Robert Paul Time Issues

[Lewis C]

Very true but at least he was there.

Without doubt he has to be one of the worst suspects in this case. In fact whoever named him as a suspect (and I'm not sure what the qualifying criteria is) needs beating with a sh*tty stick...

He is a very weak suspect, but to be fair, there are a lot of very weak suspects in this case.

As far as what makes someone a suspect, I suppose if anyone has ever published anything putting someone forward as a suspect, then he's a suspect, with the possible exception of those who have iron clad alibis.

[Geddy2112]

Charles Cross acted exactly like a normal bloke would act that found a body on his way to work...

Very true but at least he was there.

Without doubt he has to be one of the worst suspects in this case. In fact whoever named him as a suspect (and I'm not sure what the qualifying criteria is) needs beating with a sh*tty stick...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Those that favour Cross as the ripper love to remind us ad nauseam that “he was there” because that’s all that they have but on a more positive side the fact that he was there allows us to demonstrate the non-existence of the case against him better than we can for those suspects that we can’t place at the scene. Of course, Cross isn’t unique in being ‘there.’ John Davis was alone with Annie Chapman when he found her. As was John Saunders Reeves when he found Martha Tabram. George Hutchinson could easily have slipped over to Mary Kelly’s room after Astrakhan Man had departed and killed her and George Morris could have killed Catherine Eddowes and cleaned himself up while he was alone inside the warehouse before PC Watkins showed up. Robert Paul could have killed Polly Nichols, doubled back, then waited for a passerby so that he could have the thrill of being there at the discovery of her body. And John Richardson could have killed Annie Chapman when he went to the yard at 4.45 (even though I certainly don’t think that Richardson was the ripper, a stronger case can be made for him than for Cross) Mere presence obviously doesn’t equate to guilt and yet it appears to mean just that for some. However it at least brings Cross’s actions into focus around the time of a murder and at the correct location - something that we can’t do for the majority of the named suspects.

The first thing that we know about Cross of course, and it’s a massively important point - he was exactly where he should have been at that time of day when he found the body. Imagine a modern day murder in a London back street in the early hours and the guy who discovered the body passed that spot every morning at that time. What would be the chances of that guy being there guilty party? Close to zero. But what if the victim was the victim of a serial killer. How much even less likely would that make him? Does anyone here think that the police would have wasted a nanosecond on this ‘suspect.’ Of course not. When was a serial killer ever found at the scene of an outdoor murder? As far as I know…never.

So these facts alone absolutely shout from the rooftops “WITNESS!”

…..

When the above makes it so obvious that he was an innocent witness what does anyone have that provides an ‘in?’ What I mean by that is - what is that first thing about this man that raises an eyebrow and makes someone think “hmm, maybe…”

Apart from the real answer - nothing, we have that ‘gap’ again. That mysterious gap that, when James Scobie KC heard of this ‘fact’, he stated that Cross had a case to answer. Hold on though…we know that this is untrue don’t we. A ‘gap’ of time logically cannot be assumed when a) we don’t know the exact starting point, b) we don’t know the exact duration of the walk, and c) we cannot be certain of the time that Robert Paul arrived. So to state that there was an unexplained gap is a quite deliberate invention made to impress the crowd.

So - a gap certainly cannot be assumed. It’s not looking good is it? Is there anything left? It becomes increasingly obvious that the question isn’t “why do some people feel so strongly about Cross as a suspect?” It’s “why the hell would anyone consider this obviously innocent man a suspect in the first place?

…..

“He refused to handle the body”

Has there ever been a more ludicrous suggestion. If he had handled the body they would have said “look, he just loved handling corpses, sure sign of a serial killer.” You really can’t make this stuff up (hold on…someone did) It’s the most desperate stuff. He was squeamish, he didn’t want her to spring up and start screaming, he was worried that she had an accomplice hiding in the shadows, he didn’t want this little episode making him late for work. The everyday, non-sinister reasons pile up.

How desperate would anyone have to be to suggest this as a point for guilt ( well, incredibly desperate of course)

…..

So what else does the fact of him being there help us with?

Well is shows us as clearly as can be that this man wasn’t a killer for a start. He had every opportunity of escaping in the dark but no, our guy hangs around with a bloodied knife in his pocket for a chat with a complete stranger. And if he was a murderer, face with such a difficult situation, why didn’t he wait until Paul was over the body and then stab him. If he’d just killed one so another would hardly have mattered and away he gets with no awkward questions asked. No, he’d rather take potentially suicidal risks.

