Robert Paul, Jack the Ripper?

[Abby Normal]

To the ridiculous all things are ridicule.

What's that in Latin?

[J6123]

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.

Simon's post made me laugh so hard an earthquake happened, but generally I agree. The Lechmere theory is one of the most sensible ever to emerge compared to some others.

Also, I think that Bruce Forsythe is a better suspect than Druitt or Tumblety.

[The Good Michael]

An entire thread created to ridicule someone's suspect?

Is that what you think? Think again. The thread, as I began it, was about the ease with which anyone can become a suspect. It was satire, but it is easily seen how one could take a completely different figure and make similar arguments. Lechmere/Cross is not an impossibility. He is not being ridiculed by anyone.

Mike

[J6123]

I got that. I am a big fan of satire. Stewart Lee's Comedy Vehicle, Series 3 Episode 3...

[David Orsam]

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

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

Fisherman - your answer is very "Dew heavy". I can't honestly see how it is possible to place any reliance on someone's account of matters of which he had no first hand knowledge, written some 50 years after the events in question, in circumstances where we know he gets his facts completely and utterly wrong. You refer to Dew's "recollections" but he wasn't recollecting anything involving Cross/Paul with which he was personally involved.

Now let me explain why Paul cannot possibly have been summonsed to the inquest on 17th and 22nd September.

He would only have been asked to attend on one day. There is no earthly reason why he would have been asked to set aside two working days to give evidence at the inquest. It would not have happened.

The inquest was adjourned for a fortnight at the end of Monday 3 Sept (i.e. to Monday 17th Sept).

So Paul was certainly summonsed to appear at the resumed inquest on the 17th. He gave his evidence and that was it. It was finished. Why would he then have been summonsed to appear again five days later? It would only have happened if he had needed to be recalled for any reason but there wasn't any reason and he didn't appear on the 22nd. His evidence was over.

That being so, if he was summonsed to appear on two days, the only thing that is feasible is that he was summonsed on the very day that he was questioned (i.e. Monday 3 Sept) and he turned up at the inquest but time ran out before he was able to testify. That really is the only possible scenario here.

I would accept that Paul wasn't in court when Mizen was giving evidence otherwise he would surely have been produced along with Cross for identification purposes. So, to that extent, his questioning, preparation of his statement and production of the summons might have taken some time but I must repeat that there is no other scenario that makes any sense than him coming to court late on the Monday but being told he wasn't needed for a fortnight. If you think there is please explain it!

[Pcdunn]

I don't I am afraid. The Goad Map I looked at just shows a yard with the writing 'Carts & Vans' and that was what I was thinking, that he may have kept a cart or van in Corbet's Court and took it daily to Covent Garden.

Rob

Hello, you've got it! I was pondering that one or another of the "carmen" (teamsters) owned a covered delivery wagon used as a portable murder-parlor, in which he lured his victims, sliced them up, transported them to various places around Whitechapel and left them on the streets and in courtyards, etc., to be discovered by innocent passersby.

Obviously, my previous suspicion of Paul (mentioned on the Lechmere off the hook thread) is correct! Thank you for providing the proof! ( I promise to credit you with a proper bibliographic citation, )

Pat D. ( LOL... this entire post is not serious)

[Pcdunn]

Maybe not...

And they dragged Paul out of bed in the middle of the night but didn't even visit Cross at his house or Pickford's?

I have noticed that the inquest reports say two things seeming to indicate they (police) DID locate Charles Cross, possibly at his home, or at his job.

1) "a carman was brought in (my italics) and the witness identified him as the man who had spoken to him"
2) "Carman Cross, who wore a coarse sacking apron into the courtroom,..."

So. Could we surmise that "brought in" suggests the police talked Cross into coming along with them, and he didn't wander by on his own initiative?
As for the apron, either he had it on at his home, if he was either leaving or had just come home when the authorities stopped by -- or, perhaps more likely, as he gave testimony during the day, they contacted him at Pickfords and escorted from there while he was working.

Pat D.

[Robert]

Pat, I think it just means that he was brought into court for Mizen to identify. Then when Mizen had finished testifying, it was Crossmere's turn. This was on Sept 3rd.

[Pcdunn]

Pat, I think it just means that he was brought into court for Mizen to identify. Then when Mizen had finished testifying, it was Crossmere's turn. This was on Sept 3rd.

Hmm... All right, I can see that, too. Thank you.

Pat D.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman - your answer is very "Dew heavy". I can't honestly see how it is possible to place any reliance on someone's account of matters of which he had no first hand knowledge, written some 50 years after the events in question, in circumstances where we know he gets his facts completely and utterly wrong. You refer to Dew's "recollections" but he wasn't recollecting anything involving Cross/Paul with which he was personally involved.

Now let me explain why Paul cannot possibly have been summonsed to the inquest on 17th and 22nd September.

