Robert Paul

[JohnSAJR]

We can debate timings, who was where or what was heard, but don't forget Cross, the alleged murdering mastermind, had three different opportunities to say he'd heard running or declining footsteps as he approached Nichols - to Paul, Mizen and at the inquest. He had three days to concoct a simple cover story, before appearing at that inquest, but what does he do? He stands up and indirectly implicates himself. This is the biggest indicator of his innocence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm perfectly happy to hear how the 25 second time gap is tenable. In fact, I beg people here to tell me why its tenable.

Its always beneath people to come up with their reasoning .... or, they refer me to some vague place in Casebook, that I need to search out.

I'm ready for it Dusty - hit me!

Someone here was talking about sound masking involving Lechmere or Paul's footsteps, which I patiently explained was not a valid scientific theory in application to footsteps.

Someone (the same person?) spoke about the footsteps being heard on the unconscious but not conscious level, and when I challenged him to come up with a study, he demurred.

So, those two are none starters for me, and should be for anyone here who are seriously interested in the issue.

I'm ready!

There’s no point in telling you. You are clearly now one of the ‘select.’ A Disciple of the Church of the True Charles Cross.

Thankfully most of us in this subject haven’t been duped by this drivel.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You then mean, but don't say, that the evidence points to him being 40 - 50 yards in front of Paul marching along Bath Street and then up Buck's row ... correct? It's kind of important, because if Paul notices Lechmere earlier then the body, it would exonerate Lech .... and the Cross issue would fade away.

What evidence do you have? I hope it is not exclusively based on only part of Lechmere's testimony, editing out one or two important items mentioned by Lech. I hope that you are not merely satisfied with Lechmere telling you that he was just ahead of Paul and that you dropped everything else from consideration; that you are rigorous and analytical in your judgement, even handedly considering all the facts on the issue that we do have.

Well, here are the facts that we have. I ignored Lechmere's stated time of departing home as not a fact we can use, nor the just happening to conveniently hear Paul when moving towards the body item, because the killer would have also constructed such a story.

So, here they are: which ones do you wish to embrace or dispute?

A. parts of Lechmere's testimony:
- first noticing Paul's footsteps only while moving towards Polly Nichol's body - Staight in with a misunderstanding of what Cross actually said. Good start. What he said was: “ He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from.“

He saw the figure when he had arrived at the middle of the road.

- not hearing anyone else all the way up Buck's row, when he first enters the street - The murder occurred on the Friday morning, Cross testified on the Monday so we have to at least allow for the memory of trivial things that he wasn’t listening for in the first place. And how do you know how good Cross’s hearing was?

B. parts of Paul's testimony and witness statement to Lloyd's: failing to mention, on two separate occasions, marking the presence of Lechmere along Bath Street or Buck's row, before finally visualizing him at various points next to Polly Nichol's body. - Because he hadn’t seen or noticed him. Nothing mysterious.

C. PC Neil's testimony to hearing PC Mizen's footsteps, some 120 yards away on Brady street - How loud was Mizen’s tread compared to Paul’s? How good was Neill’s hearing compared to Cross’s? Cross wasn’t looking or listening for anyone; Neill was on alert due to the situation, knowing that he required assistance.

D. Paul's statement that people seldom walk up Buck's row (at that time) without being on their guard - Irrelevant.

E. Current scientific findings on how the brain cancels out repetitive stimuli, most particularly, in the action of movement, where the motor cortex signals the inhibitory neurons of the auditory cortex to ignore repetitive sounds associated with walking or running. - I’m unaware of these current ‘findings.’

F. The theory of sound masking: which has applications to jack hammers, but not a person's own footsteps. - So it’s somehow impossible not to notice a sound? Rubbish.

We have 5 facts and our current scientific understanding of the neurology of hearing on this matter: the theory of sound masking being a pseudo theory in this case.

Which do you wish to dispute? All of it.

The evidence, in conjunction with science, says that Paul would have heard or seen Lechmere well before the body, no it doesn’t and that Lechmere would have heard Paul, if they were separated by a distance well, well short of that between PCs Neil and Mizen. When someone claims to be somewhere, but people at that location neither see or hear him, but they should have, that means that person was still there - correct?

