Robert Paul Time Issues

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is there some weird tech issue on this forum that renders some posts invisible to some people? Or has there been an outbreak of selective shortsightedness? On other threads I’ve asked questions and others have claimed to have answered them when no such answers are visible in any existing post anywhere. Then on here we keep getting asked questions to which answers are certainly given but they are followed by accusations that we haven’t answered them. It’s like being in an alternate universe.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I nearly forgot……

After Newbie said this - “Its only at this overheated site that a theory involving a husband lying to his wife is treated as outrageous.”

I asked - “Prove that he lied to his wife and I’ll send you a thousand apologies.”


Silence.

[Geddy2112]

I nearly forgot……

After Newbie said this - “Its only at this overheated site that a theory involving a husband lying to his wife is treated as outrageous.”

I asked - “Prove that he lied to his wife and I’ll send you a thousand apologies.”


Silence.

Astonishing isn't it... I've also asked Newbie to answer the following... but nothing.

1) How does giving your two Christian names, legal surname, home and work address at an inquest give you an advantage as a serial killer?

2) How does wearing your work clothes at an inquest imply guilt?

3) Can you tell me Cross' exact leaving time from home on any given day, his walking speed and his exact routes to work?

4) Can you show me evidence to prove there was a time gap?

5) Can you show me evidence to prove the Mizen scam?

6) Can you show me any evidence linking Charles Cross to any of the other C5 murders?

7) Can you show me any evidence on when Charles visited his mother or anything else regarding his social time?

[FrankO]

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.

This is what poster ohrocky wrote almost 4 years ago on these boards:
"Here's what happened to me.........

A couple of years ago, late one cold winters evening I was returning home from a late football match. Turning the corner into my quiet, tree-lined steet I saw "something" up against the churchyard wall. I approached and saw that it was a young woman lying there, motionless. I didn't know whether she had been attacked, had a medical episode, or had collapsed through drink and / or drugs.

I didn't want to be observed touching the young woman or her posessions so moved a couple of yards away from her. Whilst contemplating what to do I saw a woman passing on her way home from a late shift so I attracted her attention and asked her over. Being a female she had no compunction touching the young lady and eventually rousing her and rifling through her handbag. A nearly empty bottle of vodka was found in her bag so the cause of her collapse soon became apparent.

The rest of the tale doesn't really matter. But I now realise that the way I reacted on finding a woman's body out on the street was not too disimilar at all from the way Lechmere reacted on finding Polly Nichols."

I can very well imagine that Cross would have had a very similar sentiment as ohrocky. It doesn't particularly strike me as odd.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Astonishing isn't it... I've also asked Newbie to answer the following... but nothing.

1) How does giving your two Christian names, legal surname, home and work address at an inquest give you an advantage as a serial killer?

2) How does wearing your work clothes at an inquest imply guilt?

3) Can you tell me Cross' exact leaving time from home on any given day, his walking speed and his exact routes to work?

4) Can you show me evidence to prove there was a time gap?

5) Can you show me evidence to prove the Mizen scam?

6) Can you show me any evidence linking Charles Cross to any of the other C5 murders?

7) Can you show me any evidence on when Charles visited his mother or anything else regarding his social time?

I get it all the time Geddy. They ask questions but when you don’t give the answer that they want they suddenly go word blind. I ask a question and it’s a) ignore, b) change the subject, c) answer a different question, or d) tell you what a stupid question it is.

[Newbie]

I think people are improperly framing two arguments around Crossmere the suspect that should be addressed. I'll start with the first improperly framed argument,
and move on to the 2nd in my next message

A. Which was his 'true' name: Cross or Lechmere?

Being that any person involved in such a situation - standing alone, next to a just murdered victim ... the amount of time being irrelevant here, but it could be for just a second - would be very much alarmed by the potential perception that others will associate you with the crime (let's say wrongly - for the sake of argument), it would behoove said person in presenting himself in the best possible light, and that would start with the name he presents to authorities.

caveats involved in the argument:

- Given that he lacked a criminal record under the name of Lechmere, and by its disuse was not attempting to hide something from his past from authorities - it was not illegal to use the name of Cross at the inquest ..... this is my understanding of the legal code at the time.
* unless new evidence is furnished as to Lechmere having a criminal record at that point, this should not be an argument

- Given that the custom of the Victorian legal & administrative system, if offered dual names, would have accepted the use only his Christian name during the proceedings - the one given to him at baptism, Lechmere only furnished the authorities with Cross.
* unless new evidence is furnished to the contrary about Victorian legal customs on this matter, this should not be an argument

New framing:
A*. Which name should Lechmere have chosen to best convey an appearance of innocence, or that addresses some outside factor beyond the deliberation of the court?

caveats involved in the new framing:
- the nature of the 'other factor' should be specified, articulatng some well reasoned motivation
- declarations of the form: 'he's innocent, irgo .....' is not one offered by anyone serious about debate: so why are you here?

