Robert Paul

[Newbie]

Bucks row was not an echo chamber - Cross and Paul passed through it unheard by anyone else nearby. It's not a matter of sound "escaping" it's a matter of the air vibrations attenuating over distance, diffusing in different directions when striking uneven surfaces, and being absorbed by rougher solid materials that they strike. Wind also affects sound detection, not just by providing additional background noise, but sound propagates further in the direction the wind is blowing, and less far into the wind. On that day, the winds varied from the west to northwest, so sound would have travelled slightly further going west to east than going east to west.

An echo chamber is descriptive: it means the energy of the sound waves traveling up or down the eastern end of Buck's row diminish far less rapidly than in most other circumstances, due to its narrowness and the sound waves reflecting off the stone, and not being absorbed by this material.

They attenuate far less readily than in most other circumstances.

Somewhat of a moot point right now, the argument centering on why Lechmere only happened to hear the footsteps when approximate to the body, but didn't hear them for up to a full minute previous to that.

He heard footstep while next to the body, took a few steps to the center of the street, and then made up the part of finally hearing Paul's footsteps at that point to appear as if he didn't come from the body.

Pretty simple explanation that explains why he didn't bother to check Polly Nichol's vitals (doing nothing more than holding her hand) and why he abruptly cut off the examination so soon, without a firm conclusion, after being the one who enticed Paul to come help out.

Any theories value is greatly aided by further explanative powers or its correctness is to be questioned.

But, I prefer to stick with some explanation on why Lechmere finally heard Paul's footsteps, when his mind was focused on the visual analysis of the tarpaulin/body.

[Newbie]

I don't know why one sound drowning out another would be a debated point. Hasn't everyone experienced this in their own lives?

Another factor affecting whether or not something is heard is how one's attention is focused. My refrigerator door doesn't always close all the way if I don't make a special effort to close it right. If it doesn't quite close all the way, it sounds a little different than if it does. Sometimes I notice this difference and go back and push the door closed. Other times I don't notice the difference in sound, not because it wasn't loud enough, but because I'm not paying attention, and the door ends up not getting all the way closed until I notice later that it looks different.

The sounds we are talking about are self created - that of one's footsteps ....
there is an evolutionary value in ignoring these sounds so that they do not block out the stealthy footsteps of a predator (a problem for our ancestors) and current scientific research focuses on how the brain goes about doing it .... there is no important information in these self produced repetitive sounds, and it appears that the motor cortex, which deals with balance when in motion, literally informs the auditory cortex to ignore these type of sounds. New information in self producing sounds would be stepping into a puddle or new material, that you hadn't noticed. New information would also be some other person's footsteps.

We are not talking about a jack hammer, or the bustle of streets, or other sounds that are produced by other people and things, they may well interference with our hearing slighter sounds like another persons footsteps.

That is not the issue here .... and I can't stress that point strongly enough.

[Newbie]

Maybe he did but did not feel the need to record it in his memory, maybe there was some other sound masking out the footfall. Maybe Cross was not that focused on hearing things that were not consequential. Maybe Paul was a light walker. It's an impossible question to answer without further evidence which unfortunately we do not have. Remember at the relevant point in time Paul was in a hurry and Cross was not 'behind time' so the gap between the two men will have been gradually reduced over time. They were not a constant distance apart. Unfortunately we do not know what that distance was at any point until Cross heard Paul coming up Bucks Row.

Hi Geddy,

maybe here needs to be some study that you post her which demonstrates hearing something on the subconscious level and ignoring it on the conscious level.

Since there is no evolutionary benefit in housing sounds in the 'subconscience', I really struggle with considering this a half way serious possibility.

As for Paul treading lightly, that is not the issue because Lechmere did hear him ..... it just took quite a bit of time, and his attention at that time was visually focused on an alarming situation: a woman's body on the ground, the most unlikely moment to finally hear those footsteps.

However, Paul did say in the Lloyd's article that he was hurrying along ... so, he was not treading lightly to do that.

[Newbie]

I already answered this in Post 86.

