How sure was Paul?

[Fisherman]

If Paul told the reporter that Nichols' hands and face were cold, as he also said at the inquest, then the "killer just escaped" story is simply not available to the journalist, so if he wants to "spice it up", he has the attack on the police as his theme. Lechmere taken out of the story gives the reporter a scoop, and Paul becomes his star witness.

But yes, of course, other alternatives are possible.

You are now predisposing that Paul actually told him that the body was long dead, but you formerly said that you believe the reporter was responsible for the story that was ascribed to Paul in the article...? I am a tad confused by now. If the reporter did the lying, how do we know that Paul said that the hands and face were cold etcetera, and not that he felt the body twitch? For example?

[Doctored Whatsit]

You are now predisposing that Paul actually told him that the body was long dead, but you formerly said that you believe the reporter was responsible for the story that was ascribed to Paul in the article...? I am a tad confused by now. If the reporter did the lying, how do we know that Paul said that the hands and face were cold etcetera, and not that he felt the body twitch? For example?

It's quite simple, really, and not the slightest bit confusing. Forget your suggestion that I am predisposing that Paul said the body was "long dead". I actually used the word "if" and said that maybe Paul told the reporter that the hands and face were cold as he said at the inquest, and why wouldn't he, it's his sworn testimony! His simple statement that the hands and face were cold, renders it difficult if not totally impossible for the journalist to pretend he said that they were still warm, and that the killer had just narrowly escaped. This meant that if the reporter wanted an angle on the story, then Paul disturbed a murderer wasn't the story he could logically tell. I think most people will probably accept that the journalist added some colour to Paul's statement. I merely indicated that the route the journalist took was probably based on what Paul had said, but "sexed up" a bit, probably with an angle that the paper liked - a dig at the police.

And as I said, other alternatives are possible.

[Fisherman]

It's quite simple, really, and not the slightest bit confusing. Forget your suggestion that I am predisposing that Paul said the body was "long dead". I actually used the word "if" and said that maybe Paul told the reporter that the hands and face were cold as he said at the inquest, and why wouldn't he, it's his sworn testimony!

It is also his sworn testimony that he was sure that he felt Nichols breathe and that she was partly warm, though. So that´s why he would not say only that she was cold. Since you are asking.

His simple statement that the hands and face were cold, renders it difficult if not totally impossible for the journalist to pretend he said that they were still warm, and that the killer had just narrowly escaped.

Yes, if Paul only told half the story - and the unimportant part. The bit that she was partly warm and still breathing although very little is of course a lot more important.

This meant that if the reporter wanted an angle on the story, then Paul disturbed a murderer wasn't the story he could logically tell.

True. If Paul only told half the story. Which, incidentally, I think he did. Then again, we don´t know, do we?

I think most people will probably accept that the journalist added some colour to Paul's statement.

Who knows. I think the other way around, that people believe that the reporter mirrored what Paul said. That is the common thing.

I merely indicated that the route the journalist took was probably based on what Paul had said, but "sexed up" a bit, probably with an angle that the paper liked - a dig at the police.

And as I said, other alternatives are possible.

Well, that is at least something we may agree on!

[Fiver]

In what sense do you think Paul agreed with Lechmere as he testified at the inquest?

Did you not read what I wrote?

At the Inquest, Lechmere and Paul both testified that Paul thought he detected faint breathing from Nichols.

The first press report of what Robert Paul said appears to come from the September 2 Lloyd's Weekly. In Robert Paul's first version of events there is no talk of faint signs of breathing. There is no sign of a pulse. "The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time".

At the Inquest, Charles Lechmere contradicted the Lloyd's account, stating "The other man [Paul], placing his hand on her heart, said "I think she is breathing, but very little if she is."

When Paul testified two weeks later, his story had changed and he now agreed with Lechmere. Instead of saying "The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time", Robert Paul said "The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down. Before he did so he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint".