You do realize that the notion that 'if guilty, he would have fled' is taking a premise and speculating about human behaviour to create a fact. No, it’s the application of common sense and the realisation that no serial killer in the entire history of serial killing ever stood around and waited for a stranger to turn up.
And I'm sure you don't want the triumph of speculation over fact. Good heavens, no! A thousand times, no! Absolutely not. That’s why the totally trumped up and dishonest case against Cross has been shown for the complete fabrication that it is,

If more facts are forthcoming, we can change our minds of course .... but we should be bound by facts here, and only facts

And the facts tell us that Cross was innocent. Honesty tells us this. The ‘case’ against him continues to be a complete stain on the subject as a whole.

[Newbie]

"Based on the evidence, the 25 second time gap is untenable"

How many times over the years, both here and elsewhere, has it been explained that it is perfectly tenable and the reasons why?
Yet, people still will not acknowledge there is an alternative that fits the evidence.

I'm perfectly happy to hear how the 25 second time gap is tenable. In fact, I beg people here to tell me why its tenable.

Its always beneath people to come up with their reasoning .... or, they refer me to some vague place in Casebook, that I need to search out.

I'm ready for it Dusty - hit me!

Someone here was talking about sound masking involving Lechmere or Paul's footsteps, which I patiently explained was not a valid scientific theory in application to footsteps.

Someone (the same person?) spoke about the footsteps being heard on the unconscious but not conscious level, and when I challenged him to come up with a study, he demurred.

So, those two are none starters for me, and should be for anyone here who are seriously interested in the issue.

I'm ready!

[Newbie]

What the evidence points to is that Cross was entirely honest as to what he said about what happened that morning. People that weren’t there speak with undeserved confidence as if they were. Not one single thing about what Cross said raises an eyebrow. The case ‘against’ him is a quite deliberate fabrication. Deliberate misinterpretation, invention, assumption, evidence editing, opinion stated as fact, lying and out and out silliness. The most disreputable position to hold in this case is to say that you think Cross might have been the ripper. It can’t be stated genuinely.

You then mean, but don't say, that the evidence points to him being 40 - 50 yards in front of Paul marching along Bath Street and then up Buck's row ... correct? It's kind of important, because if Paul notices Lechmere earlier then the body, it would exonerate Lech .... and the Cross issue would fade away.

What evidence do you have? I hope it is not exclusively based on only part of Lechmere's testimony, editing out one or two important items mentioned by Lech. I hope that you are not merely satisfied with Lechmere telling you that he was just ahead of Paul and that you dropped everything else from consideration; that you are rigorous and analytical in your judgement, even handedly considering all the facts on the issue that we do have.

Well, here are the facts that we have. I ignored Lechmere's stated time of departing home as not a fact we can use, nor the just happening to conveniently hear Paul when moving towards the body item, because the killer would have also constructed such a story.

So, here they are: which ones do you wish to embrace or dispute?

A. parts of Lechmere's testimony:
- first noticing Paul's footsteps only while moving towards Polly Nichol's body
- not hearing anyone else all the way up Buck's row, when he first enters the street

B. parts of Paul's testimony and witness statement to Lloyd's: failing to mention, on two separate occasions, marking the presence of Lechmere along Bath Street or Buck's row, before finally visualizing him at various points next to Polly Nichol's body.

C. PC Neil's testimony to hearing PC Mizen's footsteps, some 120 yards away on Brady street

D. Paul's statement that people seldom walk up Buck's row (at that time) without being on their guard

E. Current scientific findings on how the brain cancels out repetitive stimuli, most particularly, in the action of movement, where the motor cortex signals the inhibitory neurons of the auditory cortex to ignore repetitive sounds associated with walking or running.

F. The theory of sound masking: which has applications to jack hammers, but not a person's own footsteps.

We have 5 facts and our current scientific understanding of the neurology of hearing on this matter: the theory of sound masking being a pseudo theory in this case.

Which do you wish to dispute?

