Robert Paul

[Abby Normal]

I agree, Michael. It’s argued that Lechmere w/couldn’t run because, otherwise, he would likely have run right into the arms of PC Neil, for example, (although no alarm would be raised for at least half a minute after walking away), but waiting for Paul would only mean increasing the risk of walking into this SAME PC on the western stretch of Buck’s Row or, even, of this PC arriving at the spot before he & Paul could leave. This would have been a very real possibility and Lechmere the killer could not bank on it not to happen.

I can’t imagine that meeting a PC in Buck’s Row (who would very likely be the beat PC) would look more attractive to Lechmere than walking away right after hearing Paul.

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank/all
I agree-the most likely thing for him to have done was skidaddle the second her heard or saw Paul.

However, if he thought he was almost caught red handed, and wasn't sure what Paul had seen He may have froze for a second or two and stayed put to bluff it out.
but then he walks with Paul to the policeman. he could have separated with him at any point.

that being said Ive softened a little bit to the whole thing because I had a similar experience. walking to my car late at night that was parked in an alley I turned the corner and came upon a man down and a man very near. he said when he saw me go get help. I turned and went back out in the street and flagged a copper. when we got back the standing man had fled and the man on the ground was coming to. he said the other man had knocked him out and stole his wallet, watch and phone.

[Robert St Devil]

hello franko. he would have had to have known pc neil was coming from that direction to fear running away from paul. there have been two points that ive been considering in the lechmere theory:

1. he had a knife and was capable of murder. why not juat stab paul?
2. how could he distinguish between the sound of paul's boots and a constable's boots? or, how did he know that the approaching man (paul) wasn't the constable?

[Joshua Rogan]

2. how could he distinguish between the sound of paul's boots and a constable's boots? or, how did he know that the approaching man (paul) wasn't the constable?

Hi Robert

Police issue boots of the Victorian period were notoriously heavy; I believe Punch magazine once said they could be heard a full half mile away. While this is (probably) an exaggeration, Neil did say he heard (rather than saw) his fellow PC Thain pass the end of Buck's Row, which was about 100 yards away. Contrast that with Cross first hearing Paul approach at just 40 yards.

[FrankO]

However, if he thought he was almost caught red handed, and wasn't sure what Paul had seen He may have froze for a second or two and stayed put to bluff it out.
but then he walks with Paul to the policeman. he could have separated with him at any point.

Hi Abby,

A couple of remarks.

Firstly, of course, Lechmere the killer may not have been completely sure about what Paul had seen, but I would think he must have been fairly sure Paul wouldn’t see him before he’d taken his position in the middle of the street. Otherwise, why do it at all? What use would it have if Paul could hear or see him before he was ready?

Secondly, I don’t have any doubts that Lechmere may have frozen for a couple of seconds when he first heard Paul, but a couple of seconds wouldn’t have mattered much, as Paul would still have been some 50 yards away from him after those couple of seconds, which wouldn’t have changed the situation much. He would still have had half a minute or so to walk away instead of increasing the chance that he'd walk into the beat PC on the western part of Buck’s Row by waiting for Paul. If he judged the chance was too big that he would walk right into the arms of a PC if he would get away when he first heard Paul, that chance would only increase with the time he waited before leaving the crime spot, whether that would be alone or in company with Paul.

All the best,
Frank

[rjpalmer]

This is a belated but promised response to comments made by Ed Stow in the comment section of his ‘House of Lechmere’ channel on Youtube, in a recent video critical of Inspector Frederick Abberline.

I had originally planned to only reply in the comment section of the HoL, but I realize now that this would be futile, since YouTube comment sections are not organized, and new posts are immediately sent to the back of the queue which means that any in-depth commentary is soon lost among a sea of general cheerleading.

I realize that Ed Stow doesn’t post on this site, but I will alert him to my post so he can respond if and where he wants.

My brief exchange with Stow began when I referred to Robert Paul’s estimated time of arrival in Buck’s Row as “asinine.”