[Newbie]

Now that I've properly framed Argument A, two things stand out as to the use of the name Cross being a disadvantage to the innocent Crossmere:

#1. Although Crossmere had no court records involving the name of Lechmere, he did seem to have one involving the name of Cross: namely, running over and killing a young boy with his cart.

Now, although he was ruled to have not been negligent in the tragic death of the young boy before a magistrate, was it wise to direct authorities there? It is my understanding that the boy's father was of the oppinion that the act was deliberate.

#2. As I have already said, Pickford's management could never have offered Crossmere an alibi as to his leaving home at 3:30 am.

I've already opined about the importance of having a ready alibi; if anything, to slam shut any hint of guilt, immediately eliminating any suspicions cast your way.


Personally, if I were thrust in that situation, I wouldn't touch the name of Cross with a ten foot pole.

[Newbie]

this was a duplicate that I accidently posted.

[Newbie]

I think people are improperly framing two arguments around Crossmere the suspect that should be addressed. I'll start with the first improperly framed argument,
and move on to the 2nd in my next message

A. Which was his 'true' name: Cross or Lechmere?

Being that any person involved in such a situation - standing alone, next to a just murdered victim ... the amount of time being irrelevant here, but it could be for just a second - would be very much alarmed by the potential perception that others will associate you with the crime (let's say wrongly - for the sake of argument), it would behoove said person in presenting himself in the best possible light, and that would start with the name he presents to authorities.

caveats involved in the argument:

- Given that he lacked a criminal record under the name of Lechmere, and by its disuse was not attempting to hide something from his past from authorities - it was not illegal to use the name of Cross at the inquest ..... this is my understanding of the legal code at the time.
* unless new evidence is furnished as to Lechmere having a criminal record at that point, this should not be an argument

- Given that the custom of the Victorian legal & administrative system, if offered dual names, would have accepted the use only his Christian name during the proceedings - the one given to him at baptism, Lechmere only furnished the authorities with Cross.
* unless new evidence is furnished to the contrary about Victorian legal customs on this matter, this should not be an argument

New framing:
A*. Which name should Lechmere have chosen to best convey an appearance of innocence, or that addresses some outside factor beyond the deliberation of the court?

caveats involved in the new framing:
- the nature of the 'other factor' should be specified, articulatng some well reasoned motivation
- declarations of the form: 'he's innocent, irgo .....' is not one offered by anyone serious about debate: so why are you here?

[Newbie]

Now that I've properly framed Argument A, two things stand out as to the use of the name Cross being a disadvantage to the innocent Crossmere:

#1. Although Crossmere had no court records involving the name of Lechmere, he did seem to have one involving the name of Cross: namely, running over and killing a young boy with his cart.

Now, although he was ruled to have not been negligent in the tragic death of the young boy before a magistrate, was it wise to direct authorities there? It is my understanding that the boy's father was of the oppinion that the act was deliberate. Personally, given my situation, I wouldn't touch the name of Cross with a ten foot pole.

#2. As I have already said, Pickford's management could never have offered Crossmere an alibi as to his leaving home at 3:30 am.

I've already opined about the importance of having a ready alibi; if anything, to slam shut any hint of guilt, immediately eliminating any suspicions cast your way.

[Newbie]

Argument B: if Lechmere was alone, next to the body, he would have fled upon hearing Paul’s footsteps; therefore, he could not have possibly been next to the body. Why would he stay in that situation?


Well, it has the panache of truthfulness, and if you extend it to the general, it leads to a very important principle (let’s call it the Herlock principle): any person found standing next to a victim dislodged from their senses is automatically innocent, unless they outwardly manifest some indication of having committed the act. Under this wonderful principle, Lech goes from being suspicious, to cementing his reputation as the only truly innocent person in all of East London.

One can easily see where we went wrong in our case: the premise and subsequent logic leads us to a conclusion contrary to what evidence we have: that he was never alone.

