How sure was Paul?

[Fisherman]

I recently came across an article of a man who was hanged for murder,whom the doctor stated had died instantly,but whose pulse could be detected for some time after.

I am sure there are all kinds of odd exceptions to what we perceive as the general rule, but I am less sure that we should work from the presumtion that Nichols was one of them. We’ ll see what professor Thiblin says, if anything.

[Columbo]

I have been looking at Robert Paul and how he spoke of himself feeling a movement within the body of Polly Nichols as he put her hand on her chest. The common take on things is, if I am not much mistaken, that Paul expressed himself vaguely, stating that he thought he felt something, but once we look at the press reports, another picture emerges.
It was late in the examination process that Paul put his hand on the chest of Nichols in order to pull her dress down, and that was when he felt - or thought he felt - a movement. The version of events that has become the standard interpretation is the one in the Times:

While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement. Times 18/9

This would be where the conception that Paul only thought that he felt something was born. He "fancied" he felt movement. Nothing more.

But letīs look at the other papers before we settle the matter:

He and the man examined the body, and he felt sure he detected faint indications of breathing. Daily News 18/9, Woodford Times 21/9

He "felt sure". The problem with this wording is that it is leaves room for interpreting it as imagination: Paul "felt sure" may perhaps mean that he afterwards came to the conclusion that he was NOT sure, that he only felt sure at the time?

Letīs move on:

He put his hand to the woman's breast and felt a slight breath, such a one as might be felt in a child two or three months old. East London Advertiser 18/9

This is unequivocal: He DID feel a slight breath. He is not saying that the fancied he felt it, he actually DID feel it.

Next up is the Daily Telegraph:

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. Daily Telegraph 18/9

Same thing. He DID detect a slight movement as of breathing.

Okay. So where does this leave us? The one thing we can be certain of is that the reporters all heard Paul say the exact same words. He did not tell one paper that he only fancied he felt movement and another that he was sure that he felt movement. So which was it?

My suggestion here is that we weigh in another factor before we make our choice.

When Robert Paul took the stand on the 17th of September, the papers had written extensively about how Poly Nichols was found dead with her neck cut down to the bone. This means that the trachea waas also severed, and consequently, Nichols would not have been able to breathe.
There is also the matter that the inquest did not conclude that Lechmere had cut the throat perhaps seconds only before Paul arrived. Therefore, the common conception would have been one of somebody else having killed Nichols and left minutes before Paul arrived. And so, Nichols should not have been able to breathe or move at all.

But when Robert Paul examined Nichols on the murder night, he had no knowledge of these things.

Taken together, I find that all of this would be quite likely to make Paul doubt his own senses to a degree, in retrospect. And so I think that Paul at the inquest may have reasoned along the lines of "I was sure I felt her breathe when I touched her. It was a faint movement only, like that in a small child, but I am certain I felt something - although, I couldnīt have, could I...?"

This would explain the vagueness of the reports to a large degree.

Of course, Paul thought he felt breathing, but it may instead have been a stirring within the muscles, the last shiver of a dying person. And if that was it, then I would say that it is extremely troublesome for Charles Lechmere.

Iīd like to hear your takes on this - why has it become a "fact" that Paul only THOUGHT he felt movement, when he does not say so himself? And to what degree does a revised picture affect out view of Charles Lechmere?

Maybe, just maybe, we can have an interesting discussion about this?

Welcome Back! I would chalk this up to journalistic license. There is no reason to think anything other than what Paul said. He may have felt a convulsion, he may have felt nothing. we just don't know. Judging by the carmens actions, and lack of urgency he most likely didn't feel anything.

[harry]

To what degree does it affect time of death of Nichols,is ,I believe the object of the thread.Blood flow plus movement indicates a short time.

[MrBarnett]

To what degree does it affect time of death of Nichols,is ,I believe the object of the thread.Blood flow plus movement indicates a short time.

Sounds more like he took a long time to die after the ‘drop’ than that his pulse kept beating after death.

[Fisherman]

Welcome Back! I would chalk this up to journalistic license. There is no reason to think anything other than what Paul said. He may have felt a convulsion, he may have felt nothing. we just don't know. Judging by the carmens actions, and lack of urgency he most likely didn't feel anything.

Paul said he was sure that he felt faint breathing. He then told Lechmere that he would find a police and inform him about the matter. What would you have him do otherwise, that would have proven a sense of "urgency" on his behalf?

[Fisherman]

Sounds more like he took a long time to die after the ‘drop’ than that his pulse kept beating after death.

Having a heartbeat is being alive as far as I know. No doctor would declare a person with a beating heart dead.

[Fiver]

I have been looking at Robert Paul and how he spoke of himself feeling a movement within the body of Polly Nichols as he put her hand on her chest. The common take on things is, if I am not much mistaken, that Paul expressed himself vaguely, stating that he thought he felt something, but once we look at the press reports, another picture emerges.

The first press report of what Robert Paul said appears to come from the September 2 Lloyd's Weekly.

"On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said :- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. 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 beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head."

So 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.

[The Baron]

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."

Oh they didn't tell you?!

Cross was trying hard to tell the police and the jury that he was the murderer but they didn't listen to him!