Paul claimed that he had entered the street at 3.45 a.m., but had he done so he would have run smack dab into PC Neil who deposed that he was with the body, lantern in hand, at 3:45. Further, Paul would have seen PC Thain approaching the intersection. Further yet, PC Mizen deposed that he was with Paul near Baker’s Row & Hanbury street at 3.45, and if we throw in Charles Cross, Paul’s estimate clearly clashes with all four witnesses, whose own accounts dovetail admirably. This observation is nothing new, of course; it has been made many times by many independent researchers.

Ultimately, Inspector Abberline, who had access to all the witnesses and witness statements, set down the discovery of the body by Cross (with Paul close on his heels) at 3.40 a.m.

As this is the time determined by the lead investigator it is the one that should be adopted by historians of the case.

Stow’s rebuttal was that Robert Paul’s 3.45 a.m. estimate was supported by Coroner Wynne Baxter and, more importantly, by Donald Swanson at Scotland Yard:

“The coroner must gave been assenine too, as he sided with Paul's time, as did Swanson, and we know Neil was confused about timings as he said he was at Buck's Row ans Winthrop Street at 3.15.”

This is the claim I want to examine.

[rjpalmer]

Coroner Wynne Baxter’s alleged support of Robert Paul can be easily dismissed. In his summation, Baxter stated “The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m. as it was fixed by so many independent data.”

If Baxter endorsed Paul ‘exact’ time of 3.45, why did Baxter say the time ‘cannot have been far off’ 3.45? That’s a strange way of endorsing something. Further, Baxter is clearly not looking at Paul’s estimate in isolation; he refers to ‘so many’ independent data—which shows Baxter was juggling different witness statements.

Worse yet, Nichol’s body was independently discovered twice—first by Cross and then by Neil—so it is not entirely clear which discovery Baxter is commenting on—he seems to be striking a happy medium between the two discoveries, which is entirely reasonable in a summation where the precise time is not relevant to the aims of the inquest.

Finally, as has been pointed out by other researchers, Baxter also stated that Nichols was seen at 2.30 a.m. by Mrs. Holland, and in “less than an hour and a quarter her dead body was discovered” (see Daily Telegraph 24 September) Simple subtraction tells us that less than 75 minutes after 2:30 a.m. means that Baxter believed that Nichols’ body was found BEFORE 3.45, which does not agree with Paul’s account.

I’ll now turn to Donald Swanson.

Stow is mirroring Christer Holmgren’s strange suggestion that in a much later report, not written until 19 October, Donald Swanson saw fit to revise or “amend” Abberline’s estimated time of 3.40 to 3:45--because, supposedly, Swanson accepted the accuracy of Robert Paul’s account.

“Amended” is the word Christer Holmgren used in ‘Cutting Point.’

This is a bizarre suggestion. On October 19tth, Donald Swanson was a very busy man, submitting no less than three different overviews of the three different murder investigations to the Home Office, each quite lengthy. Besides his report on the Buck’s Row murder, his other two long reports described the murders of Annie Chapman and Liz Stride and the subsequent investigations.

As will be seen, while writing these reports Swanson was often inaccurate, and he was particularly inaccurate about timings.

Here are some examples.

In his second report to the Home Office (Subject: Hanbury Street) Swanson makes the following statement:

“2 a.m. 8th Sept. 1888. She [Annie Chapman] was last seen alive at 2 a.m. 8th Sept. by John Donovan, 35 Dorset Street, Spitalfields, lodging house keeper….”

This sounds official, but here is the reality from John Donovan’s deposition: “She [Chapman] stood in the door two or three minutes, and then repeated, “Never mind, Tim; I shall soon be back. Don’t let the bed.” It was then about ten minutes to two a.m. She left the house, going in the direction of Brushfield Street.” (Daily Telegraph, 11 Sept).

Annie Chapman left the house at about 1:50 a.m. Donald Swanson was off by roughly ten minutes.

Let’s turn now to Swanson’s report to the Home Office #3 Subject: Murder of Elizabeth Stride at Duffields [sic] Yard). (Note that Swanson got the name of the yard wrong)

“1.10 a.m. Body was examined by the Doctors mentioned [Blackwell & Phillips] who pronounced life extinct….”