"On Friday morning he left home about half past three to go to work, and passing through Buck's row he saw on the opposite side something lying against a gateway. In the dark he could not tell at first what it was. It looked like a tarpaulin sheet, but walking to the middle of the road he saw it was the figure of a woman. At the same time he heard a man about forty yards away coming up Buck's row in the direction witness had himself come."

40 yards is a rough estimate of distance based on hearing, not sight. Also, that is the distance at which Cross first noticed Paul - obviously Paul was making noise before that.

The human brain tends to filter out noises it considers unimportant. A man walking behind you is less important than a man approaching after you have stopped. Auditory masking means louder sounds tend to mask softer sounds. Unless Robert Paul was particularly heavy footed, the sound of his footsteps would have been less audible to Cross than the sound of Cross' own footsteps. Auditory sensing is reduced when walking, so Paul would have been much easier to hear once Cross stopped walking in the middle of the road. 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 he 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.

When Charles Cross stopped in the middle of the road, his ability to notice auditory stimuli would have increased in multiple ways and auditory masking would have stopped. This is exactly the point we would expect Cross to first notice Paul's footsteps.

Thankyou for refreshing my memory fiver.

I once lived by an airport and at the beginning would always hear the decent of the planes flying over head. After a few days, I stopped noticing .... the auditory cortex in my brain learned to stop responding to these sounds .... probably a group of inhibitory neurons that somehow recognized them. If a plane was off course, headed towards my apartment complex, i'm sure I would have heard that.

To your point, the sounds of someone suddenly coming from behind you on a dark and dangerous street would be considered important enough to most people. Remember, we evolved from creatures that were preyed upon .... it's of fundamental importance that they adapted accordingly, or didn't pass on their genes.

And in continuation, evaluating the gender of the body would not be the end of his visual task ... 'what was wrong with her?' would be his next visual task.

And there is no reason why he would stop in the middle of the street once determining that it was not a tarpaulin, but a woman;
unless he didn't give a damn, because he was purely motivated out of a need for the tarpaulin, as some claim.

He never said that he stopped before hearing the sound ... something about entering/moving into the middle of the street.
People are speculating on that matter.

[Lewis C]

The sounds we are talking about are self created - that of one's footsteps ....
there is an evolutionary value in ignoring these sounds so that they do not block out the stealthy footsteps of a predator (a problem for our ancestors) and current scientific research focuses on how the brain goes about doing it .... there is no important information in these self produced repetitive sounds, and it appears that the motor cortex, which deals with balance when in motion, literally informs the auditory cortex to ignore these type of sounds. New information in self producing sounds would be stepping into a puddle or new material, that you hadn't noticed. New information would also be some other person's footsteps.

We are not talking about a jack hammer, or the bustle of streets, or other sounds that are produced by other people and things, they may well interference with our hearing slighter sounds like another persons footsteps.

That is not the issue here .... and I can't stress that point strongly enough.

Louder sounds drown out softer sounds, even if the louder sounds are self-created.

[drstrange169]

"Well, here's your rebuttal to what I wrote ..."

I confess, at first I was confused by your repeated claims that people said things they clearly didn't, but I now see you don't even understand what you are writing in your own posts.

I didn't offer a rebuttal, you even quote me claiming that I'm not offering a rebuttal, and yet here you are claiming I did!

Looking over your posts in this thread, nothing you claim seems to accord with the actual facts of the case, as I've pointed out in a previous post.


Here is your latest,

"Here's the the relevant two sentences in question from Lechmere's testimony, that hardly varies between newspaper versions:

'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.'"

Your quote is from the Daily Telegraph, not only does it vary from all the other reporters accounts, it contains a good deal of information we know to be untrue.

" ... He then heard the "footsteps" of a man going up Buck's-row ..."

No other report makes that claim. All other reports, including the Echo which quotes Cross in the first person, claims he actually said,

"At the same time I heard a man come up behind, in the same direction as I was going."

