Review of Holmgren's article in Ripperologist 172

[Geddy2112]

Okay so who is this? Why would they consider it to be 'our' Robert Paul? Apparently they are a 'professional' researcher

[rjpalmer]

Okay so who is this? Why would they consider it to be 'our' Robert Paul?

Note the trial date: 1 May 1871.

This was held at the Central Criminal Court in London ('The Old Bailey').

The trial record shows he was a 27-year-old sailor who had just arrived from Southampton aboard the Bard of Avon.

It's not the Buck's Row carman, who was only about 13 or 14 in 1871 and can be found in that year's census.

This same Robert Paul below ended up in Wormwood Scrubs in the 1880s. Wrong dude. No doubt about it.

[Geddy2112]

Wrong dude. No doubt about it.

Fair enough, like I said this 'professional researcher' was very convinced they had found 'our' Robert Paul with a criminal record as a 15 year old. The rest of the article about his wife and kids seems to add up.

[Simon Wood]

Robert Pawle, aged 24, who in 1881 lived at 30 Foster Street, was born in 1857 and would have been 14 years old in 1871. He died in 1922.

[Geddy2112]

Robert Pawle, aged 24, who in 1881 lived at 30 Foster Street, was born in 1857 and would have been 14 years old in 1871. He died in 1922.

Yes and this is the Robt Paul the researcher claimed to have the criminal record. It appears they could have been incorrect.

[Debra A]

Yes and this is the Robt Paul the researcher claimed to have the criminal record. It appears they could have been incorrect.

Perhaps the researcher assumed that because they had put a birth year of c 1857 in their original search box that Ancestry or FMP would automatically only give results that related to a person born within that timeframe but this is not the case, results with no age are also returned, which is the case with the record image posted in post #16, but that particular criminal record summary ( for appearances at the Old Bailey 1st May 1871) does not give ages. It has to be cross referenced with other court records to determine the full details.
If the researcher is sure that the record posted in #16 is for a 15 year old Robert Paul then how do they explain that the 27 year old Glaswegian sailor named Robert Paul appearing on charges of fraud at the Old Bailey 1st May 1871 is not on that list? If the researcher is correct then there should be two men of the same name in that Old Bailey list. The fact that the researcher described the record as coming from the Middlesex sessions, Whitechapel should be a red flag as the record cited is from the Old Bailey, as has been demonstrated by several people.

I believe the researcher also suggested Robert Paul's wife was six months pregnant at the time of Polly Nichols murder when in fact the Pauls' daughter, Margaret, was born 20th September 1888 according to her baptism 14 October 1888 at St Anne Underwood Road, Spitalfields. Residence of the family 30 Foster Street.

[Geddy2112]

I believe the researcher also suggested Robert Paul's wife was six months pregnant at the time of Polly Nichols murder when in fact the Pauls' daughter, Margaret, was born 20th September 1888 according to her baptism 14 October 1888 at St Anne Underwood Road, Spitalfields. Residence of the family 30 Foster Street.

'Whilst Polly Nichols lay bleeding to death in Bucks Row, Julia was around 6 months pregnant with a fourth daughter, Margaret.' I guess Margaret could have been a few weeks premature but the timings are tight.
It appears apart from my bit, haha the whole article was a load of old ball socks...

[Debra A]

[I]'Whilst Polly Nichols lay bleeding to death in Bucks Row, Julia was around 6 months pregnant with a fourth daughter, Margaret.'

Margaret was their 5th daughter.

[Geddy2112]

Margaret was their 5th daughter.

Oh dear... it's not getting any better is it

[Fiver]

Note the trial date: 1 May 1871.

There's also this.

[Fiver]

Oh dear... it's not getting any better is it

I'm guessing this was also the researcher.

"Julia died in Whitechapel in 1905 and most of the children went to live with her sister, Margaret, in Camberwell. Robert was to marry again in 1909 to Amelia Reader and, eventually, shuffled off this mortal coil in 1922 at the age of sixty-six in Whitechapel/Spitalfields."

I've been able to find no evidence that Julia Hurley had a sister named Margaret or that any of her children lived with Margaret. I can find no hint of a marriage to an Amelia Reader, but in 1916 Robert Paul did marry Caroline Gannon after having a couple kids with her.

[jmenges]

You are correct. The article contained numerous errors.

JM

[Geddy2112]

I'm guessing this was also the researcher.

"Julia died in Whitechapel in 1905 and most of the children went to live with her sister, Margaret, in Camberwell. Robert was to marry again in 1909 to Amelia Reader and, eventually, shuffled off this mortal coil in 1922 at the age of sixty-six in Whitechapel/Spitalfields."

I've been able to find no evidence that Julia Hurley had a sister named Margaret or that any of her children lived with Margaret. I can find no hint of a marriage to an Amelia Reader, but in 1916 Robert Paul did marry Caroline Gannon after having a couple kids with her.

Well that passage is certainly from the 'article.' However as far as I was aware we had the researcher who found the criminal record as that is what they do for their day job - research. We had myself who summitted the section about how Robert Paul 'could' be Polly's killer with a couple of suggestions how he had time to do so. This was kind of in response to a HoL video which claimed the notion of Robert Paul murdering Polly then returning to the scene 'behind' Cross as impossible and in the nutty column. I suggested with simple maths it was easily possible with quite a few minutes to spare. We also had another person doing the bulk of the writing because again 'writing' was their day job. A fourth member of the team was just 'employed' to do the editing before submission.

From the outset I questioned the criminal record aspect and did contact a few members here in confidence to ask what they knew. They all came back with the same or similar conclusions. After all surely if Robert Paul had a criminal record this would have been uncovered now by someone here or at the JtR forums. I did voice my concerns over this 'remarkable discovery' time after time but all I got was the researcher was a professional researcher, knew their stuff and it was beyond doubt the correct Robert Paul. The writer was so hell bent on getting this published in the Ripperologist they obviously cut corners in the finer details, you know like facts. My part of the article was just 'opinion' so technically could not be factually incorrect. I also voiced my concerns to the writer about the 'style' of the piece and that I did not think it weighed in heavily enough regards the criminal records, after all surely if Robert Paul, one of the first on the scene of Polly's murder had a criminal record it would speak volumes about his Remarkable Statement and overall credibility in the case as a witness. I believe this is when, without me knowing my name was removed from the article and I only noticed so when the 'original' cover of the latest Rip was published.

'Julia was a “rag sorter”. (1). They lived, variously, in Corbett St where there was also a rag manufacture in the same premises (1881 census), Foster St (1888 inquest) and Sidney St (1891 census). Julia’s family were/are a well-known Spitalfields based family so perhaps they moved to look after a sick older relative there. Who knows?'

I'm beginning to question if anything in the article was factually correct...