There is no evidence (zero/zip) that supports the notion that Lechmere was walking ahead of Paul, some 50 yards, and just arrived at the body. What evidence we have is to the contrary:

• We have evidence involving an absence of recognition of sight and sound, between Paul and Lechmere, until one was at the body, on a street in which the acoustics were demonstrated to be very good, given the testimony of PC Neil.
• We have the support of modern scientific principals in providing a framework in evaluating the evidence: primarily our modern understanding of perception, and how the brain selectively processes some stimuli (auditory, tactile, visual, olfactory) that are novel (new footsteps) and ignores those stimuli that are repetitive, like one’s footsteps crunching on the same type of pavement.
• We have the behavior, on Lechmere’s part, consistent with the idea that he knew the state of the victim well, at the time of noticing Paul’s presence:
• Fails to continue towards the body and waits for Paul, the body being only a few steps away
• Fails to check the victim for breathing/heart beat
• Fails to ascertain the state of the victim, after a very brief checkup, when he then announces that they should leave the body and get a PC: was she dead, drunk, raped? ….. Lechmere had to run, opting then to not take Old Montague street, the quickest route to work by a few minutes, but Hanbury ….. just to tag along with his new buddy.

Didn’t he block the path of a stranger out of his concern for her well being? huh!


Restatement of argument B: Lechmere being alone with the body for some unknown amount of time, hears Paul’s footsteps some ways up Buck’s row, and chooses to remain with the body. Why did Lechmere not flee?


Lechmere was already at the body, heard Paul’s footsteps, decided to stay, eventually moved a few paces to the center of the street, and invented a story of walking just ahead of Paul with some twist added (the finally hearing Paul footsteps and stopping part) which conformed with his final position marked by Paul.


Whether Lechmere is the murderer or not, it is the only possible story that a person standing by the body for some time would possibly invent …. there are no others.

So, the appropriate question is not ‘why would he not flee?’, but ‘why did he stay?’

[Fiver]

A. Which was his 'true' name: Cross or Lechmere?

Your question is poorly framed. What do you mean by "true name"?

Being that any person involved in such a situation - standing alone, next to a just murdered victim ...

You posting this shows you either haven't read the evidence or you haven't understood it.

"Robert Baul [Paul], a carman, of 30, Foster-Street, Whitechapel, stated he went to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields. He left home about a quarter to 4 on the Friday morning and as he was passing up Buck's-row he saw a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness approached him he walked towards the pavement, and
witness stepped on to the roadway in order to pass him. He then touched witness on the shoulder, and said, "Come and look at this woman here."" - The Times, 18 September, 1888.

Standing in the middle of the road is not standing next to the murdered victim.

Your question is based on something that never occurred.

[Fiver]

New framing:
A*. Which name should Lechmere have chosen to best convey an appearance of innocence, or that addresses some outside factor beyond the deliberation of the court?

Your question is irrelevant - neither name implies innocence or guilt.

Just like the other witnesses who only mentioned one surname in court.

[Fiver]

Now that I've properly framed Argument A, two things stand out as to the use of the name Cross being a disadvantage to the innocent Crossmere:

#1. Although Crossmere had no court records involving the name of Lechmere, he did seem to have one involving the name of Cross: namely, running over and killing a young boy with his cart.

Now, although he was ruled to have not been negligent in the tragic death of the young boy before a magistrate, was it wise to direct authorities there? It is my understanding that the boy's father was of the oppinion that the act was deliberate.

Odds are nobody present in the court, except Charles Cross, would have heard of a case that happened 12 years before. Anyone familiar with the case would realize that Cross had a record of telling the truth in court. Walter Williams was a jeweler, not a member of the police.

#2. As I have already said, Pickford's management could never have offered Crossmere an alibi as to his leaving home at 3:30 am.

Neither surname would make the slightest difference on Cross having an alibi. That would depend on the police having Cross' address.

"CARMAN CROSS was the the next witness. He lived at 22 Doveton Street, Cambridge-road. " - Star, 3 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." - Chief Inspector Swanson, Inspector Abberline, Police Report, 19 September
1888.

[Fiver]

Argument B: if Lechmere was alone, next to the body, he would have fled upon hearing Paul’s footsteps; therefore, he could not have possibly been next to the body. Why would he stay in that situation?

You posting this shows you either haven't read the evidence or you haven't understood it.

"Robert Baul [Paul], a carman, of 30, Foster-Street, Whitechapel, stated he went to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields. He left home about a quarter to 4 on the Friday morning and as he was passing up Buck's-row he saw a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness approached him he walked towards the pavement, and
witness stepped on to the roadway in order to pass him. He then touched witness on the shoulder, and said, "Come and look at this woman here."" - The Times, 18 September, 1888.

Standing in the middle of the road is not standing next to the murdered victim.

Both of your questions are based on something that never occurred.