The evidence, in conjunction with science, says that Paul would have heard or seen Lechmere well before the body, and that Lechmere would have heard Paul, if they were separated by a distance well, well short of that between PCs Neil and Mizen. When someone claims to be somewhere, but people at that location neither see or hear him, but they should have, that means that person was still there - correct?

You do realize that the notion that 'if guilty, he would have fled' is taking a premise and speculating about human behavior to create a fact.
And I'm sure you don't want the triumph of speculation over fact. Good heavens, no! A thousand times, no!

If more facts are forthcoming, we can change our minds of course .... but we should be bound by facts here, and only facts

[Herlock Sholmes]

When Cross explained what he saw/thought/did in Buck’s Row that morning he wasn’t giving a Hemingway-like piece of descriptive prose. He was responding to questions and he certainly wasn’t saying “I thought X, then 5 seconds later I did Y which caused me to pause and think Z before…etc.” We are getting a trimmed down version with him, like all witnesses giving statements, leaving out bits that he feels are unimportant. The small, seemingly insignificant things here and there. It’s easy to imagine, without any resort to silliness, a slightly more drawn out version of events.

Cross walks along Buck’s Row on his way to work, minding his own business, lost in his own thoughts of whatever and paying little attention to the sight and sounds that make up the same soundtrack to every mornings walk to work. The distant voice, the distant train whistle, the footstep, the door slamming, the dog barking. Would anyone particularly have recalled any of these when recalling that time hours later?

As he’s walking he sees the shape up ahead in the poor light. (Start your stopwatch) He walks a little closer. He steps in to the road and continues a very few feet the stops. “Hold on…is that what I think it is? It’s a man or a woman.” He hesitates and thinks “shall I just move on? Perhaps the shape only looks like a person?” [15 seconds have passed since he first saw the shape.] He moves diagonally and hesitatingly to the centre of the road when he sees that it’s certainly a woman (he could probably see the legs as the skirts are raised) A bit of natural concern/panic sets in. Does he do his ‘decent citizen’ bit, or does he wonder “what if this is just some drunk who starts screaming at the top of her lungs?” [30 seconds have now passed since he first saw the body] At that point he hears the other man approaching. Relieved, he waits for the other man to arrive. Paul, seeing a guy loitering in the middle of the road up ahead is hardly at marching speed. Twenty seconds after hearing Paul approaching he gets to Cross. [50 seconds have now elapsed since Cross first saw the ‘shape’ up ahead]. At an average speed that’s around a 70 yard gap between the two men.

Where’s the problem unless someone wants to deliberately trim everything down as if we are dealing with robots? To be suspicious of Cross you have to start out from a position of being suspicious and then imagine that everything somehow ‘fits.’ It doesn’t. We have absolutely no reason to be suspicious of this man. That’s why the police weren’t suspicious of him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What the evidence points to is that Cross was entirely honest as to what he said about what happened that morning. People that weren’t there speak with undeserved confidence as if they were. Not one single thing about what Cross said raises an eyebrow. The case ‘against’ him is a quite deliberate fabrication. Deliberate misinterpretation, invention, assumption, evidence editing, opinion stated as fact, lying and out and out silliness. The most disreputable position to hold in this case is to say that you think Cross might have been the ripper. It can’t be stated genuinely.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"Based on the evidence, the 25 second time gap is untenable"

How many times over the years, both here and elsewhere, has it been explained that it is perfectly tenable and the reasons why?
Yet, people still will not acknowledge there is an alternative that fits the evidence.

I wonder why Dusty

[drstrange169]

"Based on the evidence, the 25 second time gap is untenable"

How many times over the years, both here and elsewhere, has it been explained that it is perfectly tenable and the reasons why?
Yet, people still will not acknowledge there is an alternative that fits the evidence.

[Newbie]

The reason why the time of Paul entering Buck's Row is important is that if he entered at 3:40, we only have the possibility of a time gap, possible in the sense that many things are possible. To argue that it's merely possible that there was a time gap isn't a reason to suspect anyone.

But there was a time gap, and Lechmere claims that it was only some 25 seconds. Why should we believe him?

