Review of Holmgren's article in Ripperologist 172

[Geddy2112]

The Reliable Robert Paul – Or?

November 2024 and the Ripperologist Number 172 has been released to the public and the article regarding Robert Paul by Christer Holmgren has been read and digested.¹ I really had high hopes for this latest article from Holmgren. Unfortunately, a paragraph or so in Holmgren's true colours have been firmly pinned to the mast.
Robert Paul was a vital player in the Lechmere Theory. Without Robert Paul, it's fair to assume Charles Lechmere would not be spoken about as the killer of Polly Nichols. It's the fact he 'saw/found' Lechmere in the middle of the road, (which has been twisted from being anywhere from the middle of the road to hovering and kneeling over the dead body) that builds the case. After all, if anyone else were present when the other first finders did their bit for serial killer history then we would of course be talking about them as potential murderers.
Over the last decade or so the role of Robert Paul has been questioned to ask if he was just a witness or actually something more sinister and even the murderer himself. I've even written a piece myself asking if it was possible that Paul was the murderer, albeit a rather tongue-in-cheek one. The questions raised in my piece have been attempted to be answered by a House of Lechmere YouTube video: Robert Paul – from Witness to Jack The Ripper suspect, unfortunately, simple primary school maths has proven the video baseless with its 'impossible' tags and ‘in the nutty column’ statements. In between beats Paul could have murdered Polly Nichols, went around the block, walking at an average walking speed of 3.1mph and still arrived back in Bucks Row behind Cross with approx 9 mins to spare.

This article in the Ripperologist asks the question, The Unreliable Mr Paul - or?¹ So how reliable was Robert Paul? For me personally, if the Newspaper reports are accurate then Robert Paul is one of the most unreliable witnesses we have in the case. He is at first clear on the time to a definite degree when he entered Bucks Row but later not so. He thinks poor Polly was very dead and so cold she had been dead for a long time.² Later, however, he considers he may have felt a faint breath which of course turns his previous assessment on its head. According to his ‘Remarkable Statement’ (Lloyds Weekly News 2nd Sept 1888)², he went to find a PC (Mizen) on his own but later changed this to going on the search for a PC with Charles Cross, the other man in Bucks Row that morning. It's all a bit of a mess. How does Holmgren handle this? Well, the ambiguity of the reports and the testimonies are ripe for a touch of Holmgren's usual warping of the facts, the seeing one side, the twisting of the evidence and the general bending of the truth. How did he do?
Holmgren is fast to rubbish any idea Robert Paul could be the killer. Of course, his suspect is the other man in the scenario and nothing, as many will know, will shake him from that. I'm not sure full 4k HD CCTV images of the morning’s events would even sway him; such is his stubbornness and reluctance to accept other people's points of view. Holmgren asks “If the idea of Robert Paul committing the murder is so ludicrous, why indeed would he flee the scene just to reappear a few minutes later?”¹ Well, to provide an alibi of course. It's fair to say, since he obviously often walked Bucks Row at a similar time on his way to work, he knew a PC would be approaching the murder site at approximately 3:45 am. Furthermore since he was ‘behind time’⁶ he might have even normally bumped into PC Neil on his 3:15am run past. Maybe that is why he told the reporter it was 'exactly' 3:45 am when he entered Bucks Row². Is Robert Paul fleeing and returning as ludicrous as a killer staying in situ, hiding the bloody knife about his person, waiting for the first person to approach and tapping him on the shoulder with a probably bloody hand? Is it as ludicrous as said killer then going with the witness to find a PC and alerting him of his crime when, according to the theory that Lechmere is the killer³, he had at least seven minutes to escape through at least eight or nine different routes, but didn’t? Remember Charles Cross and Robert Paul managed to 'escape' Bucks Row a few minutes later without seeing a soul until they encountered PC Mizen.

