Robert Paul

[Geddy2112]

I very much doubt the newspapers in 1888 thought they would get their every word microscopically turned over in an attempt to find a long dead serial killer. I presume their intention was to sell copy, pass across a story as accurately as possible. We are never going to know what Charles or Robert did that morning to the nth degree.

I even had Christer tell me yesterday that it was actually Robert Paul then PC Neil who found Polly's body in that order... mmmmm

[Lewis C]

I even had Christer tell me yesterday that it was actually Robert Paul then PC Neil who found Polly's body in that order... mmmmm

I think that's because his position is that Cross killed Nichols, and he therefore can't be said to have found the body. So the finder would be the next person there, Robert Paul.

[Fiver]

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.

Charles Cross reaching the body sooner than he claims makes no sense and is contradicted by the evidence.

a. Charles Cross not seeing someone behind him is a simple fact of human anatomy - human eyes are on the front of the head. Cross not hearing Robert Paul until he identified the form as a woman fits known science. Robert Paul had no chance of seeing and little chance of hearing Cross until Paul entered Bucks Row. We don't know at what distance he saw or heard Cross, as these questions were not asked.

We do know that Robert Paul said that "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." Your scenario requires that Rippermere clean and conceal a knife, stand up from where he is crouching over the body, and then turn his back to Paul, without being seen or heard by Paul, even though Paul is alert for danger.

b. The only information that Rippermere might have about what Paul witnessed would be the 2 September Lloyds Weekly News. The smart thing for Rippermere to do is never contact the police instead of constructing a story.

"It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market." Yet rather than 'constructing' a time that eliminates any possibility of a time gap, Rippermere says he left home around 3:30am.

"It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was." For Rippermere, it could mean that that Robert Paul saw him next to the body. Yet Rippermere does not 'construct' a story that puts him next to the body, he states he had not reached it yet.

Apparently Rippermere isn't very bright.

c. You repeating false statements does not make them true.

"He and the man examined the body, and he felt sure he detected faint indications of breathing." So Robert Paul testified that Charles Cross also examined the body.

"I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw." - Robert Paul was at least as concerned about getting to work as Charles Cross was.

d. The Broad Street Station had multiple entrances. We don't know which entrance Charles Cross used, but you have been repeatedly shown the time difference between routes was minor. A guilty man would have no reason to take a longer route and would want to separate from Robert Paul as soon as possible.

[Geddy2112]

d. The Broad Street Station had multiple entrances. We don't know which entrance Charles Cross used, but you have been repeatedly shown the time difference between routes was minor. A guilty man would have no reason to take a longer route and would want to separate from Robert Paul as soon as possible.

Or maybe since he was 'just in' Hanbury Street when he was talking to Mizen it would be silly to do a 180 to the East end of Hanbury Street, drop a touch down Bakers Row then enter Old Montague Street for the so called 'shorter route.' (The X is taking into account the 4 mins from the murder scene, it's approx)