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)

[Newbie]

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.



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.



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



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

Unfortunately fiver, the links are not active I do not have access to these links ... so I placed the the link into my address bar and came up with a list of studies.

So imagine this is what you wish to direct conversation towards: www.jneurosci.org › content › 35/49/16046www.jneurosci.org

"due to capacity limits on perception, conditions of high perceptual load lead to reduced processing of unattended stimuli."

Lechmere did not have high perceptual overload walking up Buck's row and not noticing anything. It was at the point of high processing, once opposite to the body, both mental and visual, that he suddenly, and mysteriously noticed footsteps ... which is very unusual;

however, you seem to be stating that he instantaneously dropped his visual interest in the body, once he discerned that it was a woman.

I couldn't disagree more; a person would be only stimulated to find out more about what happened, and that one would continue moving towards the body to get more info: ... what happened? .... what is wrong with her? You would still be studying the body moving forward, not suddenly cease and desist.

As for the attentuation of self generated sounds by inhibitory neurons, in communication with the motor cortex, which sends to them the electronic signal "we're on the go" .... this is correct, the evolutionary principle behind this feature is that you need to be aware of your surroundings if you are prey on the move, or even predators, and it would be a big disadvantage to have your footsteps block your ability to hear the steps of that other creature that wants to eat you.

There exists no evolutionary principle behind the notion that one's footsteps can interfer with hearing novel sounds that are trailing you and should be able to travel quite a bit further than the separating distance between.

The brain is always searching for novel stimuli: new smells, and not your smelly own smells when not bathing; new visual cues out of the ordinary, like a darker region along the opposite side of the road.

Attenuation in this case means suppress these types of sounds from being further analyzed by higher processing regions of the brain.


But again ..... this point is moot in Lech's case: he finally heard the footsteps while being on the move .... the other poster insisting on this, Lechmere's, in his testimony, using the prespositional phrase 'at the same time'.

If you think it was a matter of sound masking .... which is more crowded street sounds type stuff ....still you have the mystery of final detection at the point of sensory overload.

Lech was moving and on sensory overload, and yet he tells us that finally he heard footsteps there.

And if you think he mentally discerned a female, and then stopped and heard the footsteps,
why would one stop at that point, as if he needed to ponder upon the situation.

As for the final bit of witness testimony from Paul:

"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

You darn well know the 'he' who detected faint indications of breathing was Paul ....
the examing the body together part was Lechmere at the head holding the woman's hand (his testimony), and Paul hovered over the body checking for breathing.

At that point, Paul wanted to lift the body up and find out more, and Lechmere refused .... saying that he didn't want to touch it, although he had been holding her hand.

[Newbie]

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)

That takes you hardly away from old Monatague, and the distance to work would still strongly favor old Montague over Hanbury street.
You are in a hurry to make it on time ... pretty easy decision.

If you just murdered Martha Tabrum just off of Wentworth street, beyond Old Montague, that might influence your decision to follow Paul down Hanbury street:
Mizen marking the direction in which you went and you not wanting to create undue suspicions.

[Newbie]

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

Christer's sense of humor: he doesn't consider Lechmere the finder, but the murderer.

[Newbie]

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.

Hi Dusty,

One of your issues is that Lechmere might have heard Paul's footsteps further down the street, and that his declaration of hearing footsteps in tandem with his visual/mental discernment of a female is not conclusive in that respect.

I guess we disagree ... and i'm fine with that.

Anything beyond that would be rendered academic and irrelevant.

[Newbie]

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.

Christer? yes, that is his position.

Myself? I'd say no, not necessarily. I just don't believe the full extent of Lechmere's story, for good reason.

Lechmere could have stumbled across the body only a minute earlier, examined it, knew the woman was dead - with eyes wide open and a large cut in her neck.

He might have heard Paul entering the street .... might have even noticed him around the same time he noticed the body.
I'd fully expect Paul to be wearing hobnailed boots .... if you do a lot of walking (at least 2 miles a day for Paul - 6 days a week),
boots wouldn't last long - that's my experience, and Paul had a child arriving soon.

Having to make a decision, and not wanting to flee .... not being the murderer,
Lechmere decided to pretend that he was just ahead of Paul,
and took Paul on a show inspection of the body,

He also wanted to get the hell out of there asap - she's dead, nothing more one can do;
nor did he want to lose a days pay as an inquest witness, so he was misleading with Mizen,
telling him you are wanted.

A few minutes later, PC Thain approached Dr. Lewellyn with that exact language .... you are wanted (on Bucks row by PC Neil).
Lechmere would have been familiar with its use and intent within the police force, having a PC step dad.
So, imagining them to be go - betweens, Mizen let them continue on there way without taking their names.

[Fiver]

Lechmere did not have high perceptual overload walking up Buck's row and not noticing anything.

I never said that Charles Cross had a higher perceptual lo

It was at the point of high processing, once opposite to the body, both mental and visual, that he suddenly, and mysteriously noticed footsteps ... which is very unusual;

Your statement contradicts both science and the evidence.

"As I got up Buck's row I saw something lying on the north side in the gateway to a wool warehouse. It looked to me like a man's tarpaulin, but on going into the centre of the road I saw it was the figure of a woman. At the same time I heard a man coming up the Street in the same direction as I had done, so I waited for him to come up." - Charles Cross

Cross' perceptual load increased when he noticed something in the gateway to a wool warehouse. He obviously focused his attention on that, first thinking the something was a tarpaulin, then realizing it was "figure of a woman."

however, you seem to be stating that he instantaneously dropped his visual interest in the body, once he discerned that it was a woman.

Your summary bears no resemblance to what I said. Lets try it again.

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 phenomenon of auditory masking, where louder 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 masking 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.

[Fiver]

But again ..... this point is moot in Lech's case: he finally heard the footsteps while being on the move .... the other poster insisting on this, Lechmere's, in his testimony, using the prespositional phrase 'at the same time'.

Your assumption that Cross was "on the move" when he hear Robert Paul's footsteps is an assumption. Let look at the evidence.

"It looked to me like a man's tarpaulin, but on going into the centre of the road I saw it was the figure of a woman. At the same time I heard a man coming up the Street in the same direction as I had come, so I waited for him to come up." - 4 September, 1888 Morning Advertiser.

Cross said "on going into the centre of the road", not "as I was going into the centre of the road".

That phrasing implies Cross stopped walking once he reached the centre of the road, but lets see what Robert Paul said.

"It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was." - 2 September, 1888 Lloyds Weekly News.

The word 'standing' is also used in the - 3 September, 1888 Evening News, 18 September Times, 18 September Morning Advertiser, 18 September Evening Standard, 18 September Daily Telegraph, 22 September East London Advertiser, and 22 September Illustrated Police News.

[Fiver]

Lechmere did not have high perceptual overload walking up Buck's row and not noticing anything.

I never said that Charles Cross had a higher perceptual load while there was nothing unusual to notice. I said he had a higher perceptual load once he noticed something.

(Repost since my sentence got truncated.)

[Geddy2112]

That takes you hardly away from old Monatague, and the distance to work would still strongly favor old Montague over Hanbury street.
You are in a hurry to make it on time ... pretty easy decision.

It would not, there is hardly any difference in the Hanbury and Old Montague route to Broad St from Doveton St. So it makes much more sense he continued on the road he was already in than to turn around and join a different street.