Is it as ludicrous as a killer murdering a poor woman in a street that he walked six days a week, at roughly the same time he was supposed to be there, 20 minutes or so before clocking on for a possible 18 or so hour shift all the while knowing a PC was maybe only some 50 yards away like PC 81 GER was in Schneider's Factory? I do not really think Robert Paul is the killer, but is the idea as ludicrous as Holmgren makes it out to be? Is it indeed as ludicrous as Charles Lechmere being Jack The Ripper?
Holmgren begins his quest to make Paul the prosecution’s star witness early on in the piece by comparing the ‘Remarkable Statement’ Lloyds Weekly from the 2nd of Sept 1888², other publications and that of the press accounts of the inquest. It is indeed ‘remarkable’ to see huge discrepancies from the Lloyd’s account to the inquest reports. We have Paul one hundred per cent stating he entered Bucks Row at exactly 3:45am and we have Paul claiming poor Polly was very cold and very dead when he examined her. We also have Paul insisting he went alone to find a policeman leaving Charles Cross to wait in Bucks Row. All of these claims are highly contradicted by his other version of events given when sworn under oath at the inquest, an inquest he was apparently forced to attend after being sought out by the Police. Is Robert Paul sounding reliable or not at this juncture?
It is at this point of the article we are given a contradiction by the author himself. Holmgren claims the following¹:

“To begin with, if, as I suspect and as PC Mizen describes things, it was Charles Lechmere who spoke to the officer and declined to tell him about the potential severity of the errand, then there would have been no reason for PC Mizen to hurry away.”

Unfortunately for Holmgren a touch later in the piece, he states that Robert Paul said:

“Well, we then went on our way, and when we got to Bakers Row, we found a PC there. We told him what we had seen.”

It appears Holmgren has forgotten which side he needs to take to make the fabled ‘Mizen Scam’ true. On one hand, he claims Charles Lechmere spoke to Mizen alone. On the other he has Paul stating ‘we’ which of course means both men went and spoke to PC Mizen. Which is correct? It appears Holmgren wishes to have his cake and eat it. Remember for the ‘Mizen Scam’ to be a correct version of events PC Mizen would have to be telling the truth, which according to Holmgren on a Facebook Group⁴ on the 13th of Aug 2024 would have been backed up by his notebook scribbles.




Unfortunately the same notebook scribbles under oath are not believed by Holmgren when Mizen states that Cross and Paul were in his company at the end of Hanbury Street in Baker’s Row at 3:45am¹¹ because he needs Paul to be just entering Bucks Row at that time to make his ‘time gap’ work to allow Lechmere to be the killer.
Do we have more issues, yes, I believe so. We are presented with these quotes from Holmgren²:

“Paul also suggested that the woman should be propped up, which would have given away that she had had her throat cut to the bone.”
“And Paul was in all likelihood the person responsible for pulling the dress down so that the wounds to the throat became visible to PC Neil, who arrived at the site some minutes after the two carmen.”