[Columbo]

It's quite simple, really, and not the slightest bit confusing. Forget your suggestion that I am predisposing that Paul said the body was "long dead". I actually used the word "if" and said that maybe Paul told the reporter that the hands and face were cold as he said at the inquest, and why wouldn't he, it's his sworn testimony! His simple statement that the hands and face were cold, renders it difficult if not totally impossible for the journalist to pretend he said that they were still warm, and that the killer had just narrowly escaped. This meant that if the reporter wanted an angle on the story, then Paul disturbed a murderer wasn't the story he could logically tell. I think most people will probably accept that the journalist added some colour to Paul's statement. I merely indicated that the route the journalist took was probably based on what Paul had said, but "sexed up" a bit, probably with an angle that the paper liked - a dig at the police.

And as I said, other alternatives are possible.

Yes this is most likely the scenario as suggested. Journalistic license. Which is why we don't use newspapers as the official source.

[Fiver]

hi fiver
can i ask you a serious and honest question? do you have a favored suspect? if so, who and why?

Favored? I suppose "David Cohen". He was insane, violent, and imprisoned shortly after the murder of Kelly. That said, there is no evidence tying him to any of the murders, there is no evidence he was more violent towards women, and it is unclear if he spoke English.

So I'd say that the odds of my "favorite" being the Ripper are about 1-in-1000.

My victim list is:
* Annie Millwood - possibly
* Martha Tabram - probably
* Polly Nichols - definitely
* Annie Chapman - definitely
* Elizabeth Stride - probably
* Catherine Eddowes - definitely
* Mary Jane Kelly - probably
* Alice McKenzie - possibly

I think the Ripper:
* Was between the ages of 18 and 45 and reasonably strong.
* Knew the area well enough that they had lived and/or worked there for a significant portion of their life.
* Had good night vision. Tabram and the C5 were all killed on nights with very little moonlight.
* Had good hearing. He appears to have narrowly escaped being detected after killing Nichols, Stride, and Eddowes.
* Lived alone. The Ripper took organs from some of his victims, which would be difficult to hide if the killer lived with anyone else.
* Spoke reasonably good English.
* Was not obviously mentally disturbed.
* Was relatively prosperous. Mary Kelly trusted him enough to take her back to her lodgings.
* Had a flexible work schedule or did not need to work.
* Did not kill on the way to work or while at work. Anyone who tried that would have been caught.
* Probably did not write the Goulston Street Graffito.
* Probably did not write any of the Ripper letters.
* Probably not a doctor.
* Might have accidentally cut himself when killing Eddowes with the wound becoming infected.
* Probably quit killing because of failing health and/or the thrill being gone, though I wouldn't rule out incarceration or accidental death. Suicide seems unlikely.

[Fiver]

It´s the other way around; what he said at the inquest tells us that what he was quoted as saying in the Lloyds interview was not the truth, unless he lied at the inquest and told the truth to the Lloyds reporter.

The Lloyd's account certainly is full of errors. It gets Paul's workplace wrong. It claims Paul thought thought Nichols had been dead for a long time, while he would testify that he thought she was still faintly breathing. It claims Paul left Lechmere with the body.

It also claims that Paul entered Buck's Row at "exactly a quarter to four", which contradicts the time estimates of Charles Lechmere, PC Mizen, PC Thain, and PC Neil. Yet you insist the Lloyd's account is right about the timing and everyone else is wrong.

[Abby Normal]

Favored? I suppose "David Cohen". He was insane, violent, and imprisoned shortly after the murder of Kelly. That said, there is no evidence tying him to any of the murders, there is no evidence he was more violent towards women, and it is unclear if he spoke English.

So I'd say that the odds of my "favorite" being the Ripper are about 1-in-1000.