He kept the knife on himself and went to see a policeman so maybe he will search him, but Mizen ignored him!

He told them he didn't hear anyone else, but they ignored him!

He contradicted Mizen and they kept ignoring him!

He told them Paul detected a breath, she is very freshly killed, but no one seems to listen to him.

So he decided to kill again, in 5 days at the same time, on his route to work, so maybe just maybe they will lastly know he is the true murderer!

He went fighting and pushing women and killing them near his mother's house so maybe someone will recognise him there, but no one knew him!


We need Mr Bean to play Lechmere in a new Documentary!




The Baron

[Abby Normal]

The first press report of what Robert Paul said appears to come from the September 2 Lloyd's Weekly.

"On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said :- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. 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 beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head."

So 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.

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

[Columbo]

The first press report of what Robert Paul said appears to come from the September 2 Lloyd's Weekly.

"On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said :- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. 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 beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head."

So 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.

“I think she is breathing, but very little if she is.” That statement indicates why no urgency to get help. Paul rightly guessed she was dead. I bet the story he told Lloyd’s is pretty close to what he said at the inquest. But we don’t have those documents so more speculation.

[Fisherman]

The first press report of what Robert Paul said appears to come from the September 2 Lloyd's Weekly.

"On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said :- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. 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 beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head."

So 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.

In what sense do you think Paul agreed with Lechmere as he testified at the inquest? Lechmere said at the inquest that he had told Mizen that he thought that the woman was dead, and he had also claimed as per some report that Paul had agreed with him. But what Paul said at the inquest was, according to the Daily News:
He and the man examined the body, and he felt sure he detected faint indications of breathing. The Daily Telegraph worded it: 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.

In my world, that is not agreeing with Lechmere. It is disagreeing with him. Maybe you are thinking of someting else, when speaking about how the two agreed?

[Fisherman]

“I think she is breathing, but very little if she is.” That statement indicates why no urgency to get help. Paul rightly guessed she was dead. I bet the story he told Lloyd’s is pretty close to what he said at the inquest. But we don’t have those documents so more speculation.

Itīs 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.

[Doctored Whatsit]

The truth about Paul's statements will remain unknown, of course. What did he tell The Lloyd's reporter, did he tell the truth at the inquest, or did he soft-pedal, concerned because of the criticism of the police in the Lloyd's account, and what was in his police statement? The last of these we cannot know, and it may well have been the most accurate.

I have always thought that Paul probably told the whole truth, or something very close to it to the reporter, but the reporter wanted a real scoop, so made him the star player, and then used his statements that the body was cold etc into a significant criticism of the police, which Paul may not have intended. Paul therefore became a reluctant witness because of the tenor of the journalism.

[Fisherman]

The truth about Paul's statements will remain unknown, of course. What did he tell The Lloyd's reporter, did he tell the truth at the inquest, or did he soft-pedal, concerned because of the criticism of the police in the Lloyd's account, and what was in his police statement? The last of these we cannot know, and it may well have been the most accurate.

And so what we have is what we go by. That is a major influence in why I say that Lechmere was the killer; what we have is in line with it, and we have a lot. I cannot weigh in what we DONīT have, but I am of course aware that in a court of law, if there is reason to believe that information that cannot be obtained could free a suspect, then the suspect should not be convicted.
All of this is pretty basic, but when we look at cases decided on circumstantial evidence only, we have a very different matter. When a convition is passed in such cases, there still remains a chance that the suspect is innocent. However, the court reaches the conclusion that this chance is so very unlikely that it would be wrong not to convict. And that is preceisely how I make my call; I say that there is no real chance that all the markers in his case are mere coincidences. And all oof then HAVE to be, if he is innocent.

I have always thought that Paul probably told the whole truth, or something very close to it to the reporter, but the reporter wanted a real scoop, so made him the star player, and then used his statements that the body was cold etc into a significant criticism of the police, which Paul may not have intended. Paul therefore became a reluctant witness because of the tenor of the journalism.

That is of course a matter of interpretation. I am less inclined to fault the reporter, becasue I donīt think it adds any spice to the story if, for example, Lechmere taken out of the story. Other elements can perhaps be said to spice matters up, like for example the accusations that the police did not do their job properly, and so it is perhaps more tempting to blame this on the reporter. But if we look at it from the other direction, surely it is a "better" story with a killer who had only just escaped as Paul arrived, leaving a still twitching and warm body after himself, than it is with a stone cold body where the killer would be long gone?

As I say, it boils down to interpretation and guesses. And yours is as good as mine, but my guess is that Paul himself is probably to fault.

[Doctored Whatsit]

That is of course a matter of interpretation. I am less inclined to fault the reporter, because I donīt think it adds any spice to the story if, for example, Lechmere taken out of the story. Other elements can perhaps be said to spice matters up, like for example the accusations that the police did not do their job properly, and so it is perhaps more tempting to blame this on the reporter. But if we look at it from the other direction, surely it is a "better" story with a killer who had only just escaped as Paul arrived, leaving a still twitching and warm body after himself, than it is with a stone cold body where the killer would be long gone?

As I say, it boils down to interpretation and guesses. And yours is as good as mine, but my guess is that Paul himself is probably to fault.

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.