But here is he reality. Dr. Blackwell’s deposition: “…I followed immediately I was dressed. I consulted my watch on my arrival, it was 1:16 a.m.” (Daily Telegraph, 3 Oct)

This is one of the rare times when a witness directly stated that he referred to his watch and yet Swanson’s report was off by six minutes.

And Swanson was also wrong about Dr. Phillips arriving in Dutfield’s Yard at the same time as Dr. Blackwell.

Dr. Phillips’ deposition (Daily Telegraph, 4 Oct.) “I was called on Sunday morning last at twenty past one to Leman-Street Police-station, and was sent to Berner-street, to a yard at the side of what proved to be a clubhouse.”

Bear in mind that it would have taken several minutes for Phillips to travel from Lemen Street to Berner Street. We don’t know how long this took, but he clearly wasn’t in Berner Street until well after 1:20, meaning that Swanson is off by a good 13-20 minutes in his report. Perhaps more.

Swanson states John Davis went into the backyard of 29 Hanbury at 6:00 a.m. But Davis didn’t give an exact time; he only deposed that he woke at 5:45, had a cup of tea, and went into the yard at “about 6:00.”

Swanson states that PC William Smith observed a respectably dressed man with Liz Stride at 12.35. Yet, technically, Smith deposed that he had been in the street sometime between 12:30 and 12:35 and didn’t give an exact time of this sighting, either.

Clearly, Swanson wasn’t “amending” anything—he was giving rough estimates, sometimes inaccurately.

[rjpalmer]

While writing this rebuttal to Stow, I had an opportunity to reread a book review of Holmgren’s “Cutting Point” on the Orsam Books website, and noticed that, not surprisingly, David Barrat also noted disparities between witness accounts and Swanson’s reports.

For instance, Swanson wrote that John Richardson sat on the back steps of 29 Hanbury at 4.45 whereas Richardson never gave a precise time—only stating he had been in the house between 4.45. and 4.50. Barrat also notes that Swanson refers to Richardson as living at 29 Hanbury whereas he resided at 2 John Street. Swanson also attributes exact times to Alber Cadosch and Mrs. Elisabeth Long when neither were precise. Swanson’s time estimate in the Martha Tabram case is particularly problematic:

“When we look at Swanson's report of the Tabram murder, we find him saying that John Reeves found the body of a woman the landing of George Yard at '4.50am 7th Augt. 1888'. Yet, in his inquest evidence on 9 August 1888, Reeves stated that 'he left home at a quarter to 5 to seek work' and that, when he reached the first-floor landing of his apartment building, he found deceased lying on her back in a pool of blood (Times 10 August 1888). Are we supposed to believe that Swanson carefully calculated that it took Reeves a full five minutes to walk from his front door at 37 George Yard Buildings down to the first floor landing of George Yard Buildings? I don't think so! It looks like he simply took the time of 4.50am from Inspector Ellisdon's report of 10 August 1888. Presumably, though, Holmgren would tell us that there is a mysterious gap of five minutes between Reeves leaving his home and him discovering the body within the same apartment building!”

None of this is meant to rake Donald Swanson over the coals; he was under a good deal of strain and his minor discrepancies, for the most part, didn’t matter. Yet by now the truth should be obvious: Swanson’s general overviews—written for the benefit of the Home Office--were not exercises in “revision” or in “amending” the conclusions of the investigating officers. Swanson encapsulated and estimated the chronology of events, and when he did give specific times, he was off by three minutes or six minutes to as much as fifteen minutes.

Finally, I would also like to acknowledge another relevant point made by Barrat.

“What is so interesting about Inspector Abberline's report is that none of the witnesses mentioned 3.40 am at the inquest, so it looks as if Abberline actually did give the matter some thought and concluded that Neil's timing of about 3.45 when he discovered the body was likely to be correct so that Lechmere and Paul must have arrived in Bucks Row about five minutes prior to this. It makes perfect sense for him to have made this calculation, bearing in mind that Mizen corroborated Neil's timing by saying that he was told about the body in Bucks Row at about a quarter to four, while he was in the process of knocking up (and thus, considering that he was getting people out of bed at an ungodly hour in the morning, must have had a reasonably good idea of what the time was).”