That Cross remained where he was is close to absolute proof of his innocence.

…..

Then we get into the serious desperation of the disputed conversation with Mizen but the top and bottom of this incident is this fact - he had a complete stranger standing next to him so it would have been impossible for him to have lied. That ends that point.

…..

Can we fail to notice this yawning chasm in front of us and the tumbleweeds in the wind behind us? The complete and utter absence of evidence. There just isn’t a single thing that raises an eyebrow even slightly.

…..

But there are a couple left. First…the name.

Cross used a false name….no he didn’t, he used his stepfather’s surname…and both of his correct Christian names…and his correct address…and his correct place of work. No one trying mislead the police would have done that. It’s another non-point. I bet no one ever bothered asking Cross to play hide and seek when he was a kid? How rubbish would he have been. He’d have crawled under the table with his a**e sticking out, imagining that no one could see him.

…..

Then the all time classic, the bottom-of-the-barrel-scraping Holy Grail of ripperological rubbish (just behind Plimmer’s Wine Glass of course) the apron. When either Geddy or Fiver told me that someone online had suggested that Cross wearing his work clothes to the inquest was a sign of guilt I had to check that it wasn’t April 1st. I still shake my head when someone mentions it. It’s a classic.

…..

Charles Cross acted exactly like a normal bloke would act that found a body on his way to work but this is the problem with defend-at-all-costs suspectology (something that we see regularly) It results in people getting carried away as if they’re creating a plot for a mystery play. Pick on someone that was vertical at the time and let the imagination do the rest….articles, books, a documentary and a YouTube channel. Perhaps there’s a play in the offing or a new line in Carman Colouring Books. Business is business after all.

[Geddy2112]

Counting back some 1725 meters from the entrance on Eldon Street to where they met Mizen, would, at a very fast walking speed of 6.5 km/hour put them there at 3:43 and half a minute or thereabouts. And, according to Paul, he first saw Nichols about 4 minutes earlier, which would make the time 3:39 and half a minute or so. About seven minutes before that, it would have been 3:32 or so when Cross would have left home. The slower the carman walked, the earlier he and Paul would have left Mizen, the closer to 3:30 Cross left home.

Absolutely, basic maths wins again. Evidence is not always what someone said or left behind etc. It can be taking point A, using it with point B to get to point C. As long as the A and B are in the evidence of course before Team Lechmere spout about the time gap or him being in point B without knowing point A.

Pickfords could have easily have backed up Cross' claims and basic maths shows us that he will indeed have left home about 3:30am and certainly not have time to find, manually strangle and cut up poor Polly before Robert Paul got on the scene. The murder most likely happened about 3:30am when the witness heard the mumblings and the train go by.

[FrankO]

#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.

They could, however, confirm to the police that he'd arrived at Pickford's "at four o'clock".

Not "at about 4 o'clock", but "at four o'clock", according to Cross's inquest statement. So, he stated that he left home "at about 3:30" and that he arrived at Pickford's "at 4 o'clock".

Counting back some 1725 meters from the entrance on Eldon Street to where they met Mizen, would, at a very fast walking speed of 6.5 km/hour put them there at 3:43 and half a minute or thereabouts. And, according to Paul, he first saw Nichols about 4 minutes earlier, which would make the time 3:39 and half a minute or so. About seven minutes before that, it would have been 3:32 or so when Cross would have left home. The slower the carman walked, the earlier he and Paul would have left Mizen, the closer to 3:30 Cross left home.

[FrankO]

- 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.

Have a look at Henry David Scott/Henry David Reynolds. His case was filed under the name of Scott, which was the name of his stepfather. His birth name was Reynolds.
Have a look at the case of Charles Taylor/Charles Jones. He used the name Taylor, his stepfather's name in some court appearance without telling his birthname was Jones. Would Charles Cross/Lechmere and Charles Taylor/Jones have been the only ones who just gave the name of their stepfather in an official capacity and not their birth name? Or is it possible, if not likely, that there were more, but just never were 'found out'?

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?

That would, obviously, depend on how good of an explanation he would have for using Cross, wouldn't it? If he wasn't known anywhere as Cross, then using Cross wouldn't be a smart thing. If he was known as Cross, for instance, at work, then it wouldn't be any risk at all. Certainly when, in fact, he was innocent. If he was guilty, however, and not known anywhere as Cross, but instead just as having had a stepfather whose name was Cross and who'd died a long time ago, then it wouldn't be a very smart thing to do. Better than, for example, Smith, but particularly smart, no.