There is no mention that what he heard was footsteps, no other reporter claims he heard "footsteps". Whilst it's quite possible it was footsteps he heard, to could equally be any sound that attracted Cross's attention. A cough, a sneeze, treading or kicking some street rubbish, a change of pace, the possibilities are endless.

Ergo, your claim,

"Lechmere himself "definitely" says that didn't notice Paul walking behind him, until noticing Paul's "footsteps" .."

is not true and therefore needs no rebuttal.

Similarly, your comparison to Thain's wooden shoes doesn't stand up to scrutiny, nor does the echo chamber claim accord with the half dozen witnesses comments about the night.

And, I have absolutely no idea why you claim Cross mentioned 25 seconds anywhere in his testimony.

[Geddy2112]

maybe here needs to be some study that you post her which demonstrates hearing something on the subconscious level and ignoring it on the conscious level.

Are you aware of the mainly male phenomenon called the 'nothing box' and how we can visit it?

However, Paul did say in the Lloyd's article that he was hurrying along ... so, he was not treading lightly to do that.

I would suggest, without looking into the science of it that if you were hurrying along or indeed running then your tread sounds would be lighter as you are more 'kissing the cobbles' as opposed to 'banging down on them.'

Regardless like I said there are far too many unknowns and variables to give a discerned answer to your initial question. However in your reply to Fiver you kind of answer it yourself (even though you disagree with me for basically saying the same...)

I once lived by an airport and at the beginning would always hear the decent of the planes flying over head. After a few days, I stopped noticing.

[Geddy2112]

And there is no reason why he would stop in the middle of the street once determining that it was not a tarpaulin, but a woman;
unless he didn't give a damn, because he was purely motivated out of a need for the tarpaulin, as some claim.

He stopped in the middle of the road as he heard Paul approaching and turned back to attract his attention. I've seen many say he thought it was a tarpaulin because that is in his testimony but I think it's mainly Team Lechmere who claim he thought it would be useful.

He never said that he stopped before hearing the sound ... something about entering/moving into the middle of the street.
People are speculating on that matter.

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. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement." They both crossed over to the body.

Well he never said he continued from the middle of the road either but he must have because he turned back to the north pavement to attract the attention of Robert Paul. I made a nice diagram for my book to illustrate this. I also believe Dusty Miller used a similar one in their Ripp piece.



* apologies to Dusty for quoting the 'footsteps' version (it's what is on this site so faster to find.)

[Newbie]

"Well, here's your rebuttal to what I wrote ..."

I confess, at first I was confused by your repeated claims that people said things they clearly didn't, but I now see you don't even understand what you are writing in your own posts.

I didn't offer a rebuttal, you even quote me claiming that I'm not offering a rebuttal, and yet here you are claiming I did!

Looking over your posts in this thread, nothing you claim seems to accord with the actual facts of the case, as I've pointed out in a previous post.


Here is your latest,

"Here's the the relevant two sentences in question from Lechmere's testimony, that hardly varies between newspaper versions:

'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.'"

Your quote is from the Daily Telegraph, not only does it vary from all the other reporters accounts, it contains a good deal of information we know to be untrue.

" ... He then heard the "footsteps" of a man going up Buck's-row ..."

No other report makes that claim. All other reports, including the Echo which quotes Cross in the first person, claims he actually said,

"At the same time I heard a man come up behind, in the same direction as I was going."

There is no mention that what he heard was footsteps, no other reporter claims he heard "footsteps". Whilst it's quite possible it was footsteps he heard, to could equally be any sound that attracted Cross's attention. A cough, a sneeze, treading or kicking some street rubbish, a change of pace, the possibilities are endless.

Ergo, your claim,

"Lechmere himself "definitely" says that didn't notice Paul walking behind him, until noticing Paul's "footsteps" .."

is not true and therefore needs no rebuttal.

Similarly, your comparison to Thain's wooden shoes doesn't stand up to scrutiny, nor does the echo chamber claim accord with the half dozen witnesses comments about the night.

And, I have absolutely no idea why you claim Cross mentioned 25 seconds anywhere in his testimony.

