Robert Paul

[Fisherman]

Hair Bear: Other than the patently obvious one of pinning it on Cross, I have no idea - much the same as I have no idea why, if Cross killed Nichol's, he, Cross, didn't simply walk on or else sneak off down Winthrop or Court Street (which is what the real killer probably did). Remember that Holmgren's theory tells us that Cross heard Paul coming from the moment Paul enters Buck's Row, which would give Cross loads of time to make his escape. So perhaps you can explain why Cross made the dumb decision to remain with the body?

I should perhaps inform you that I am actually Holmgren
Now, how would Paul pin anything on Lechmere by waiting for him to arrive? Lechmere could easily have said goodby and gone off, could he not?

As for why Lechmere stayed with the body, Andy Griffiths said in the docu that there was no way Lechmere would run, given the amount of PC:s and watchmen around. I tend to agree that it would be a dangerous thing to do. There is also the possibility that Lechmere was in a sort of bubble, cutting away at Nichols, and only heard Paul very late in the process.


That depends on which paper you read. According to the Telegraph, 4th Sept, it was Paul who refused.

Yes, I know. That is the one and only paper that has it that way, which is why I suggest they simply got it wrong.

As I said previously, I don't think either is the killer, but it isn't an "odd reason" why Paul keeps popping up and there's no reason to wonder why. It makes sense to eliminate any possible suspect, not just a prime one - not least because, as history has shown us, it isn't always the (Colin Stagg) prime suspect who did the dirty deed.

Right. So letīs eliminate Paul. He would have been merely 16 in 1873 anyway...

[Hair Bear]

If Paul killed Nichols and then decided to hide in Bucks Row - why did he change that decision and step forward as Lechmere arrived? .

Other than the patently obvious one of pinning it on Cross, I have no idea - much the same as I have no idea why, if Cross killed Nichol's, he, Cross, didn't simply walk on or else sneak off down Winthrop or Court Street (which is what the real killer probably did). Remember that Holmgren's theory tells us that Cross heard Paul coming from the moment Paul enters Buck's Row, which would give Cross loads of time to make his escape. So perhaps you can explain why Cross made the dumb decision to remain with the body?

If Paul killed Nichols, why did he suggest they should prop her up, when he must have known that it would give away what had happened? .

That depends on which paper you read. According to the Telegraph, 4th Sept, it was Paul who refused.

The suggestion that Paul was the killer keeps popping up fr some odd reason. One wonders why, when Lechmere fits the bill so much better.

As I said previously, I don't think either is the killer, but it isn't an "odd reason" why Paul keeps popping up and there's no reason to wonder why. It makes sense to eliminate any possible suspect, not just a prime one - not least because, as history has shown us, it isn't always the (Colin Stagg) prime suspect who did the dirty deed.

[Fisherman]

Apologies if I'm posting this in the wrong section, but I'd like to know if anyone has done any extensive research into Robert Paul?

It seems strange to me that many have leapt on to the "Charles Cross was the Ripper" bandwagon without once ever questioning Robert Paul's possible involvement. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe either Paul or Cross is the Ripper (not least, in Cross' case, because I'm swayed by a belief that you wouldn't say you thought you were looking at a tarpaulin unless that's actually what happened), but why assume Cross lied and not Paul? If Paul were the Ripper, it wouldn't be too difficult to hide in the shadows until an unsuspecting Cross passed by, then pop up as the innocent walking behind - remember in Holmgren's documentary that Cross doesn't hear Paul until he's close by, when, according to Holmgren, you would hear the footsteps long beforehand. It also strikes me as odd that nobody has questioned extensively Paul's timing. PC Neal finds to body at 3:45, Thain says he is contacted by a body-finding Neal at 3:45, Mizen says he talks to Paul & Cross at 3:45, yet Paul claims to have entered Buck's Row at 3:45. Paul must have been there well in advance of that time. And remember, it's Paul who tells Cross he doesn't want to wait for a policeman. He says the reason for this is because he's late, but since this isn't yet 3:45, and since his place of work is only 12 mins walk away, then he isn't late.

If Paul killed Nichols and then decided to hide in Bucks Row - why did he change that decision and step forward as Lechmere arrived?

If Paul killed Nichols, why did he suggest they should prop her up, when he must have known that it would give away what had happened?

The suggestion that Paul was the killer keeps popping up fr some odd reason. One wonders why, when Lechmere fits the bill so much better.

[Hair Bear]

Apologies if I'm posting this in the wrong section, but I'd like to know if anyone has done any extensive research into Robert Paul?

It seems strange to me that many have leapt on to the "Charles Cross was the Ripper" bandwagon without once ever questioning Robert Paul's possible involvement. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe either Paul or Cross is the Ripper (not least, in Cross' case, because I'm swayed by a belief that you wouldn't say you thought you were looking at a tarpaulin unless that's actually what happened), but why assume Cross lied and not Paul? If Paul were the Ripper, it wouldn't be too difficult to hide in the shadows until an unsuspecting Cross passed by, then pop up as the innocent walking behind - remember in Holmgren's documentary that Cross doesn't hear Paul until he's close by, when, according to Holmgren, you would hear the footsteps long beforehand. It also strikes me as odd that nobody has questioned extensively Paul's timing. PC Neal finds to body at 3:45, Thain says he is contacted by a body-finding Neal at 3:45, Mizen says he talks to Paul & Cross at 3:45, yet Paul claims to have entered Buck's Row at 3:45. Paul must have been there well in advance of that time. And remember, it's Paul who tells Cross he doesn't want to wait for a policeman. He says the reason for this is because he's late, but since this isn't yet 3:45, and since his place of work is only 12 mins walk away, then he isn't late.