Robert Paul, Jack the Ripper?

[GUT]

If you take a map and pinpoint the murder sites, combined with every place Paul resided and then include anybody he might have been related to or been friends with you can draw an isosceles triangle, circle or various trapezoid like shapes around them all.

This is pretty damning evidence of Paul's guilt if you ask me.

I have a new book entitled "Jack The Ripper - Geometry of Serial Killer" coming out soon.

Probably the best theory I've heard all year. [But you forgot the little people].

[drstrange169]

Is there any record of a policeman giving a different account of a conversation Paul had with him. No.

Yes, at least four times, maybe more.

1. Paul claimed he told Mizen, "I had told him the woman was dead".
Mizen denied it.

2. Paul claimed he spoke to Mizen, Mizen didn't acknowledge Paul's presence until asked by the Coroner.

3. Paul claimed to have left home at 3:45. PC Niel claimed to have found the body at 3:45

4. Paul claimed to have left home at 3:45. Mizen claims to have met both men at 3.45 at the corner of Hanbury Street.



"Was Paul found by the body by someone else? No."

Was the killer found by any of the other bodies?



"Did Paul give his real name? Yes."

Did Paul voluntarily go the police, like Crossmere?



"Do we have reason to think Paul came under suspicion, was visited at his house or was interrogated? Yes."

Yes.



"For Paul to have killed Nichols he would have to have doubled back to the end of Bucks Row hidden and re-appeared after Lechmere passed."

You think?
Paul, or the real killer, could simply make the round trip via Winthrop Street or Wood's Gardens.

"Where did he hide?"

See above.



"Why did Paul suggest that she was killed elsewhere? Perhaps because that is what al the newspapers said."

Perhaps means perhaps, which in turn means we don't know.



"Why did he say Mizen continued calling up? Mizen admitted he knocked on one more door and Lechmere also said he continued knocking up."

Why did Mizen continue knocking up, when, according to "his" version, he was told a policeman "NEEDED" him?



"Paul said he left home just before 3.45 at the inquest and in the newspaper said he got to the crime scene at 3.45. Those timings agree with themselves."

And disagree with every other witnesses times.



"Did Paul have any reason to be in the Berner Street area? Not so far as we know."

Not as far as we know, means we don't know.



"Did Paul have any reason to go down Old Montague Street and Wentworth Street while walking to work? - No"

Yes, if he had a connection with Covent Garden.

[GUT]

"Did Paul have any reason to go down Old Montague Street and Wentworth Street while walking to work? - No"

Yes, if he had a connection with Covent Garden.

Or maybe even to kill a prostitute!

[drstrange169]

Precisely!

[Scott Nelson]

What about Paul as Anderson's witness?

[Abby Normal]

An entire thread created to ridicule someone's suspect? people who have regularily contributed to the these boards and ripperology in general and who have put a lot of time and effort and good research into a candidate, who, quite frankly, is not that bad (especially compared to all the others).

Really? Grow up.

[Chris]

An entire thread created to ridicule someone's suspect?

To the ridiculous all things are ridicule.

[David Orsam]

An entire thread created to ridicule someone's suspect?

Hi Abby - in fairness, satire can be an effective debating tool but I'd like to think not the entire thread ridicules the Lechmere case as I have attempted to divert it into a reasonably serious, at least straight faced, discussion of Paul as a suspect - something which interests me just much as a discussion of Lechmere as one.

[David Orsam]

Do we have reason to think Paul came under suspicion, was visited at his house or was interrogated? Yes.

Hi Lechmere - I think drstrange 169 has answered your post very effectively but I would just like to add one additional response.

As quoted above, you make the point about Paul being under suspicion and interrogated and, earlier in the thread, you said: "Paul was taken from his house and kept at a police station all day - clearly being interrogated."

I don't think this is clear at all. By his own account he was visited at his house but I can't think of any reason why he would simply not have been asked for a statement by the police and then summonsed to appear at the inquest. There is no reason to suppose he was ever under suspicion let alone interrogated. In support of this, I point to the fact that there is not one sniff of a complaint from him in the LWN of 30 Sept that he was treated like a criminal and questioned as if he was the murdererer. What he was moaning about was the financial loss to him of appearing at the inquest. Perhaps the police should have been suspicious and interrogated him but that does not mean that they were and did. Personally I doubt it.

[Fisherman]

Hi Lechmere - I think drstrange 169 has answered your post very effectively but I would just like to add one additional response.

As quoted above, you make the point about Paul being under suspicion and interrogated and, earlier in the thread, you said: "Paul was taken from his house and kept at a police station all day - clearly being interrogated."

