Robert Paul

[Hair Bear]

FAO Harry/Fisherman...

Guys - you have no need to argue. Having read all of your posts there is a clear similarity between you, in that you have intelligence, knowledge, and (the very thing that is causing some friction here) oodles of passion. These are all excellent traits, especially when we consider that these are the very things needed to help us achieve what is after all a common goal - to unearth the Ripper. Indeed, a love for the mystery of the Ripper is yet another similarity between you. Now then, at this moment in time I don't believe Cross was the Ripper (in fact, I don't believe any single person ever mentioned is the Ripper, not least Paul). However, I concede that that doesn't make me right, and so I am more than happy for someone, in this case Christer, to continue unearthing (fascinating) facts about a person who, after all, is a worthy suspect. By a similar token, however, I'm saddened when I hear that it isn't worth unearthing any facts about Paul. Let's face it, even if he isn't the Ripper, wouldn't it be interesting to know more about someone who is a player in this greatest of all 'plays', who has touched hands with history? To that end, rather than insist that "The Ripper IS such and such" or insist that "The Ripper ISN'T such and such", let's just work together by obtaining as many facts as possible about ALL the characters thrown up by the Whitechapel murders. There is no harm in disagreeing about theories, but there is harm in falling out over it. Yes, the Ripper might well be Cross/Lechmere, and yes, the Ripper might well not be Cross/Lechmere. Surely that makes sense? So, come on, do the right thing, shake hands and let's all remain open minded.

[Hair Bear]

Okay. Myself, I tend to see the man from the earlier pub visit, Schwartz´s man and Marshalls man as possibly the same man, but I am in now way certain. As I remember it, Smiths man deviated by wearing a deerstalker, by carrying a parcel, by being taller and by being older than Schwartz´s man. And of course, by being differently dressed than Lawendes sailor. So to me, it´s all very shaky and inconclusive.
But you are of course entitled to your hunch - we all have them and cherish them...!

Smith's: 5ft 7-8. Age 28. Small dark tash. Deerstalker. Black Coat. Parcel (important that).

Schwartz: 5ft 5. Age 30. Small brown tash. Peaked cap (lost in translation, he might have meant a deerstalker - your thoughts?). Dark jacket.

Hutchinson: 5ft 6. Age 34-5. Slight tash. Long dark coat. Parcel (parcel again!)

Mrs Long: A little taller than the woman (so 5ft 5 to 5ft 8). Brown deerstalker hat. Dark coat. She says he's over 40 but, crucially, she didn't see his face only his back.

To me, these people are all describing the same man - a shortarse who is in his late 20s to mid 30s and who wears a dark coat and hat.

Cross's appearance: Swaddling cloth, height 6ft 11 LOL

[Hair Bear]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;396851]
As I say, this is not all. There is another matter to add too, but I am keeping it under wraps for now.
You tease! But hey, thanks for all the info, good stuff.

As I said, either Mizen or Neil is wrong
Why is one or the other wrong? Mizen said he spoke to Cross & Paul at 3:45. That would surely tie in with Neil finding Nichols at 3:45

I don´t smell a rat at all. I smell a carman who had reason to be oriented about the time since he was late, and I smell consistent testimony on his behalf. But we all have differing smelling sense...
Yes, we do ...but LOL!!!

People with multiple personalitites can have totally different handwriting styles, making the connection undetectable to any graphologist, so I would not bank on such a thing. However, I do not think that the Ripper wrote any of the letters, although I keen an open mind on a few of them. The Dear Boss letter is not one of them.
Glad you said "Can". In my initial year at senior school, at the end of the first term I took a rollocking off the head of English for using no less than 24 different styles of writing :-)

[Fisherman]

So, Hair Bear, I am Harry are very alike...?

Genealogists tell me that arabs and jews are very alike too.

We share an interest in the Ripper case, but we do not share the idea that evidence and how we treat it is all-important.

Actually, Mizen cannot have been approached by the carmen in at the same time Neil found Nichols. It´s a question of distances, mainly. Neil would have come onto Bucks Row from Thomas Street. From where the streets joined up, he had three times as long a stretch down to the body as Lechmere and Paul had from the junction of Bucks Row and Bakers Row down to Mizen. And Neil would have been walking at a slow beat pace, whereas the carmen were both hurring onm being late.
The carmen will have passed the junction before Neil came into Bucks Row, otherwise the PC would have noticed them, and he said afterwards that he had seen or heard nobody; the streets were totally empty according to him.