My victim list is:
* Annie Millwood - possibly
* Martha Tabram - probably
* Polly Nichols - definitely
* Annie Chapman - definitely
* Elizabeth Stride - probably
* Catherine Eddowes - definitely
* Mary Jane Kelly - probably
* Alice McKenzie - possibly

I think the Ripper:
* Was between the ages of 18 and 45 and reasonably strong.
* Knew the area well enough that they had lived and/or worked there for a significant portion of their life.
* Had good night vision. Tabram and the C5 were all killed on nights with very little moonlight.
* Had good hearing. He appears to have narrowly escaped being detected after killing Nichols, Stride, and Eddowes.
* Lived alone. The Ripper took organs from some of his victims, which would be difficult to hide if the killer lived with anyone else.
* Spoke reasonably good English.
* Was not obviously mentally disturbed.
* Was relatively prosperous. Mary Kelly trusted him enough to take her back to her lodgings.
* Had a flexible work schedule or did not need to work.
* Did not kill on the way to work or while at work. Anyone who tried that would have been caught.
* Probably did not write the Goulston Street Graffito.
* Probably did not write any of the Ripper letters.
* Probably not a doctor.
* Might have accidentally cut himself when killing Eddowes with the wound becoming infected.
* Probably quit killing because of failing health and/or the thrill being gone, though I wouldn't rule out incarceration or accidental death. Suicide seems unlikely.

thanks. although cohen was most obviously mentally disturbed.
i agree on your victims. no need to answer i dont want to derail the thread.

[Doctored Whatsit]

The various reports of what Paul apparently said differ, but I think that it is probably more accurate to say that Paul "thought" he detected a faint movement like a breath. Christer in #33 has him positively stating that she was still breathing, and with her throat cut that wasn't very likely.

[Fisherman]

The various reports of what Paul apparently said differ, but I think that it is probably more accurate to say that Paul "thought" he detected a faint movement like a breath. Christer in #33 has him positively stating that she was still breathing, and with her throat cut that wasn't very likely.

As I have pointed out, Paul may well have interpreted a twithching as breathing. And although you cannot draw breath from a severed windpipe, you can gasp for air!

The way I see things, Paul was sure that he felt movement, but as he subsequently found out that the woman was dead and with a severed neck, he may have started to doubt himself. He nevertheless said at the inquest that he felt movement, going by the absolute majority of the sources. The one source that leaves it open is the one that says that he ”fancied” he felt breathing.

[Fisherman]

Did you not read what I wrote?

At the Inquest, Lechmere and Paul both testified that Paul thought he detected faint breathing from Nichols.

The first press report of what Robert Paul said appears to come from the September 2 Lloyd's Weekly. In Robert Paul's first version of events there is no talk of faint signs of breathing. There is no sign of a pulse. "The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time".

At the Inquest, Charles Lechmere contradicted the Lloyd's account, stating "The other man [Paul], placing his hand on her heart, said "I think she is breathing, but very little if she is."

When Paul testified two weeks later, his story had changed and he now agreed with Lechmere. Instead of saying "The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time", Robert Paul said "The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down. Before he did so he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint".

Yes, I read what you wrote, but you did not manage to express yourself very clearly, which was why I asked about it. Thank you for answering.

[Fisherman]

The Lloyd's account certainly is full of errors. It gets Paul's workplace wrong. It claims Paul thought thought Nichols had been dead for a long time, while he would testify that he thought she was still faintly breathing. It claims Paul left Lechmere with the body.

It also claims that Paul entered Buck's Row at "exactly a quarter to four", which contradicts the time estimates of Charles Lechmere, PC Mizen, PC Thain, and PC Neil. Yet you insist the Lloyd's account is right about the timing and everyone else is wrong.

I think that Paul is correct, but I don’ t think ”everyone else is wrong”. I think Swanson was correct in his October report, and I think coroner Baxter was correct when summing the case up. They both said that the body was found at 3.45.

Answer me this: John Thain said he was called into action by PC Neil at 3.45, just as you point out. He would thereforehave arrived at the body at 3.46, if his timings were correct. When he arrived at the murder spot, Neil immediately sent him to fetch doctor Llewellyn. From the murder spot, it would take 2-3 minutes to reach Llewellyns practice. And Llewellyn says that Thain woke him up at between 3.55 - 4.00.
So why is it that Thain spent 9-14 minutes on a 2-3 minute walk?