Paul doesn't mention hearing or seeing Lech marching just ahead of him until seeing him at the end,
and if one thinks Paul might have noticed Lech earlier, but just fails to mention it on two occasions (Lloyds & the inquest), Lechmere himself definitely says that didn't notice Paul walking behind him, until noticing Paul's footsteps while he was moving towards Polly Nichol's body in the middle of the street, causing him to turn around.

Both didn't hear the other for quite some time .... and yet PC Neil, while examining the body, heard PC Mizen from about triple the distance supposedly separating Lechmere and Paul. The eastern half of Buck's row had great acoustics, being aligned with two story stone buildings with no gaps.

Was there something magical about Polly Nichol's body that acted like an auditory receiver?
Was Paul lying when he said people seldom go up the street (at that time) without being on their guard?

Or, was Lechmere well ahead of Paul for an unknown amount of time,
moving away from the body soon after hearing Paul come up the street,
and inventing the only story possible with an innocent explanation as to why he was standing in the middle of the street pointed towards Paul, when Paul arrived in view.

When two people fail to notice the other at a certain place and time,
where they are the only two people around, and they should have had the faculties available to do so,
that is not an absence of evidence. No prosecutor would accept Lechmere's story at face value

The evidence points to Lechmere being well ahead of Paul, and their being a gap much longer than 25 seconds.
How much, I couldn't say based on that; however, the evidence says that Lech is lying.

Based on the evidence, the 25 second time gap is untenable.

[Lewis C]

Christer not being here to defend himself, I'll take a shot.

Christen also rejects certain versions of Paul's Lloyd's story, mainly the description of his interaction with PC Mizen. However, there is also his testimony at the inquest, where deception is not treated kindly.
Christen likes the 3:45 am time, I'm somewhat indifferent to it.

The 3:45 am time neither jives with PCs Neil, Mizen, or Dr Lewellyn ... but the tendency was to use the quarter hour mark for their times.
If Paul's time was the most innacurate of the group, it indicates the use of a poor time piece, and nothing more.

The gap time argument is not really that important, because the inquest statement by Lechmere of leaving around 3:30 am is not a factual time,
other than being part of Lechmere's testimony:
- he lied
- or he told the truth
- or time is unreliable, as someone here hops up and down vociferously about ... and yet this time is sacred to him - go figure.

the only important thing about the Lloyd's article and his inquest testimony is Paul's consistent failure to mention seeing or hearing Lech,
who claimed to be only some 50 yards ahead of him, until noticing him stopped, standing near the body.

Someone claims to be somewhere, and yet the witnesses at that location fail to attest to it .... prosecutors typically don't take them for their word.

So, unreliable in that he actually heard Lech at the base of Buck's row?

The reason why the time of Paul entering Buck's Row is important is that if he entered at 3:40, we only have the possibility of a time gap, possible in the sense that many things are possible. To argue that it's merely possible that there was a time gap isn't a reason to suspect anyone.

[Newbie]

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.

Christer not being here to defend himself, I'll take a shot.

Christen also rejects certain versions of Paul's Lloyd's story, mainly the description of his interaction with PC Mizen. However, there is also his testimony at the inquest, where deception is not treated kindly.
Christen likes the 3:45 am time, I'm somewhat indifferent to it.

The 3:45 am time neither jives with PCs Neil, Mizen, or Dr Lewellyn ... but the tendency was to use the quarter hour mark for their times.
If Paul's time was the most innacurate of the group, it indicates the use of a poor time piece, and nothing more.

The gap time argument is not really that important, because the inquest statement by Lechmere of leaving around 3:30 am is not a factual time,
other than being part of Lechmere's testimony:
- he lied
- or he told the truth
- or time is unreliable, as someone here hops up and down vociferously about ... and yet this time is sacred to him - go figure.

the only important thing about the Lloyd's article and his inquest testimony is Paul's consistent failure to mention seeing or hearing Lech,
who claimed to be only some 50 yards ahead of him, until noticing him stopped, standing near the body.

Someone claims to be somewhere, and yet the witnesses at that location fail to attest to it .... prosecutors typically don't take them for their word.

So, unreliable in that he actually heard Lech at the base of Buck's row?

[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.

[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.

[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.