Robert Paul, Jack the Ripper?

[Chris]

And why did Paul say "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 test had been down there for a long time."?

[Rob Clack]

If I read that correctly, Corbett's Court was (at least in the early 1900s) mainly a residential lane containing a large tobacco factory, but, it seems, no market. If the tobacco factory existed in 1888, was Paul employed there I wonder?

The Tobacco Factory was there in 1888. It's frontage was on Commercial Street and Hanbury Street and had the number 112 Commercial Street. It was only the rear of the premisses that backed onto Corbet's Court. And didn't extend that far back.
It was expanding further into Corbet's Court maybe mid 1890s.

Rob

[Rob Clack]

Corbet's Court c1900

[The Good Michael]

And why did Paul say "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 test had been down there for a long time."?

Hi Chris,

Would you point me in the direction of that newspaper article. I searched for a long time today, and knew he had some odd snippets, but couldn't find them with the current search engine.

Thanks,

Mike

[The Good Michael]

Rob,

Great photo! Thanks a bunch for sharing.

Mike

[Rob Clack]

Hi Chris,

Would you point me in the direction of that newspaper article. I searched for a long time today, and knew he had some odd snippets, but couldn't find them with the current search engine.

Thanks,

Mike

Lloyds isn't it? Robert Pauls remarkable statement which the Lechmere brigade put so much faith in to but contradicts so much of there theory.

Rob

[The Good Michael]

Lloyds isn't it? Robert Pauls remarkable statement which the Lechmere brigade put so much faith in to but contradicts so much of there theory.

That is kind of funny. I'm pushing Paul now. Anyone who was married with 8 kids on a carman's salary and hours, had to have been a murderer on the way to and from work just to wind down. It's my new theory.

Mike

[Chris]

Lloyds isn't it?

Yes, I think so originally, though I copied and pasted that from a slightly defective transcription of the version in the Evening News:

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/evening_news/18880903.html

[David Orsam]

The Tobacco Factory was there in 1888. It's frontage was on Commercial Street and Hanbury Street and had the number 112 Commercial Street. It was only the rear of the premisses that backed onto Corbet's Court. And didn't extend that far back.
It was expanding further into Corbet's Court maybe mid 1890s.

Thank you for that information Rob and for the photograph, both extremely helpful.

[robhouse]

The more I think about it, the more it seems likely that other people must have passed by and saw Nichols's body lying one the sidewalk, but didn't bother to stop.

Rob H

[David Orsam]

Robert Paul may have fetched fresh produce from Covent Garden for delivery to a wholesaler in the Whitechapel/Spitalfields/Bethnal Green area.....But in the end everything must remain supposition.

Well, one thing we can be absolutely certain of is that on the night in question Paul was on his way to Corbett's Court. This comes from the testimony of our friend Mr Cross whose evidence was reported in The Times as: "The other man left witness at the corner of Hanbury-street and turned into Corbett's court".

[Rob Clack]

Well, one thing we can be absolutely certain of is that on the night in question Paul was on his way to Corbett's Court. This comes from the testimony of our friend Mr Cross whose evidence was reported in The Times as: "The other man left witness at the corner of Hanbury-street and turned into Corbett's court".

I am not sure whether Robert Paul worked in Corbet's Court or not. There was a Cart and Van Yard in Corbet's Court, so maybe he had reason to go there?

Rob

[David Orsam]

I am not sure whether Robert Paul worked in Corbet's Court or not.

If he didn't work there, how to explain his evidence that he "stated he went to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields" (Times) and c.f. Illustrated Police News, "he left home at about a quarter to four o'clock to go to his work in Spitalfields"?

[Rob Clack]

If he didn't work there, how to explain his evidence that he "stated he went to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields" (Times) and c.f. Illustrated Police News, "he left home at about a quarter to four o'clock to go to his work in Spitalfields"?

Well I said 'maybe' but he was suppose to have said this via Lloyds "I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market."

Rob

[David Orsam]

Well, now that I'm confident that I haven't missed an obvious link between Corbett's Court and Covent Garden, then considering the phonetic similarity between the words "Corbett's" and "Covent" (despite the lack of similarity between "Court" and "Garden"), I would say that the likelihood is that the LWN reporter misunderstood/misheard what Paul was saying.

I have been pondering if the reporter's error on this point misled the police because Paul did not give evidence at the inquest until 17 September and I've been wondering if the police were unable to track him down, wrongly believing that he worked at Covent Garden Market.

I'm not sure about that but I do think it is interesting, bearing in mind that the Lechmere documentary made a big point about Cross supposedly not coming forward until 3 September (after supposedly reading Paul's account in the previous day's LWN), that Paul evidently did not present himself to the police at all and, by his own account in the LWN of 30 Sept, "was fetched up in the middle of the night by the police". This was supposedly after his statement was published in LWN on 2 September which means that he did not speak to the police until the early hours of Monday 3 Sept at the earliest, which was the same day as Cross was giving evidence at the inquest.

This does not quite explain to me why Paul did not also give evidence at the inquest on that Monday although, on the basis of his account that he was "summoned to give evidence at the inquest on two different days" it may be that he expected to give evidence at the inquest on 3 Sept but time ran out and he was summoned back on the 17th. Either way, it throws serious doubt on the notion that there was something odd about Lechmere/Cross not contacting the police over the weekend (about which, incidentally, there does not seem to be any evidence either way).