[Geddy2112]

Newbie some questions for you, thank you questions.

[Geddy2112]

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

You seem to reluctant to read the posts relating to this. There is no such thing as a 'true' name by definition in the UK and his legal name was Cross. No matter how you spin it. Also I note you still have not answered my questions from post #243. So why should we answer yours?

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

However this did not happen according to the evidence he could have been 61 feet away from the victim when he first noticed her and thus in the middle of the road 30.5 feet away from her... yes 10 yards. You do know the Pythagoras theory I presume.

Given that he lacked a criminal record under the name of Lechmere

Not one under Cross either that we are aware of, so another mute point.

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.

There is evidence in the form of Cross' testimony he walked up Bucks Row, got to the Wool Warehouse, spotted a bundle, crossed to the middle of the road, heard footsteps from 40 yards away, turned BACK to the north pavement and tried to attract the attention of the passer-by. There is ZERO evidence he was at the body alone. How far in front of Paul he was is irrelevant.

We have evidence involving an absence of recognition of sight and sound, between Paul and Lechmere, until one was at the body

Where is the evidence one was at the body alone?

Fails to continue towards the body and waits for Paul, the body being only a few steps away

Ah so again you now claim Cross was NOT at the body alone, great. BTW it's closer to 30 feet away not a few steps...

Fails to check the victim for breathing/heart beat

Other first finders?

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.

Total garbage. They both checked the state of the victim. I'm being to realise now that you are just a wind up merchant but have actually not read the statements relating to this case. I've already explained in post #209 why Cross would continue up Hanbury Street instead of wasting precious time turning back Eastwards to join Old Montague Street when the difference in the routes is small. I believe you greet this point with a hopeful face palm emoji so it proves you basically have total contempt for people telling you the truth and can't accept evidence in this case. Like I said a proper wind up merchant. All you are doing though is making yourself look very very stupid.

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.

Just to re-affirm my above opinion. We again, no matter how many times you are told with evidence you still do not believe Cross was never at the body alone. Why is that?

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

That is impossible to answer because HE WAS NEVER AT THE BODY ALONE.



A map showing the distance from the corner of the Wool Warehouse. Common sense, phew, tells us we do not see something in front of us when we are completely adjacent to it. Cross did not, like we would not notice Polly from the shortest distance across the road. According to his photograph he did not have eyes where his ears were. So if Cross walked the blue line to the middle of the road, again I assume most of us would as it's the most direct then he was 30.5 feet away from Polly when he was in the middle of the road. This is in the evidence.

[Fiver]

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.

Every point in your list is false.
* Robert Paul never stated what distance he saw Cross at. Paul was never asked if he heard Cross before he saw him. Nothing has been demonstrated about the acoustics of Bucks Row. Several people were awake nearby and none of them heard Charles Cross and Robert Paul.

* Science still supports Cross.
** Based on the shape of the ears, we heard noises in front of us better than we hear noises behind us.
** The human brain tends to filter out noises it considers unimportant.
** Auditory masking means louder sounds tend to mask softer sounds. Lechmere was walking, PC Neil was standing still.
** Auditory sensing is reduced when walking.
** Once Lechmere spotted something ahead of him, his brain would have focused on identifying it - from just a shape, to maybe a tarpaulin, to it's a woman. Once hie perceived it was a woman, his visual perception load dropped significantly, which science tells us is exactly when Lechmere would be most likely to become much better at noticing auditory stimuli.

* Nothing in Cross' behavior shows he knew what the state of the victim was when Paul arrived.

* The only witnesses who went directly to the victims were police officers. All this proves is your double standards.

* Cross felt Nichols hand and thought it felt cold. Cross did more to tell if the victim was alive than Albert Crow, John Reeves, John Davis, or Lewis Diemschutz did. All this proves is your double standards.

* 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? So you think Robert Paul was the Ripper? All this proves is your double standards.

* You have been shown repeatedly, with links, that there was no significant difference between the Hanbury and Old Montague routes. You ignoring evidence doesn't make it go away. And tagging along with Paul would have been a stupid thing for Rippermere to do - increasing the chances Paul would spot unexplained blood stains and the chance Paul would be able to ID him later.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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?’

[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.