So if we have the carmen past the junction when Neil enters Bucks Row, then they had less than a minutes walk to Mizen, more like 30-45 seconds. And Nail had around 2-3 minute´s walk down to the body.

Overall, though, Neil, Mizen and Thain may all have had their timings roughly correct. But we can see that they cannot all have been exactly correct. And the only person who nails the time exactly - or claims to do so - is Robert Paul in the paper interview: "It was exactly 3.45..."

What possible reason could he have had for saying "exactly" if he had no real idea? Then again, it can be reasoned that he may have looked at a clock that was incorrect. But overall, when we put the pieces together, I think we need to accept that pushing the time Paul found Lechmere standing close to Nichols dead body towards 3.40 works a lot worse than pushing it towards 3.50. And that has to do with a weighing of all the matters involved.

Anything more? Ah, the hats! No, I don´t think that a deerstalker will be mistaken for a peaked cap, unless it is only seen from the front!

[Hair Bear]

Anything more? Ah, the hats! No, I don´t think that a deerstalker will be mistaken for a peaked cap, unless it is only seen from the front!

I mean that because Schwartz doesn't speak English, his attempt to describe a deerstalker could easily have been interpreted as a peaked cap.

Actually, Mizen cannot have been approached by the carmen in at the same time Neil found Nichols. It´s a question of distances, mainly.

Aye, now I've studied the distances, you're right. Thanks. Of course this, to some, doesn't make Thain and Neil's time wrong, but merely heaps more "incompetent" or "fibber" on Mizen.

What possible reason could he have had for saying "exactly" if he had no real idea?

This depends upon whether you believe Paul's Remarkable Statement is a direct quote or else a journalist's ham-fisted version. If we are to believe the latter, then "exactly" goes out of the window, and Thain and Neil are right. If we believe the former, then we must also believe...

That Paul left Mizen in no doubt that Nichol's was dead ("I told him the woman was dead").

That 'The missing Evidence' narrator was very naughty when he said that only Cross went to speak to him.

That Paul believed the woman had been dead for some time ("The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time").

Now then, if Cross was "flushed out" of hiding (as stated in 'The Missing Evidence') by Paul's Statement, then he will have read that Paul mentioned nothing about his believing she was perhaps breathing, so why would he, Cross, bring it up at the inquest? Also, although some of the papers have Paul saying he thought she was breathing at the inquest, at least one (18th Sept Times) echoes his Remarkable Statement: "Witness felt her hands and face, and they were cold. He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not, and he thought she was dead." This backs up his Remarkable Statement.

[Fisherman]

Hair Bear: I mean that because Schwartz doesn't speak English, his attempt to describe a deerstalker could easily have been interpreted as a peaked cap.

Much as that is a possibility, the assumption must be that the translation was correct.

Aye, now I've studied the distances, you're right. Thanks. Of course this, to some, doesn't make Thain and Neil's time wrong, but merely heaps more "incompetent" or "fibber" on Mizen.

Why would that be? A PC would normally - according to Monty, who is the specialist on matters police - relate to the five minute mark. And Paul said that the examination and the trek to Mizen took at most four minutes. So it may well have been around 3.50 as the carmen arrived, putting 3.45 within that five minute mark. There has been a lot of effort to try and castigate Mizen, and it may well have been wrong, all of it.


This depends upon whether you believe Paul's Remarkable Statement is a direct quote or else a journalist's ham-fisted version. If we are to believe the latter, then "exactly" goes out of the window, and Thain and Neil are right. If we believe the former, then we must also believe...

At the inquest, Paul said: "I am a carman, and on the morning of the murder I left home just before a quarter to four." That tallies perfectly with arriving in the street at 3.45, and there is an absense of ham-fisted reporters here.

That Paul left Mizen in no doubt that Nichol's was dead ("I told him the woman was dead").

Why must we believe all or nothing from the article? Please explain? The time reference dovetails with the inquest testimony, and we know that Mizen said he spoke to one man, not two. So maybe we can go with that?

That 'The missing Evidence' narrator was very naughty when he said that only Cross went to speak to him.

