Robert Paul

[FrankO]

However, if he thought he was almost caught red handed, and wasn't sure what Paul had seen He may have froze for a second or two and stayed put to bluff it out.
but then he walks with Paul to the policeman. he could have separated with him at any point.

Hi Abby,

A couple of remarks.

Firstly, of course, Lechmere the killer may not have been completely sure about what Paul had seen, but I would think he must have been fairly sure Paul wouldn’t see him before he’d taken his position in the middle of the street. Otherwise, why do it at all? What use would it have if Paul could hear or see him before he was ready?

Secondly, I don’t have any doubts that Lechmere may have frozen for a couple of seconds when he first heard Paul, but a couple of seconds wouldn’t have mattered much, as Paul would still have been some 50 yards away from him after those couple of seconds, which wouldn’t have changed the situation much. He would still have had half a minute or so to walk away instead of increasing the chance that he'd walk into the beat PC on the western part of Buck’s Row by waiting for Paul. If he judged the chance was too big that he would walk right into the arms of a PC if he would get away when he first heard Paul, that chance would only increase with the time he waited before leaving the crime spot, whether that would be alone or in company with Paul.

All the best,
Frank

[Joshua Rogan]

2. how could he distinguish between the sound of paul's boots and a constable's boots? or, how did he know that the approaching man (paul) wasn't the constable?

Hi Robert

Police issue boots of the Victorian period were notoriously heavy; I believe Punch magazine once said they could be heard a full half mile away. While this is (probably) an exaggeration, Neil did say he heard (rather than saw) his fellow PC Thain pass the end of Buck's Row, which was about 100 yards away. Contrast that with Cross first hearing Paul approach at just 40 yards.

[Robert St Devil]

hello franko. he would have had to have known pc neil was coming from that direction to fear running away from paul. there have been two points that ive been considering in the lechmere theory:

1. he had a knife and was capable of murder. why not juat stab paul?
2. how could he distinguish between the sound of paul's boots and a constable's boots? or, how did he know that the approaching man (paul) wasn't the constable?

[Abby Normal]

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

Hi Frank/all
I agree-the most likely thing for him to have done was skidaddle the second her heard or saw Paul.

However, if he thought he was almost caught red handed, and wasn't sure what Paul had seen He may have froze for a second or two and stayed put to bluff it out.
but then he walks with Paul to the policeman. he could have separated with him at any point.

that being said Ive softened a little bit to the whole thing because I had a similar experience. walking to my car late at night that was parked in an alley I turned the corner and came upon a man down and a man very near. he said when he saw me go get help. I turned and went back out in the street and flagged a copper. when we got back the standing man had fled and the man on the ground was coming to. he said the other man had knocked him out and stole his wallet, watch and phone.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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!"

[Hair Bear]

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

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.