Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A New Suspect?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Herlock Sholmes
    started a topic A New Suspect?

    A New Suspect?

    Ok so I've got your attention.

    How hard would we have to work to build up a case against Robert Paul as the killer of Mary Ann Nichols and, as a consequence, suggest him as Jack the Ripper?

    I'll start by suggesting four things that would have to be at least possibly true for my scenario to work. They are:

    1. That Robert Paul, who like CL would have used Bucks Row to get to work every day, could have been at least 'aware' of CL. Not in person of course. I'm talking about as footsteps or as a figure in the dim distance trudging on to work. What I'm suggesting therefore is that it's possible that Paul knew that another person used Bucks Row every morning at around 3.40/3.45.

    2. That Robert Paul could also have been aware that a Constable patrolled Bucks Row at around 3.50. Maybe he'd been late a couple of times and passed the Bobby on his beat?

    3. That Robert Paul could have left home earlier than he said he did. It's been suggested for CL so it's not unreasonable to suggest it for Paul.

    4. That a serial killer might get a kind of 'kick' from the thought of someone else discovering his 'handiwork.' A pleasure added to by the opportunity of being able possibly incriminate someone else whilst at the same time offering to 'help.'

    Ok.

    Robert Paul leaves home at say 3am. He picks up a very drunk Polly Nichols a few streets away. He takes her to Bucks Row and kills her. By the way, it's been suggested that CL did just this and I've argued the unlikelihood of him taking her to his work route on Bucks Row. This scenario at least gives a reason for doing just that. After he kills her he rounds the Board School goes through Woods Buildings and along the Whitechapel Road ( I'm guessing at 5 minutes here.) He then waits in a doorway or passage until he sees the figure of CL go along Brady Street and into Bucks Row. He gives him say a minutes head start and then follows on until he comes upon CL at the body. He had planned to hang around with CL for the beat Constable but they agree to go in search of another.

    Later that day Paul speaks quite voluntarily to the press (as they had no idea that he even existed) and takes the opportunity to slate the police (how long the body had lain undiscovered and Mizen's 'knocking up' activities) and to play down CL's role in going for a Constable: "...and told the other man (CL) that I would send the first policeman I saw."

    Have I cracked it?..........maybe not. Who knows though?

    All I had to do to arrive at this scenario was to accept four, I believe, fairly reasonable suggestions as true. Is Paul a more or less likely suspect than CL? What would we think if some researcher found that Paul had once threatened someone with a knife? Or that he frequented prostitutes? It doesn't take much to be able to view a witness as a suspect.

    (By the way, a while ago someone on here suggested Paul 'doubling back' to kill Nichols (even if it was tongue-in-cheek) and I'm too lazy to trawl back through to find who it was. I suspect that it was Patrick S but I may be wrong. Whoever it was can be assured of a reward from the royalties from my groundbreaking book!)
    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 08-06-2017, 10:25 AM. Reason: Missed a bit

  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
    >>Fisherman did make the discovery of what I tend to call 'the name thing,' <<

    Nothing to do with Christer.

    It was one of the best researchers in this field, the late Chris Scott, with the help, I believe, of some others. He didn't discover it to bolster any case for a suspect, simply for the benefit of knowledge. Ah, those were the days!

    Derek Osbourne was the first to write about "Cross" as a suspect, way back in the early 2000's.
    Thanks for the info Dusty.

    I've read some of the late Chris Scott's posts. A sad loss.

    I was certain that Derek Osbourne was involved somehow.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Pcdunn View Post
    Hi, Herlock,

    I think your experiment was successful. It is probably possible to try to find suspicious details about any witness, or anyone related to the case, and start a theory about them as the killer. Thanks for your response.
    Thanks for that Pat.

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
    well, i do have the word "saint" in my name dja which means i can't be all bad. always appreciate these extra bits that you fill in.

    my current weightless & opposing suggestion for the "name change" herlock: the weekend of Polly's murder, Lechmere had no idea what a "Jack the Ripper" was, but he could have known what a "High Ripper" was, so he may have been providing some self-protection by not using his last name. iow his mind may have raced to the involvement of gang violence before the idea of a serial killer entered his mind, and he feared criminal reprisals... moreso considering he still had to walk that route to work.
    Ripper mate!