There are two parts to my response, I want to focus on one, or the other independently: covering several points in one post lacks precision, which advantages weak arguments.


"Well, here's your rebuttal to what I wrote ..."

I confess, at first I was confused by your repeated claims that people said things they clearly didn't, but I now see you don't even understand what you are writing in your own posts.


I didn't offer a rebuttal, …


"Lechmere himself "definitely" says that didn't notice Paul walking behind him, until noticing Paul's "footsteps" .."

is not true and therefore needs no rebuttal.


Is the temporal function of the coordinating conjunction ‘then’ or the prepositional phrase ‘at the same time’ subject to debate here? Reasonable people would say that it restricts the event to a ‘definite’ temporal sequence: before hearing footsteps, and then the act of hearing footsteps.


You are saying no?


When you refuse to explain yourself, I have to guess at what your reasoning might be and evidently my guess was on the mark here.


Should we ignore all grammatical rules in testimony, or just adverbial phrases of time?


Is it still confusing to you?

[Newbie]

"Well, here's your rebuttal to what I wrote ..."

I confess, at first I was confused by your repeated claims that people said things they clearly didn't, but I now see you don't even understand what you are writing in your own posts.

I didn't offer a rebuttal, you even quote me claiming that I'm not offering a rebuttal, and yet here you are claiming I did!

Looking over your posts in this thread, nothing you claim seems to accord with the actual facts of the case, as I've pointed out in a previous post.


Here is your latest,

"Here's the the relevant two sentences in question from Lechmere's testimony, that hardly varies between newspaper versions:

'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.'"

Your quote is from the Daily Telegraph, not only does it vary from all the other reporters accounts, it contains a good deal of information we know to be untrue.

" ... He then heard the "footsteps" of a man going up Buck's-row ..."

No other report makes that claim. All other reports, including the Echo which quotes Cross in the first person, claims he actually said,

"At the same time I heard a man come up behind, in the same direction as I was going."

There is no mention that what he heard was footsteps, no other reporter claims he heard "footsteps". Whilst it's quite possible it was footsteps he heard, to could equally be any sound that attracted Cross's attention. A cough, a sneeze, treading or kicking some street rubbish, a change of pace, the possibilities are endless.

Ergo, your claim,

"Lechmere himself "definitely" says that didn't notice Paul walking behind him, until noticing Paul's "footsteps" .."

is not true and therefore needs no rebuttal.

Similarly, your comparison to Thain's wooden shoes doesn't stand up to scrutiny, nor does the echo chamber claim accord with the half dozen witnesses comments about the night.

And, I have absolutely no idea why you claim Cross mentioned 25 seconds anywhere in his testimony.

Your quote is from the Daily Telegraph, not only does it vary from all the other reporters accounts, it contains a good deal of information we know to be untrue.


" ... He then heard the "footsteps" of a man going up Buck's-row ..."


No other report makes that claim. All other reports, including the Echo which quotes Cross in the first person, claims he actually said,


"At the same time I heard a man come up behind, in the same direction as I was going."



The issue is what motivated Lechmere to stop in the middle of the street, and there is precious little difference between the Echo and the Daily Telegraph on the matter … ‘At the same time’ serves my argument just as well as ‘then’ in questioning Lech’s motives. Actually, it's preferable: you should know this if you have been following the argument.

Here are your options:

• Either he made out that it was a recumbent female, stopped, and then heard the footsteps
• Or, he made out that it was a recumbent female, then heard footsteps and then stopped
• Or, he made out that it was a female, and heard footsteps simultaneously, and then stopped
• Or, ridiculously, all 3 things came simultaneously, his stopping not influenced by the other events.

My position is that he came from the body, which is the only satisfactory explanation that gives reasonable motivation to his behavior: not just the sudden hearing of footsteps near the body that he hadn’t previously heard for quite some time trailing him, but the failure to check the body for vital signs and then quickly wanting to leave it.


What exactly is your position as to why Lech failed to hear Paul, until stopped half-way in the middle of the street, where Paul discovered him?