Mizen said the exact same.

That Paul believed the woman had been dead for some time ("The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time").

But at the inquest, he said that he felt her chest move, and the medico said that she was still warm as he arrived.

But you recommend that we refuse to believe all Paul said in the article...?

Now then, if Cross was "flushed out" of hiding (as stated in 'The Missing Evidence') by Paul's Statement, then he will have read that Paul mentioned nothing about his believing she was perhaps breathing, so why would he, Cross, bring it up at the inquest?

A bad liar lies about everything, and is easily found out. A good liar lies only a bout the things he has to lie about, and tries to stay as close to the truth as possible otherwise. Paul had not testified, and if he was found and said that he felt her breathe, it would work to Lechmeres advantage if he had been honest about it, And lo and behold, what did Paul say at the inquest? He said that "He and the man examined the body, and he felt sure he detected faint indications of breath".
If Lechmere had left that out, it would not look good in retrospect.

Also, although some of the papers have Paul saying he thought she was breathing at the inquest, at least one (18th Sept Times) echoes his Remarkable Statement: "Witness felt her hands and face, and they were cold. He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not, and he thought she was dead." This backs up his Remarkable Statement.

He could not hear any breath - but he could feel it. And hands can be cold on living people. To back up the article, he would need to say that he was certain that she was long dead.

[Hair Bear]

There has been a lot of effort to try and castigate Mizen
we know that Mizen said he spoke to one man, not two.

I think he’s castigated because, as I understand it...
He failed to tell his superiors or Neil that he had seen two witnesses/suspects.
He failed to take their names.
He failed to give accurate detail at the inquest, at first saying there was but one man. It was only when the Coroner (the one attended by the absence of ham-fisted reporters) stepped in to remind him that one plus one doesn’t equal one, that Mizen admitted to there being two (should have gone to Specsavers).

'The missing Evidence' narrator was very naughty when he said that only Cross went to speak to him.
Mizen said the exact same.

Which dovetails nicely with the bumbling Mizen’s incompetence.

And Paul said that the examination and the trek to Mizen took at most four minutes

“at most four minutes” seems right (and for advocates of Paul being the Ripper, your “A good liar lies only about the things he has to lie about, and tries to stay as close to the truth as possible otherwise” fits in sweetly). I did a very crude check via my tiny screen on Google Maps. The ‘Doveton Street to Nichol’s’ walk that you undertook took 7min 07secs. I measured this as 685m (so 3.59mph). The distance from the body to the corner of Hanbury Street is 270m. At the same rate of walking this would take 2min 48secs. Paul would have spent about a minute with the body, so 3min 48secs (“at most four minutes”).

Other
In the documentary the narrator said that Cross lived to be “a relatively wealthy man”. I’m assuming that you have uncovered information beyond a photograph to substantiate this. Can you give details, please?

Can you also post a link to the full-size 1911 picture? I can only find headshots on Google. Do you know where the photo was taken, and if that place still exists? Thanks.

[Fisherman]

Okay, Hair Bear, you have now reached the stadium where I answer just a litte bit of your post extensively.
So here goes:

I think he’s castigated because, as I understand it...

He failed to tell his superiors or Neil that he had seen two witnesses/suspects.

They would have been of a very subordinate character if Mizen was lied to the way that is suggest by the material. Mizen gave all the details that mattered: He was summoned to the murder site by a colleague (Neil).

He failed to take their names.

And the poster who is a specialist on the victorian police and their duties says that he had no duty to do so.

He failed to give accurate detail at the inquest, at first saying there was but one man.

He said that one man came up to him. He did not say that just one man arrived to the junction where he stood. So he told the truth as it was. If he had said that TWO men came up to him and spoke, he would not have told the truth.

It was only when the Coroner (the one attended by the absence of ham-fisted reporters) stepped in to remind him that one plus one doesn’t equal one, that Mizen admitted to there being two (should have gone to Specsavers).

Mizen did not "admit" that. To admit something is to recognize that you have misinformed before, and Mizen never did. He was approached by one man, he spoke to one man, and that man was Lechmere. The reason that the coroner knew about Paul, Hair Bear, what would you think that was? Was the coroner clairvoyant? Was he a lucky guesser? Or what? How on earth could he know?
Hint: He knew because somebody had told him. Guess who?