    Popular Oz reply

    Leave a comment:


  • Pcdunn
    replied
    Successful experiment, I think

    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Hi Pat

    I think that it's just the fact that CL found the body and so had at least 'some' time alone with it is the difference between the two. We can say that CL gave the wrong name at the Inquest but he gained no advantage from it as he gave his correct address. We can point out discrepancies in statements but there's no reason why it has to be CL that lied. Paul did exaggerate his involvement in his Lloyds statement. A statement that he was keen to give as he obviously approached the press to give it rather than the other way around.
    The killing and then 'doubling back' is by no means impossible but I'd accept unlikely. He wasn't bothered about touching the body whereas CL was. This has been cited as a suspicious point against CL but maybe it just shows that Paul was more 'comfortable' around a corpse than CL was
    Hi, Herlock,

    I think your experiment was successful. It is probably possible to try to find suspicious details about any witness, or anyone related to the case, and start a theory about them as the killer. Thanks for your response.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pcdunn
    replied
    Originally posted by Hunter View Post
    Well now, that makes it all the more relevant.
    Yes, Hunter, especially if I want my share of the royalties from Herlock's "ground-breaking book" (see post 1), it is very relevant. It's not as if I'm planning my own book, just offering some observations.

    Originally posted by Hunter View Post
    People never toot their own horn a bit, do they? Don't dare read any personal memoires.
    One of my librarian colleagues wasn't big on autobiographies, no matter how historic the celebrity, for that very reason. I suppose I should have said "exaggerated," not "lied."

    Originally posted by Hunter,424441
    And yet he was interviewed by the press soon after the murder where he gave his exaggerated account wilfully. Yet, the police couldn't find him till a couple of weeks later because he was in hiding?
    Oh, probably not in "hiding" as much as not reporting to either the police or the inquest as much of his own will as Lechmere seemed to have done. For someone who was probably a person of interest as soon as the interview was published, he seemed reluctant to give an official account... Or, so it could be argued in response to Herlock's "experimental hypothesis", which is all I was doing here (shrug).

    Originally posted by Hunter,424441
    Now that seals it. Didn't have to be on his route, it was next door.
    Yes, the sociopath next door, right? Thanks for the response, Hunter, but I'm not all that serious about Paul's guilt-- just playing along with the premise of the thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    >... using an alias is common among criminals.<<

    Usually to avoid being found by the police, in this case, Xmere went to the police of his own volition, negating that need for an alias.

    We also know that it was completely normal for non criminals to use other names in the Victorian period. And contrary to claims by some, not illegal to use in a court or inquest setting.

    Nothing odd or suspicious about the name issue in itself.

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    >They were together but Christer came up with the Mizen Scam to get CL away from Paul so that he could lie to Mizen. <<

    I may be wrong on this one, I'd have to check, but I think it was Ed Stow that first suggested Paul's separation from Mizen and Xmere.

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    >>Fisherman did make the discovery of what I tend to call 'the name thing,' <<

    Nothing to do with Christer.

    It was one of the best researchers in this field, the late Chris Scott, with the help, I believe, of some others. He didn't discover it to bolster any case for a suspect, simply for the benefit of knowledge. Ah, those were the days!

    Derek Osbourne was the first to write about "Cross" as a suspect, way back in the early 2000's.

    Leave a comment:


  • Henry Flower
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    I don't think that my book on Robert Paul is going to be much of a success
    Unless.... was Paul, by any chance..... a Freemason.....?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    I don't think that my book on Robert Paul is going to be much of a success

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Does anyone know if anyone has done any research on Paul. I'm assuming that someone must have.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Henry Flower View Post
    I thought your double post was not sufficient. I intend to repost your words as often as I can, in any context possible.
    Much appreciated.

    Leave a comment:


  • Henry Flower
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Henry are you in the pub?

    You've quoted me and replied to Abby
    I thought your double post was not sufficient. I intend to repost your words as often as I can, in any context possible.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Henry are you in the pub?

    You've quoted me and replied to Abby

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X