I don't think this is clear at all. By his own account he was visited at his house but I can't think of any reason why he would simply not have been asked for a statement by the police and then summonsed to appear at the inquest. There is no reason to suppose he was ever under suspicion let alone interrogated. In support of this, I point to the fact that there is not one sniff of a complaint from him in the LWN of 30 Sept that he was treated like a criminal and questioned as if he was the murdererer. What he was moaning about was the financial loss to him of appearing at the inquest. Perhaps the police should have been suspicious and interrogated him but that does not mean that they were and did. Personally I doubt it.

What Paul says id that he "was fetched up in the middle of the night by the police, and was obliged to lose a day's work the next day, for which he got nothing. He was then summoned to give evidence at the inquest on two different days."

So the police came for him in the middle of the night - do they employ that tactic when they just want to summon somebody they have no suspicions about?
Paul also says that he was first obliged to lose a days wages, and that would have been the day following the night on which he was fetched up.
Then, after that, he was summoned to give evidence at the inquest on two different days.
Paul had not been found in time to present him at anuy of the two first inquest days - Dew writes about how he was sought for. So the only two days that he can mean here are the two last days of the inquest, September the 17:th and the 22:nd.

I think it points to the police raiding his house in the midst of night, and then they interrogated him that night and the following day.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Simon Owen]

If you believe Lechmere is the Ripper , then I don't see that it's much more of a jump to believe that Paul was involved too as his accomplice and they both lied to the Inquest.

But I simply cannot see either Cross or Paul as the killer , sorry.

[David Orsam]

Hi Fisherman, I think the question you raise is an interesting one.

So the police came for him in the middle of the night - do they employ that tactic when they just want to summon somebody they have no suspicions about?

My answer to this would be yes. To give you one example: in my research into the 1907 murder of Emily Dimmock, whose dead body was discovered in her home during the morning of 12 September, the police were told that the victim had arranged to meet a man at The Eagle public house the previous night. The police thus wanted to speak to Lilian Raven the barmaid of The Eagle and show her a photograph of the victim. Ms Raven's witness statement dated 12 October (sic) 1907 in the Metropolitan Police file states: "I saw a photo on the night of the 12th Sept 1907 but I was in bed when it was shown to me and rather sleepy at the time and did not recognise it but I have seen the photo today and I think it is very like the girl".

A good example, I think, of the police being so keen to interview a witness that they woke her up in the middle of the night and, consequently, did not even get a sensible answer out of her (and she only made the identification a month later).

Paul also says that he was first obliged to lose a days wages, and that would have been the day following the night on which he was fetched up.
Then, after that, he was summoned to give evidence at the inquest on two different days.
Paul had not been found in time to present him at anuy of the two first inquest days - Dew writes about how he was sought for. So the only two days that he can mean here are the two last days of the inquest, September the 17:th and the 22:nd.

I think it points to the police raiding his house in the midst of night, and then they interrogated him that night and the following day

Here's the thing. I can't see why Paul would have been summonsed to give evidence on 22 September when he had already given evidence on 17 September. And of course he did not give evidence on 22 September so why would he have been summonsed to appear on that day? It doesn't make sense. Does it make sense to you?

The only thing that makes any sense to me is if he was summonsed to appear on 3 September but there was simply no time to take his evidence that day so he was told to his frustration - having already had to give up a day's work - that he had to come back in two weeks' time.

Now, I appreciate that on a literal reading of the LWN report it looks like Paul is referring to having been inconvenienced and unable to work on three separate days, namely the day of his arrest and the two inquest days. But I just can't see how this is possible bearing in mind that his story appeared on the Sunday. So my reading is that Paul was basically saying that he didn't get paid by the police for having to miss work on the Monday to go to the police station to make a statement, nor did he get properly paid by the coroner for attending the inquest (but not being called) that same day. It really is the only thing that makes any sense.

However, if you are right, and the two days he was summonsed to appear were indeed the 17th and 22nd then this means that he might not have been found by the police as at Monday 3 September - possibly due to the fact that they were looking in Covent Garden Market - which would explain why Paul didn't appear at the inquest on that day, something which has puzzled me (but which, on the basis of the LWN report, I have assumed was because there was no time to hear him). The irony of this is that it might only have been because Cross gave evidence at the inquest (or in his statement) that he saw Paul walk into Corbet's Court which meant that the police were able to find Paul. In other words, contrary to what was suggested in the documentary, it might have been Cross who flushed out Paul rather than the other way round!!!

[Lechmere]

Simon
One of the fundamental reasons why Paul and Lechmere differ (besides the fact that Paul found Lechmere by the body and not vice versa, and Paul didn't give a false name, nor have a dispute with a policeman over their conversation) is that we know the police came round his house unexpectedly in the middle of the night and detained him the next day. I doubt Paul just had a friendly chat and a cup of char down the station.
There are all sorts of reasons why Paul might be circumspect about the nature of the conversation he had with the police - and he doesn't enlighten us at all.
But dear old Dew remembered that Paul was regarded with suspicion.
No such claim was ever made with respect to Lechmere but it is clear that Paul must have absolved himself from.the suspicion Dew recalled.

