner.

[Geddy2112]

His real name to any Victorian court was the name on his birth certificate and at baptism: probably the latter.
That would be Lechmere.

You didn't read Deed Poll like I suggested did you? There is not a definition for 'real' name however there is one for 'legal' name and Cross used his legal name in court. The end, no wriggle room, game over. Stop harping on about it.

Especially since you STILL have not answered how Cross giving his legal name, home and work address in court amounted to deception.

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?

This has been answered numerous times in the last few pages but my question above remains unanswered by you.

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?

Did anyone know HE DID NOT LEAVE HOME AROUND 3:30 am? Remember it's team Lechmere who have the burden of proof here, again another question you keep dodging.

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.

Proof he went by Lechmere at home please. Proof of these signatures please.

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

How many of the other first finders spouses were called to give evidence?

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.

It's been answered at least half a dozen times but since you can't or won't accept it is not 'our' fault. Like I said a wind up merchant...

[Geddy2112]

"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.

Which part of the measuring tool on the map do you not understand? This is the third time I've told you. Find the National Library of Scotland's old maps, there is a measuring tool in the top right hand corner of the page, use it. Then come back here and apologise for being a numpty. I'll wait.

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.

Ed Stow unless he's on his third name is a charlatan, Google Maps is not accurate for walking speeds, and you well... you are just rather tedious and blinded by the truth.

[Geddy2112]

**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.

But you expect people to know something about their relatives from nearly 140 years ago.... oooookaaaay.. makes sense... not.

[FrankO]

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.

Okay, I'll play your game: because Cross was very strict about his private life and working life. So, when he got involved in the case he was on his way to work and because of that, he did A, B & D because of that. C, as a number of us have shared from experience, isn't weird or suspicious at all; it rather seems to be rule than exception. And, of course, I'm assuming here that he was known as Cross at work.

[Fiver]

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.

His use of Cross has been explained at least half-a-dozen times in this thread, most recently by Doctored Whatsit. You ignoring what other people said doesn't mean they didn't say it.

Your example makes no sense. The police had Charles Cross' home address. If they wanted to check when he left home, they would have gone to 22 Doveton and asked his wife.

Using Cross could not cut him off from having an alibi.

[Fiver]

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?

You have yet to show that Charles Cross' behaviour was odd, let alone proof of guilt.

Cross did not abandon the body. He did exactly like Robert Paul, he found the closest police officer and informed them.

Your nonsense about Old Montague Street was debunked by FrankO in Post #152.

You ignoring the facts does not make them go away.

[Fiver]

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.

Using the name Cross neither helps nor hurts him, just like the other witnesses who used multiple surnames, but only mentioned one. All you have proved is your double standard.

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.

Why do you keep repeating speculation as fact? The fact is that none of his modern descendants knew anything about Charles Allen Lechmere. This is typical, few people know anything about their great-grandparents, let alone great-great-grandparents.

There is no evidence that his wife and children did not know that that he found Nichols body. There is no evidence that his wife and children did not know that he used both Cross and Lechmere as surnames. There is no evidence that these facts were deliberately suppressed by anyone.

[Fiver]

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.

Your summary contradicts the statements of both Charles Cross and Robert Paul.

"At the same time he heard a man about forty yards away coming up Buck's row in the direction witness had himself come. He stepped back and waited for the newcomer, who started on one side, as if he feared that the witness meant to knock him down." - Charles Cross, Daily News, 4 September 1888.

"It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." - Robert Paul, Lloyds Weekly News, 2 September 1888.

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.

That's not what Albert Crow did. That's not what John Reeves did. That's not what Robert Paul did. That's not what John Davis did. That's not what Lewis Diemschutz did. That's not what Thomas Bowyer did.

The only people who did what you claim most people would do were the police - PC Neil, PC Watkin, PC Andrews.