Depending on which version of the testimonies you read and believe it is rather fifty-fifty to who suggested the propping of the body.^{8 9} One article states Paul suggested, and Cross refused, another states Cross suggested the prop and Paul refused. Regardless I’ve always found this an odd point that gets laboured too much. Refusing to touch or prop up a body is hardly a sign of guilt or indeed ‘callous’ as is often made out by the Lechmere Theory. I consider most people in the situation presented to Robert Paul and Charles Lechmere that morning would result in a refusal to not touch the body.
Regarding the pulling down of the dress it has always been the contention of Holmgren³ that Lechmere as the killer pulled down the dress in the attempt to cover up the abdominal wounds so that when the stranger (Paul) approached he would not notice the horrific nature of the recent deed. So why is Holmgren now suggesting Paul was the person to pull down the clothing, is it to show Paul as a caring, honest individual who wanted to hide poor Polly’s modesty, was he trying to put Paul in a better light than Lechmere?¹
We are then given reasons why the perceived ‘anti-police’ nature of Paul seeps into his Remarkable Statement. We are shown how Paul might feel aggrieved at the actions of Mizen and Neil.¹ We are told by Holmgren that this has to do with Neil claiming that he found the body first and Paul was upset about being left out of the saga.
However recently it has come to light there may be yet another more crucial reasoning for Robert Paul's apparent 'anti-police' stance. It on first glance appears that on the 1st May 1871 we see a fifteen years old Robert Paul charged and found guilty at Middlesex Assizes, Whitechapel of 'False Pretences.'¹⁵ He was found guilty and served six months imprisonment in Newgate prison. Robert Paul was now a convicted criminal, having to live with that fact for the rest of his life. Did he feel aggrieved by this, was this the reason behind his seemingly 'anti-Police' tone in the Remarkable Statement? Does this change the way we look at Robert Paul? Does he now seem more suspicious with all his lies in the Remarkable Statement and of course this knowledge he appears to have a criminal record? Does it now make Holmgren's plee for good character on behalf of Robert Paul looking more damaged?
We are given reasons why Robert Paul first might have thought the body was very cold and had been dead a long time. According to Holmgren, this is because other methods of touch should have been used; like feeling the armpits or groins of a victim. Unfortunately for Holmgren in the next sentence, he explains how Dr Rees Ralph Llewellyn was still able, some minutes after Paul’s assessment, to tell the body was in the main still warm.¹ Was this because he checked the victim’s armpits or groin? I certainly do not think it would have been possible for the doctor to feel the temperature of poor Polly’s groin without noting the large gashes to her abdomen or vagina area which were not discovered until later at the morgue. Holmgren’s scenario does not seem plausible, mainly because in his other version of events Paul did not touch her armpits or groin either.² If Paul felt breathing why did Llewellyn not detect it? We are well aware, although not directly mentioned in this article that Holmgren fancies the phenomenon Paul experienced was ‘agonal breathing.’ I believe Holmgren’s first dive into the ‘agonal breathing’ phenomenon was on the Casebook forum (under his nickname ‘Fisherman’ on the 21st of Aug 2021. We are given Professor Thiblin’s second hand account of what is meant by the term and Holmgren’s interpretation therein.

For those not au fait of the term, according to the ‘Sudden Cardiac Arrest UK’ website5 agonal breathing is described as:

“What is Agonal Breathing?
Agonal breathing refers to irregular, gasping breaths that happen during cardiac arrest. It is the body’s automatic reflex as the heart stops pumping adequate blood to the brain and vital organs. These sporadic gasps may persist for several minutes after someone loses consciousness. Agonal breaths sound like snorting, gurgling, or moaning noises. The chest may appear to rise and fall.
Agonal breathing should not be confused with normal breathing. It does not represent adequate oxygen intake. Agonal respiration indicates a dire emergency requiring immediate medical intervention.
Key Signs of Agonal Breathing -
Sporadic, infrequent gasping breaths, Abnormal snoring or gurgling sounds, Slow irregular chest movements, Blue skin colour (cyanosis) due to oxygen deprivation, No pulse palpated, Dilated pupils unreactive to light.
Compare agonal breathing to the normal respiratory rate of 12-20 breaths per minute in adults. Agonal gasps occur only 2-3 times per minute or slower. The breathing pattern is markedly abnormal.”
– does this sound like a faint breath, like one from a child as Paul referred to it as?7 Also, agonal breathing can exist for a few minutes up to hours.
“Agonal breathing can be brief, or it may last for several hours.”¹⁴