Let me clarify for you, again, what the chief arguments are for Lechmere not hearing the footsteps walking behind him for quite some time:

1. it was the act of walking, and his own footsteps, which interfered with not hearing them
2. on that dark dangerous street, with gangs roaming around and recent murders not far off, his mind was wrapped in its own thoughts, so he didn’t notice

Your shifting the inquest testimony towards the Echo’s version (the simultaneity of hearing and understanding the gender of the object, and then stopping) only undermines ‘A’ further, because Lech would not only be walking when finally hearing the sound of footsteps, but focusing visually - making the task of casually hearing footsteps harder, the brain’s sensory apparatus not good at multi-tasking.


It seems to me that you haven't been following the arguments here and are just rushing in like a bull in a china shop to undermine the anti-Lechmere position.
Are you sure you don't want to reconsider things?

There didn't seem to be much more to your response, just a few other minor details that were unimportant.


If I can touch up on choice ‘B’, it basically ignores Robert Paul’s description of Buck's row: “few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot”


If you wish to say that Lechmere was one of Paul’s few, go ahead and say it …. this wouldn’t be sufficient. If you wish to go on further and say that he must have been wrapped in his own thoughts … go ahead, nothing stops anyone from speculating on matters here! You still would have to explain why he suddenly happened to hear the footsteps once at that position in the middle of the street, while visually trying to make a determination on what that dark object was.


Just one of those things, huh? He is innocent, ergo, no matter how unlikely it is, he must have .....

And btw, here’s a nice link to give an impression of how noticeable those footsteps should have been:

Ever wonder what victorian era working class boots sound like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj_P6gFipDg&t=31s


So again, to try and direct you here to a meaningful response,
why did Lechmere suddenly become aware of footsteps behind him, after an entire minute of their existence, when he was still walking and visually focusing, and the shocking realization dawning on him that the tarpaulin was a female body?

If you still insist on saying that he could have been hearing the footsteps for quite some time - and fully didn’t know the function of ‘at the same time’ in a sentence; okay, no point in continuing …

[Newbie]

I've written this before, the only version that fits with the testimony of sights, sounds and behaviors is Lechmere arriving at the body earlier than he states, hearing Paul, and then moving a few steps to the middle of the road, and waiting for Paul. If you want to say he was there for just a minute or so .... too brief to have attacked Polly Nichols, .... okay.

a. it explains the absence of testimony on hearing or seeing by both Lechmere and Paul
b. it conforms to the type of story of someone coming from the body, who wishes to affirm their innocence, would construct, while adhering to what Paul witnessed.
c. it explains why Lechmere didn't check for vitals, but left if to Paul, and then quickly wanted to terminate the combined effort.
d. it explains why Lech complained about being short on time, and then chose the longer route along Hanbury street to get to work.

Is it not curious that Paul never mentions hearing Lechmere, but first mentions seeing him? Perhaps he ommitted this from his testimony, not considering it to be important .... but it was important - it would give Lech an alibi, and very odd to be left unsaid.

Both testimonies are companion pieces that conform to each other, and not in a good way towards Lechmere's entire story.

[Fiver]

My position is that he came from the body, which is the only satisfactory explanation that gives reasonable motivation to his behavior:

Coming from the body continues to make no sense. It requires that Robert Paul neither see nor hear Cross clean and put away a knife, move from facing west crouched over the body on the south pavement to standing in the middle of the road facing east. Some versions also throw in Cross lifting up the body to try to pull the skirts down. If Paul noticed any of this, then Cross's story would have been an obvious lie to Paul. By Paul's own testimony, he was initially afraid of Cross, which to any killer smarter than a paving stone, would have been interpreted as Paul knows he is the murderer and must be silenced.

...not just the sudden hearing of footsteps near the body that he hadn’t previously heard for quite some time trailing him,....

Science tells us that is exactly the point that Cross would start noticing Paul's footsteps.