Any ideas?

PS. What estimate did Lechmere make? And where?

[Fiver]

It is also his sworn testimony that he was sure that he felt Nichols breathe and that she was partly warm, though]

Unless we have a copy of the transcripts, we are dependent on newspaper accounts and they disagree.

Was Nichols' body partly warm? Only the Daily News and the Woodford Times claimed that Robert Paul believed that. According to the Daily Telegraph, Evening Standard, the Morning Advertiser, St James Gazette, and the Times; Robert Paul thought Nichols' face and hands were both cold.

For contrast, the Daily News, the East London Observer, Illustrated Police News, Lloyd's Illustrated News and the Daily Telegraph, the Times, and the Morning Advertiser all claimed that Charles Lechmere thought Nichols' hands were cold and her face was warm.

So it seems that Charles Lechmere thought the body was partly warm and Robert Paul did not.

Was Nichols still breathing?

Three newspapers say Paul was sure there were "faint indications of breathing". In one case he "detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint". In two papers he said he could not hear her breathing. In one he said "While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement." According to six newspapers Charles Lechmere testified that Robert Paul said that he thought Nichols was still breathing.

So it seems fairly certain that Robert Paul believed Polly Nichols was still breathing faintly. What is not certain is whether Paul was correct.

If Paul was correct, Polly Nichols didn't die until after the two carmen left her. Of course the Pinchin Street Torso shows that blood can continue to flow from a body long after the heart stops beating.

[GBinOz]

I think that Paul is correct, but I don’ t think ”everyone else is wrong”. I think Swanson was correct in his October report, and I think coroner Baxter was correct when summing the case up. They both said that the body was found at 3.45.

Answer me this: John Thain said he was called into action by PC Neil at 3.45, just as you point out. He would thereforehave arrived at the body at 3.46, if his timings were correct. When he arrived at the murder spot, Neil immediately sent him to fetch doctor Llewellyn. From the murder spot, it would take 2-3 minutes to reach Llewellyns practice. And Llewellyn says that Thain woke him up at between 3.55 - 4.00.
So why is it that Thain spent 9-14 minutes on a 2-3 minute walk?

Any ideas?

PS. What estimate did Lechmere make? And where?

Hi Christer,

He apparently spent some time with the slaughtermen, picking up his cape. But most of the difference would come back to the same clock sync problem.

A question I have been thinking about: Mizen was "knocking people up", virtually acting as a human alarm clock. If he didn't have a pocket watch, how did he do this without knowing an accurate time? If he had a thirty minute beat, how did he manage a "knock up" for the same time with people at the opposite ends of the beat? Were Paul and Lechmere useing beat PCs as their alarm clocks so they knew the time they were supposed to have been "knocked up" rather than an actual time.

Cheers, George

[etenguy]

Was Nichols' body partly warm? Only the Daily News and the Woodford Times claimed that Robert Paul believed that. According to the Daily Telegraph, Evening Standard, the Morning Advertiser, St James Gazette, and the Times; Robert Paul thought Nichols' face and hands were both cold.

For contrast, the Daily News, the East London Observer, Illustrated Police News, Lloyd's Illustrated News and the Daily Telegraph, the Times, and the Morning Advertiser all claimed that Charles Lechmere thought Nichols' hands were cold and her face was warm.

So it seems that Charles Lechmere thought the body was partly warm and Robert Paul did not.

Hi Fiver

We do not need to rely solely on Paul or Lechmere in relation to body warmth, Henry Llewellyn stated:

On Friday morning I was called to Buck's-row about four o'clock. The constable told me what I was wanted for. On reaching Buck's-row I found the deceased woman lying flat on her back in the pathway, her legs extended. I found she was dead, and that she had severe injuries to her throat. Her hands and wrists were cold, but the body and lower extremities were warm. I examined her chest and felt the heart. It was dark at the time. I believe she had not been dead more than half-an-hour.