In the documentary the narrator said that Cross lived to be “a relatively wealthy man”. I’m assuming that you have uncovered information beyond a photograph to substantiate this. Can you give details, please?

He left a rather substantial amount of money behind. I don´t remember the exact sum, but it is on record.

Can you also post a link to the full-size 1911 picture? I can only find headshots on Google. Do you know where the photo was taken, and if that place still exists? Thanks.

The photo was taken, if my memory serves. in Carlton Street, where Lechmere kept a shop. I can post no link to the photo, since the photo is not mine to post. It belongs to the very nice Sue Lechmere.

[Hair Bear]

Charles Allen Picture

Thanks for taking your time to respond, Fisherman.

For anyone who wants to see the full picture of Cross/Lechmere, here's my humble 'pieced together' effort...

[Fisherman]

Thanks for taking your time to respond, Fisherman.

For anyone who wants to see the full picture of Cross/Lechmere, here's my humble 'pieced together' effort...

A bit more correct and thorough:
Lechmere lived in 24 Carlton Road at the time of the 1911 census, and he kept a general goods and sweets store there. The photo is from the following year, 1912.

[Hair Bear]

Again, thanks. I looked into his last address and was hoping the original building was still there, but alas, no so.

[Patrick S]

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

For the same reason you have Cross NOT simply walking off into the darkness: in order to completely avoid suspicion He'd hoped Cross would walk on. He didn't. He was FORCED OUT! What if he were discovered, as you say, "hiding" in Buck's Row? Precisely as you'd have us believe Cross eschewed the opportunity to simply walk away into the darkness in order to "bluff his way out", Paul pulls his scam to avoid suspicion for all time. His behavior makes sense, after all, in that he was a psychopath. As you say, whoever killed Nichols was Jack the Ripper and Jack the Ripper was a psychopath. As well, we must - as you've said with respect to Cross - view Paul as guilty and see how it holds up. So far, it's holding up pretty well!


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?

Paul suggested they prop her up in order to explain any blood that may have gotten on his person as he committed murder and mutilation. Being a cunning psychopath, he reasoned he may at some point be inspected by his companion or by the police. It seems he had to content himself with only touching Nichols, as Cross refused to help move her. He also seems to have tried a bluff on Cross, saying he thought her breathing.

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.

They fit the bill in precisely the same way, not well at all. However, if we're comparing the two, Paul is the much better candidate. Running his mouth in the press. His "hatred" of the police! Perhaps the murders were his way of making fools of the police he hated so intensely! He also "big upped" himself! A self-aggrandizer! A textbook narcissistic psychopath!

I think we've got it! No small thanks to Christer! His quite inaccurate theory led us to the real killer! All we had to do was apply the identical logic Christer applies to Cross to Paul.....and VIOLA! We've "got Jack the Ripper at last!"

[Patrick S]

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.

Yet, the killer DID run or - as is more likely - simply walk away after each of the subsequent murders. It cannot be argued that Buck's Row had more police in the vicinity on "high alert" than did Mitre Square. Yet, the killer did not hide in the shadows or attempt a bluff. He wasn't hidden in back of 29 Hanbury Street. He didn't hide in Dutfield's Yard. He didn't hide in Mary Kelly's bedroom. He walked away.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yet, the killer DID run or - as is more likely - simply walk away after each of the subsequent murders. It cannot be argued that Buck's Row had more police in the vicinity on "high alert" than did Mitre Square. Yet, the killer did not hide in the shadows or attempt a bluff. He wasn't hidden in back of 29 Hanbury Street. He didn't hide in Dutfield's Yard. He didn't hide in Mary Kelly's bedroom. He walked away.

Hi Patrick,

I think that someone has given Andy Griffiths the impression that Bucks Row was 'crawling' with Constables? I just don't see how it can be argued with a straight face that a guilty CL would have been better of staying put and waiting for someone to arrive(someone who could have been the hysterical type and shouted 'murderer!) than walking away to obvious freedom. He could have walked almost at running speed and attracted no attention as a man late for work.

[FrankO]

I just don't see how it can be argued with a straight face that a guilty CL would have been better of staying put and waiting for someone to arrive(someone who could have been the hysterical type and shouted 'murderer!) than walking away to obvious freedom.

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