He would only have been asked to attend on one day. There is no earthly reason why he would have been asked to set aside two working days to give evidence at the inquest. It would not have happened.

The inquest was adjourned for a fortnight at the end of Monday 3 Sept (i.e. to Monday 17th Sept).

So Paul was certainly summonsed to appear at the resumed inquest on the 17th. He gave his evidence and that was it. It was finished. Why would he then have been summonsed to appear again five days later? It would only have happened if he had needed to be recalled for any reason but there wasn't any reason and he didn't appear on the 22nd. His evidence was over.

That being so, if he was summonsed to appear on two days, the only thing that is feasible is that he was summonsed on the very day that he was questioned (i.e. Monday 3 Sept) and he turned up at the inquest but time ran out before he was able to testify. That really is the only possible scenario here.

I would accept that Paul wasn't in court when Mizen was giving evidence otherwise he would surely have been produced along with Cross for identification purposes. So, to that extent, his questioning, preparation of his statement and production of the summons might have taken some time but I must repeat that there is no other scenario that makes any sense than him coming to court late on the Monday but being told he wasn't needed for a fortnight. If you think there is please explain it!

I don´t think Paul was necessarily summonsed to attend on the last two days of the inquest because he was needed. The police hauled him out of bed in the middle of the night, and they were clearly not charitably tuned against Paul, who had evaded them for quite some time - like Dew says! Paul is bitter about it, very clearly, and it is understandable. But the police would not be sure that he was wholecloth, and they would not have taken a liking to him and so it is quite understandable that they came down on him as hard as possible.

The best,
Fisherman

[David Orsam]

Fisherman, I have been pondering this point and, while I have not come to any firm conclusions as yet, I must say that my certainty that Paul would not have been summonsed twice to the inquest has evaporated somewhat, albeit that this depends on the accuracy of the LWN report of 30 Sept 1888 in which it is stated that witnesses at the Chapman inquest were also summonsed for more than just the single day on which they gave evidence. I remain very surprised that the coroner would have spent precious money in this way by summonsing and handing out expenses to witnesses after they had given their evidence but perhaps this is what was going on.

I could not find any support for such a thing in the 1880 or 1898 editions of Jervis on the office and duties of coroners but in the 1957 edition the following is stated:

"It is the privilege of jurors, at any time during the investigation, to call back before them any witness who has been examined..."

So perhaps every witness who gave evidence was summonsed back for each day on which the inquest continued - including the day of the summing up - just in case the jury wanted to recall them. It seems extraordinarily wasteful and inefficient for all concerned but seems to me the only possible explanation if the LWN report is correct.

Yet, it does not quite explain the LWN report in which it is stated that Richardson lost 4 four days, Albert Cadosch lost 3 days while John Davis and Elizabeth Long both lost 2 days each. The inquest lasted 5 days so, while this works for Richardson who attended on the second day, and Mrs Long, who attended on the fourth day, it does not make sense in respect of Davis who gave evidence on the first day of the inquest and thus would presumably have had to have attended all of the following four days, thus meaning he should have lost 5 days work. Cadosch, who gave evidence on the same day as Mrs Long, should also only have lost 2 days.

Two further points: If Paul did receive two summonses (for 17 and 23 Sept) he could not have received his second summons until after he gave his evidence because, at the end of the hearing on the 17 September, the coroner asked the jury if they wanted to close the inquest at that point or adjourn it until another day, to which the jury replied that that it should be adjourned to allow the police to make further inquiries. I still find it astonishing that Paul would then have been summonsed to attend on the 23 Sept when, apart from the brief evidence of William Eade, all that happened was the coroner's summing-up and jury verdict but perhaps was the way they did things. If so, it presumably meant that Charles Cross was also summonsed to the inquest on both 17 and 23 Sept, meaning that he must have had quite a busy month if, as you claim, he also murdered three women during September.

Just to note that the reference to Act of Vic., cap. 68. sec. 1 in the LWN report is to the Act of 1837 to Provide for the Payment of Expenses of Holding Coroners Inquests which was repealed (and superseded) by the 1887 Coroner's Act but I assume that the authorities were simply saving money by using old printed forms rather than having new ones printed. The fees for witness attendances don't appear to have increased in 50 years from one shilling so it's no wonder that Paul was unhappy.

In short, then, perhaps Paul did miss a day's work through being questioned by police as he claimed in the LWN story. For me it would also mean that Paul had not been located by the police as of Monday 3 September, otherwise he would surely have been called to attend the inquest on that day like Cross. In view of your comment about Dew's memoirs, I would also draw your attention to the thread I started on the Dew forum within Police Officials and Procedures entitled "Walter Dew's Suspect" in which I agree that the police might have been looking for Paul for a period following the LWN statement but explain this does not mean that Dew's memoirs are accurate or reliable.

[Wickerman]

With respect to the Lloyds Weekly article, I think Paul's case is simpler than those mentioned in the Chapman inquest.