If that is the case, then it’s another dent in the Lechmere theory as it allows for another killer before Lechmere being in Bucks Row and it begs the question why did Dr Llewellyn not detect it? Was it possible, nay probable, that Polly had been dead a lot longer than Holmgren needs to pin the murder on Charles Lechmere?
At this juncture, we are also treated to the point that Holmgren believes Charles Lechmere was ‘outed’ by the Lloyds article and uses this to bolster the fact Lechmere attended the inquest.¹ I find this rather absurd as there is no evidence to suggest Lechmere knew about or even read the ‘Remarkable Statement’ and Lechmere surely would have attended due to the fact he gave evidence to Mizen and thus Mizen could have easily identified him. PC Mizen and Charles Cross both attended the Inquest on the same day at Working Lads' Institute, Whitechapel Road. There is nothing in the Remarkable Statement that describes Paul’s companion that morning and certainly does not name Cross as his co-witness. As an aside if he did read the ‘Remarkable Statement’ Lechmere had a good amount of time to make sure his testimony and alibi at the inquest was water tight. He would have known Paul mentioned ‘exactly3:45am’ for getting to Bucks Row so he could have adjusted his timings accordingly to give him no time to do the killing and provide an alibi to match the other witness. Funnily enough he did not, was this because he had nothing to hide and was innocent?
We now move forward to Paul’s inquest testimony, which of course was under oath, unlike the weekly news article from Lloyds.² We are given various newspaper reports of the inquest. Some side with the witness thought the woman was dead and cold, some suggesting that he thought he felt faint breathing.⁷ The author, Holmgren then asks the question of how can both versions be correct, he concludes they cannot. And to be fair that should have been that, but Holmgren goes on a mission to invent a scenario where both A and B can be the same as C. He presumes that the issue is not Paul being unreliable but the press reporters not mentioning the full story in all instances.
It's not until the sixth page of the seven-page article do we get a hint that Holmgren is in full-on theorising mode. Until this point, we are not aware that this piece is not a factual account of what happened in the Autumn of 1888¹ and it’s easy to see why the reader could be misled. From page six we initially get the ‘My suggestion is…’ from Holmgren but in the same sentence we get ‘certified fact.’ How can a personal belief, a piece of theorising, or a made-up event be a certified fact? Baffling. We are then told ‘If I am correct on all of this...’ So again we are now scraping away the surface a touch and beginning to question the factual nature of this article. Astonishing for a piece which is wishing us to decide on a factual event, one that involves serial murder, we are given by Holmgren the most amazing get out clause. ‘I am giving my version of what I think was said.’ Yes, that is correct, he is ignoring what is recorded in history from the inquest and making up his own account to fit his agenda. How is that sound research methodology? Remember at the beginning of the article, before we knew it was more Holmgren fiction, we are given¹:

“But once we take a closer look at the puzzle pieces, there is only one way to put them all together, once we do so, a new picture of the man who examined Polly Nichols together with Charles Lechmere emerges.”

It’s fair to note that if Robert Paul is seen as unreliable the case against Charles Lechmere falls at the first fence. Remember we now think Robert Paul has a criminal record. It is vital that Paul’s ‘exactly 3:45 am’ for him entering Bucks Row is true, otherwise the fabled time gap needed for Lechmere to commit the crime simply evaporates. At this point, it’s important to remember Robert Paul’s ‘exactly 3:45 am’ clashes with three serving PCs giving evidence under oath that places Robert Paul and Charles Lechmere at the corner of Bakers Row at that time with PC Mizen.^{10 11 12} (Remember those pesky PC’s notebooks mentioned by Holmgren earlier.) Strangely, this is not discussed by Holmgren in this article, although it is fundamental to his alternative universe of how things transpired.
How can a historical, true-to-the-facts, picture and assessment of a man emerge when the facts are not adhered to, and invention is used to glue pieces together? It’s not just astonishing, or even ‘remarkable,’ that Holmgren has gone down this path to bolster his claims that Paul was a reliable character as he needs this to be true to frame Lechmere as the killer. It’s not bad enough that Holmgren has invented an ‘inquest scenario’ to do so by putting words into the mouths of both the coroner and witnesses but, no, he goes further by claiming ‘it must be noted that Coroner Baxter is not being entirely truthful.’¹ An amazingly outrageous claim about a man who was so steadfast and respected with regard to the inquests he presided over. Here he is being called a liar by Holmgren. We are then speedily told that Robert Paul was ‘absolutely sure’ ¹ he felt breathing and testified to that effect, which when the testimonies are read is again a false claim by Holmgren. Is this the same certainty Paul exhibited when he claimed to have entered Bucks Row at ‘exactly 3:45 am?’
In summarising, we are presented with an article in Ripperologist 172 which argues that Robert Paul, a witness in the Polly Nichols murder in 1888, is of sound character and is a good reliable witness. We are given reasons why his versions might be conflicting; we are given reasons why his apparent hatred of the Police may be an unfortunate misunderstanding, even though we now think he has a criminal record which surely had a bearing on his like or dislike for authority. It is not until very late in the article we are given that this whole ‘charade’ is fiction with thinly veiled disclaimers from the author. Unfortunately for Holmgren this is not the first time we have had a ‘fictional’ piece, described as an ‘opinion piece’ published in the Ripperologist. In Ripperologist 126, June 2012 we are given the piece ‘Two Murders In Bucks Row.’¹³ This article also relies heavily on Holmgren’s imagination with a starter such as:

“On 31 August 1888, Charles Allen Lechmere got up early. He dressed as usual, finishing off by tying his coarse sacking apron around his waist, and picking up a strong, sharp knife. Opening the door to the dark, chilly morning, he took a deep breath and stepped out onto Doveton Street. Behind him, he left his family sleeping - ahead of him, the prospect of a good hunt.”

To be honest, although it is not always possible to rely on actual sworn statements from inquests, I consider it unsafe to contain in articles completely fabricated versions of events to hopefully finger an otherwise certainly innocent man of possible the most notorious series of crimes this country has experienced.
We are then, as a final flurry into the untruths, told esteemed Coroner Wynne Edwin Baxter is a liar and Robert Paul was sure about an aspect of Polly’s condition when he was most certainly not. For me, this article from Holmgren fails at it’s apparent purpose. It seems it’s promised to underline how reliable Mr Paul was as a witness and to provide us with concrete evidence that his role in the murder of Polly Nichols was an honourable one. However it’s soon rather apparent it’s more ‘Fake News.’ It’s yet another attempt by one man to push an agenda which most people who have studied the Jack the Ripper crimes simply do not agree with. For me personally it an attempt to show Robert Paul is a great witness and of sound character - for Charles Allen Lechmere to be guilty of killing Polly Nichols this needs to be correct, however for me it fails and fails badly. Holmgren’s article was not really about showing Robert Paul in a good light, it was a poorly veiled attempt to show a particular witness, that his Lechmere Theory relies on was of sound mind and good character to bolster his claims, unfortunately like quite a bit of the Lechmere Theory it falls rather short.
The Reliable Mr Holmgren – or?

References
1. Ripperologist 172 – November 2024
2. Remarkable Statement – Lloyds Weekly News 3rd Sept 1888
3. The Missing Evidence – Jack The Ripper – Blink Films 2014
4. Facebook – Jack The Ripper Group 13th Aug 2024
5. Sudden Cardiac Arrest UK - https://suddencardiacarrestuk.org/in...nal-breathing/
6. Inquest Testimony – Charles Cross – Daily News 4th Sept 1888
7. Inquest Testimony – Robert Paul – East London Advertiser 22nd Sept 1888
8. Inquest Testimony – Charles Cross – Daily Telegraph 4th Sept 1888
9. Inquest Testimony – Charles Cross – Times 4th Sept 1888
10. Inquest Testimony – PC John Neil – Evening Post 1st Sept 1888
11. Inquest Testimony – PC Jonas Mizen – Star 3rd Sept 1888
12. Inquest Testimony – PC John Thain – Echo 17th Sept 1888
13. Ripperologist 126 – June 2012
14. Medical News Today – Agonal Breathing - https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321974
15. Middlesex Criminal Registers. Metropolitan Archives

[Herlock Sholmes]

Excellent stuff Geddy