"On Friday morning he left home about half past three to go to work, and passing through Buck's row he saw on the opposite side something lying against a gateway. In the dark he could not tell at first what it was. It looked like a tarpaulin sheet, but walking to the middle of the road he saw it was the figure of a woman. At the same time he heard a man about forty yards away coming up Buck's row in the direction witness had himself come." - Daily News, 4 September 1888.

At the point that Cross identified that it was a woman, his visual perception load dropped significantly, which science tells us is exactly when Cross would be most likely to become much better at noticing auditory stimuli.

Then there is the well known phenomenon of auditory masking. where loader sounds mask softer ones. According to the Journal of Neuroscience, "neural responses to ... self-generated sounds are attenuated." That means that self-generated sounds receive less focus, making it easier to detect external sound sources, not that they are completely ignored. But "the responsiveness of auditory cortical neurons to external sounds is reduced not only during vocalizations but during a variety of behaviors, including locomotion". So Cross walking would reduce his perception of both his own footsteps and to "external sounds", such as Robert Paul's footsteps. People also tend to subconsciously synchronize their steps, likely to improve detection of other sound sources.

So what happened as Cross approached the body? He moved from the pavement to the street, changing the sound pattern of his footsteps, making Robert Paul's footsteps more distinct. He probably slowed his pace, which would also make Paul's footsteps more distinct. Auditory mask would drop - the volume of Paul's footsteps would increase as he got closer while the volume of Cross's footsteps would decrease as he slowed and stopped. And as noted, by stopping walking, Cross's auditory responsiveness would increase.

So the science backs Cross in multiple ways.

...but the failure to check the body for vital signs....

You repeating a false statement does not make them true.

"He and the man [Cross] examined the body, and he felt sure he detected faint indications of breathing. The body was partly warm, though it was a chilly morning." - Robert Paul, Daily News, 18 September, 1888

...and then quickly wanting to leave it.

Which is exactly like Robert Paul. All you have proved is your double standard.

[Fiver]

Just one of those things, huh? He is innocent, ergo, no matter how unlikely it is, he must have .....

And btw, here’s a nice link to give an impression of how noticeable those footsteps should have been:

Ever wonder what victorian era working class boots sound like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj_P6gFipDg&t=31s

The shoes in the video, as the video notes, have had the soles replaced with thick wooden clogs to which horseshoes have been attached. These are not typical Victorian work boots, which would have had leather soles.

[Fiver]

Let me clarify for you, again, what the chief arguments are for Lechmere not hearing the footsteps walking behind him for quite some time:

1. it was the act of walking, and his own footsteps, which interfered with not hearing them
2. on that dark dangerous street, with gangs roaming around and recent murders not far off, his mind was wrapped in its own thoughts, so he didn’t notice

As Lechmerians are fond of pointing out, Charles Cross grew up in Tiger Bay, one of the worst parts of the East End. Compared to that, Bucks Row was nothing and Cross was completely unafraid of approaching Robert Paul. For that matter, Cross may not have heard of Bucks Row's bad reputation, he had only moved to 22 Doveton a few months before. And even Robert Paul, who was afraid, was not so afraid enough to find a different route to work.

As noted, science shows that the act of walking does interfere with hearing. So does the noise of walking. So does being focused on visual stimuli, like trying to figure out what was lying on the opposite pavement ahead of Cross.

None of us are at our perkiest and most observant at 3:30am. Plus we cannot know what other distractions Cross might have had. Was little Harriet on poor health? She would die before her third birthday. Or perhaps his stepfather, Joseph Forsdyke, who would be dead in little over a year and was senile at the time of his death. IIRC, one of his brothers-in-law would commit suicide in a few years. Or Charles Cross could have been in ill health that day or simply had a headache. Or been sleep-deprived, his daughter Harriet would have been just only enough that she might have started sleeping through the night.

We also don't know the firmness of Robert Paul's tread, how noisy his boots were, or how good of hearing Charles Cross had.

[drstrange169]

Hello Newbie,

I've read through your two posts and I can't see that you've actually addressed the issues I've raised. They seem to be purely obviation.