Paul being raised up in the middle of the night was presumably questioned at the station for long enough that he missed the start time of his work day, thereby losing a days pay.
He was then summoned to appear on the 17th, and on termination of that days inquest, all the witnesses were again summoned to appear on the 22nd.
Hence Paul received two shillings.



At the Chapman inquest Richardson was first summoned to appear at the 2nd sitting, and presumably summoned at the end of the day to appear at the next sitting, and then again on the third, and again on the fourth day.

If you notice at the end of the fourth day the Coroner declares:
As far as we know, the case is complete.

So I am guessing that no witnesses were summoned to appear on the 5th and final day which was to be purely the Coroner's summary.
That is why Richardson received three days pay, for appearing on the 12th, 13th & 19th.

Complications arise with what was paid to Davis, Long & Cadosch.

Both Long and Cadosch only appeared once, on the 19th, the 4th day of the inquest, yet Long was paid two shillings, and Cadosch paid three shillings.

I wonder if Mrs Long had first been summoned to appear on the 13th, but due to recalls she sat there through the day and was not called, so she was then summoned to appear again on the 19th for which she did give testimony.
Thereby receiving two shillings for being present for two days.

The same with Cadosch, perhaps he had been first summoned on the 12th, but again due to recalls was re-summoned for the 13th but again due to recalls he had to be summoned again on the 19th, when he did give testimony.
Thereby receiving three shillings for being present for three days.
There were quite a number of recalls which doubtless take up time which could not be allowed for when issuing a summons.

Davis may be a different case altogether, only summoned and appearing on the first sitting, but perhaps then again for the second, but the Coroner may have not summoned him again as he sensed his contribution was fully explored?
Davis received two shillings for two days.

We must not forget witnesses may appear and still not be paid, payment is still at the Coroner's discretion.

[David Orsam]

We must not forget witnesses may appear and still not be paid, payment is still at the Coroner's discretion.

Yes, but the LWN story said that Davis "lost two days". If the answer is that attendance was at the coroner's discretion, so that Paul did not need to attend on the 13th or the 19th, then that undermines the whole point that witnesses needed to re-attend every single day because the jury might decide they needed to be recalled at any time. It would seem to me to very strange that William Nichols, Ellen Holland, Mary Ann Monk, Dr Llewellyn, Emma Green, Walter Purkis, Patrick Mulshaw, Robert Paul, Robert Mann, James Hatfield and Charles Cross, as well as Ede (who was recalled), and the police witnesses, were all summonsed to attend the last day of the inquest on 22nd Sept, at a cost to the coroner/local authority, just on the possibility that the jury might want to recall them.

But if it was at the discretion of the coroner, then the same argument that you put forward in respect of Mrs Long and Cadosch could apply to Paul so that perhaps Paul was actually summonsed to appear on 3rd Sept, as I originally surmised, but did not actually testify on that day for whatever reason.

[Wickerman]

Yes, but the LWN story said that Davis "lost two days".

Yes, he did do.
We know Davis appeared on the first day, but there must have been one other day. The most likely is the next sitting, but thereafter he was not summoned.
It's guesswork I know but it must also be consistent with what else we know.
It appears to me the Coroner issued summonses at the end of an inquiry for those to reappear whom he deemed necessary.
Naturally, the Coroner also has a list of new witnesses to be summoned on future sittings also.

It would seem to me to very strange that William Nichols, Ellen Holland, Mary Ann Monk, Dr Llewellyn, Emma Green, Walter Purkis, Patrick Mulshaw, Robert Paul, Robert Mann, James Hatfield and Charles Cross, as well as Ede (who was recalled), and the police witnesses, were all summonsed to attend the last day of the inquest on 22nd Sept, at a cost to the coroner/local authority, just on the possibility that the jury might want to recall them.

So long as one witness was summoned to appear, which he was, I think we are stuck with that distinct possibility.

But if it was at the discretion of the coroner, then the same argument that you put forward in respect of Mrs Long and Cadosch could apply to Paul so that perhaps Paul was actually summonsed to appear on 3rd Sept, as I originally surmised, but did not actually testify on that day for whatever reason.

The timing might be tight though, the article involving Paul only appeared on Sunday the 2nd Sept., presumably this is when the police saw it and acted accordingly.
Witnesses for the next inquest will have already been summoned to appear on Monday 3rd, we might accept the schedule was full.
A new witness like Mr Paul, only found the previous day, would have to wait for the next sitting after, that being the 17th.

P.S.
If you recall, Paul said he lost a days pay. Perhaps he was still being interviewed Monday morning, so it is only to be expected that he would not be summoned the same day.

[GUT]

It may also have been that he was summonsed for one day and not reached.

Unfortunately few hearings run like clockwork even when time limits are set they are rarely adhered to strictly, sometimes a witness will be dealt with in much less time than anticipated, other times, for a variety of reasons they will take longer.