Abby
You are of course correct but I expect no different from the usual suspects who tend to talk themselves into more and more ludicrous positions. And conduct debate in an increasingly hostile manner.
You have never been.an enthusiast for Lechmere obviously but at least you can see the rationality of some of the propositions and don't argue against them for the sake of it.
But as someone noted the best way to deal with their absurd behaviour is to talk sensibly about Paul.

[David Orsam]

"Dew writes about how he was sought for" - Fisherman

"But dear old Dew remembered that Paul was regarded with suspicion" - Lechmere

Just to deal with this point which I omitted to do. Dew's book written some 50 years later about events with which he was not personally involved is completely wrong on the facts. I mean, "The police made repeated appeals for him to come forward, but he never did so". It's nonsense isn't it? He's only saying what he has half-remembered from reading in the newspapers himself. It's not something that can possibly be relied on for anything.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: Hi Fisherman, I think the question you raise is an interesting one.



My answer to this would be yes. To give you one example: in my research into the 1907 murder of Emily Dimmock, whose dead body was discovered in her home during the morning of 12 September, the police were told that the victim had arranged to meet a man at The Eagle public house the previous night. The police thus wanted to speak to Lilian Raven the barmaid of The Eagle and show her a photograph of the victim. Ms Raven's witness statement dated 12 October (sic) 1907 in the Metropolitan Police file states: "I saw a photo on the night of the 12th Sept 1907 but I was in bed when it was shown to me and rather sleepy at the time and did not recognise it but I have seen the photo today and I think it is very like the girl".

A good example, I think, of the police being so keen to interview a witness that they woke her up in the middle of the night and, consequently, did not even get a sensible answer out of her (and she only made the identification a month later).

But the difference would be that she seemingly was not "fetched up", as Paul puts it. He implicates an intimidating attitude on behalf of the police that was not there - on the contrary - in your example.

Interesting nevertheless, but of course, if time is of the essence, then this may and will happen.

But was it so with Paul? I think not.


Here's the thing. I can't see why Paul would have been summonsed to give evidence on 22 September when he had already given evidence on 17 September. And of course he did not give evidence on 22 September so why would he have been summonsed to appear on that day? It doesn't make sense. Does it make sense to you?

Yes - many witnesses were probably at the inquest on days when they did not testify. It was up to the coroner to establish whether he wanted people at one or all days, and since Paul had seemingly hidden from the police, I believe the decision could have been taken to have him available until they knew what he was about.

The only thing that makes any sense to me is if he was summonsed to appear on 3 September but there was simply no time to take his evidence that day so he was told to his frustration - having already had to give up a day's work - that he had to come back in two weeks' time.

No - Dew makes it clear that Paul was sought after for the longest. He was not there on the 3:rd.

Now, I appreciate that on a literal reading of the LWN report it looks like Paul is referring to having been inconvenienced and unable to work on three separate days, namely the day of his arrest and the two inquest days. But I just can't see how this is possible bearing in mind that his story appeared on the Sunday. So my reading is that Paul was basically saying that he didn't get paid by the police for having to miss work on the Monday to go to the police station to make a statement, nor did he get properly paid by the coroner for attending the inquest (but not being called) that same day. It really is the only thing that makes any sense.

Why would the police speak to Paul on Sunday, send him home, fetch him up, and tell him to be at the inquest.
And if they did - why is Dew telling us that Paul went off the radar and had to be searched for?

No, the 17:th and the 22:nd were when Paul was at the inquest.

However, if you are right, and the two days he was summonsed to appear were indeed the 17th and 22nd then this means that he might not have been found by the police as at Monday 3 September - possibly due to the fact that they were looking in Covent Garden Market - which would explain why Paul didn't appear at the inquest on that day, something which has puzzled me (but which, on the basis of the LWN report, I have assumed was because there was no time to hear him). The irony of this is that it might only have been because Cross gave evidence at the inquest (or in his statement) that he saw Paul walk into Corbet's Court which meant that the police were able to find Paul. In other words, contrary to what was suggested in the documentary, it might have been Cross who flushed out Paul rather than the other way round!!!

Here´s Dew´s recollections:

All this was afterwards told in evidence by the carman. It never had the corroboration of the other man. The police made repeated appeals for him to come forward, but he never did so.

Why did he remain silent? Was it guilty knowledge that caused him to ignore the appeals of the police?

Obviously, Dew had forgotten that Paul DID testify - but he remembered how Paul did not come forward until late in the process.

So the police thought he consciously stayed away, and they did not like that one bit. Once they found out where he was, they fetched him up in the middle of the night and put the thumbscrews on.

That´s how I see it.

The best,
Fisherman