I will only add that Inspector Fred Abberline was present when Robert Paul gave his account to the inquest on 17 September. We know this because a juryman asked Abberline about the unidentified man seen by Patrick Mulshaw, and Abberline responded that the man had not been traced. (See Daily Telegraph 18 September 1888 and other sources).

Thus Abberline was (of course) fully aware that Paul said he had entered the street at 3.45 a.m., yet when Abberline wrote his report on the Buck’s Row murder two days later, 19 September, he rejected Paul’s estimate and recorded the time of Polly Nichols’ discovery as 3.40 [MEPO 3/140, ff. 242-56]. And unlike Swanson’s report to the Home Office, this was an internal Metropolitan Police report—to be referenced by those tasked with solving the murders.

This dismissal of Paul by Scotland Yard’s chief investigator should be the end of the matter. Ed Stow is forced, rather lamely, to ignore Abberline and to lean heavily on a vague statement made by the coroner and on a general report filed fully seven weeks after the murder by a senior officer who was casual in his use of precise times.

Ultimately, Stow’s belief that Baxter and Swanson accepted Robert Paul’s estimate must be looked upon with extreme skepticism. And with that, the “missing time” he uses to implicate Charles Cross vanishes.

--

I will end by raising my coffee cup and proposing a toast to Fred Abberline.

[rjpalmer]

P.S. In case I'm accused of leaving it out, Ed's comment to me also contained the following sentence:

"Superintendent Andy Griffiths - who unlike you is a seasoned homicide detective, being in charge of Sussex Murder Squad didn't agree with any if your assessment."

Of course, Superintendent Griffiths doesn't know about my assessment, so he could hardly agree or disagree with it.

In the 'Missing Evidence' episode, Griffiths does cooperate with Christer Holmgren on his stopwatch experiment, and seemingly endorses it, but I'm not seeing where he addresses the obvious contradiction between Paul's statement and that of four other witnesses.

Perhaps that discussion was left on the cutting room floor?

[Herlock Sholmes]

P.S. In case I'm accused of leaving it out, Ed's comment to me also contained the following sentence:

"Superintendent Andy Griffiths - who unlike you is a seasoned homicide detective, being in charge of Sussex Murder Squad didn't agree with any if your assessment."

Of course, Superintendent Griffiths doesn't know about my assessment, so he could hardly agree or disagree with it.

In the 'Missing Evidence' episode, Griffiths does cooperate with Christer Holmgren on his stopwatch experiment, and seemingly endorses it, but I'm not seeing where he addresses the obvious contradiction between Paul's statement and that of four other witnesses.

Perhaps that discussion was left on the cutting room floor?

Just like the word ‘about.’

Three excellent, well reasoned posts Roger. It’s just a pity that you have to make them.

[Lewis C]

Basically, any argument that is dependent on a given time being exactly right and that assumes a given time couldn't be off by 5 minutes is a bad argument. But it is made worse if in assuming that a given time is exactly right, one must ignore other given times.

[Geddy2112]

The main (of many) issues with the Lechmere Theory is it relies on the Remarkable Statement which Holmgren in his book p66:

The Lloyd's article “contains material that needs to be treated with caution.”

Take away Robert Paul's 'exactly 3:45am' timing which they use you have no time gap. It is this not under oath point that they heavily rely on to frame Cross. We have three serving under oath PCs that claim Paul was with Cross at the end of Hanbury Street with Mizen at 3:45 or at least NOT in Bucks Row.

Robert Paul is not a trustworthy witness, this is seen in his 'Remarkable Statement' and for once Holmgren get's it correct, it should be treated with caution. For me it should be disregarded completely.

It speaks volumes with Holmgren has to go and write a complete fantasy piece in the Ripperologist trying to suggest Paul is honest.