Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Robert Paul, Jack the Ripper?

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

  • Robert Paul, Jack the Ripper?

    ‘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."'

    Are these the word of an innocent man? Specifically, Paul is saying the area is full of bad people and Cross may have been one of them. Indeed, his appearance may have been so frightful that this young man, used to going up and down these very streets, was forced to give Cross a wide berth.

    Paul explains also that he listened and thought he detected a faint heartbeat, allowing Cross to pronounce the woman dead. It was also Paul that wanted to move her, in case she were alive and they could help her (presumably). It was Cross who objected. Of course what has happened here is that Paul killed Nichols, went off to take his knife home and walked back down Buck's Row. The hapless Cross became the witness to dismiss any eyes from Paul and Paul accepted this willingly, perhaps gloatingly.

    Being a carman, Paul would have known the area intimately and could have easily taken 1 of 100 different routes for his job with noticeable drop-off in productivity. Also being a carman, he may have been involved with transporting meat. Not only would this be a good cover should any policeman find him with blood on him, but a pile of various meats and sweetbreads would be perfect for hiding a uterus, kidney, or even a heart. "Oy, it's a box o' pig hearts, guv."

    Now that any questions arising could be directed upon Cross who "discovered" the body, Paul was free from scurutiny and felt a sense of god-like power allowing him to continue in his work as long as he desired. It was perhaps around teh birth of his 6th or 7th child, when he lost the stamina to do this, and anyway, he'd always have Paris.

    Mike
    huh?

  • #2
    Thanks goody, nice post. Let's not jump 2 conclusions. Paul does sound like he's trying to make lech look guilty tho. I think the fact that he says the "spot" was known for mugging is telling. A mugger? How do you interpret that Paul wanted to move her and cross said no?

    Comment


    • #3
      Naaaaaaaa!

      It was Cross and Paul working together, then when Koz went to the asylum and Montie topped himself they diverted attention towards them by getting Mrs Paul to go to Mac with some BS story.
      G U T

      There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

      Comment


      • #4
        It's pretty obvious that Paul did it. He lied about the time he left home - 3.45am - to give himself an alibi for the time of Nichols' death at 3.30am. In actual fact he was mutilating Polly's body when he was disturbed by the sound of Charles Cross coming along Bucks Row at 3.37am. Quickly Paul undid his boots and took them off and hid in the shadows. He slipped past Cross in the darkness and returned silently to the east end of Bucks Row whereupon he put his boots back on again and began to walk loudly down the cobbles.
        It's easy to explain why Paul suggested that Cross move the body - he wanted Cross to get blood on his hands and thus to frame him for the murder. Luckily a bit of quick thinking saved Cross from the noose and he refused to touch the corpse , suggesting that he and Paul find a policeman instead.
        Working as a carman just off Hanbury Street Paul knew about the broken door at Number 29 and thought it an ideal place to commit his next murder with less chance of interruption. Case solved by a completely fictitious theory , there you go now we can all go home !

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by GUT View Post
          Naaaaaaaa!

          It was Cross and Paul working together, then when Koz went to the asylum and Montie topped himself they diverted attention towards them by getting Mrs Paul to go to Mac with some BS story.
          That was only for the Martha Tabram murder when they dressed up as a couple of soldiers to do a bit of killing , a hobby they enjoyed in their spare time. Cross was traumatised by the killing though and completely forgot he had ever taken part in the event whereas Paul began to take his hobby more seriously and turned professional.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Simon Owen View Post
            That was only for the Martha Tabram murder when they dressed up as a couple of soldiers to do a bit of killing , a hobby they enjoyed in their spare time. Cross was traumatised by the killing though and completely forgot he had ever taken part in the event whereas Paul began to take his hobby more seriously and turned professional.
            OK looks like I was wrong again, I thought they kept on working as a team, oh well such is life.
            G U T

            There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

            Comment


            • #7
              Did Paul have a domineering mother?

              I can also imagine that Paul was particularly clever here in ensuring that he murdered his next victim in Hanbury Street so as to possibly implicate that Cross had potentially implicated him - thus hopelessly confusing the mentally challenged police force of the day and diverting attention away from himself forever thus allowing him to continue to murder at will for the rest of his life.

              It all makes sense if you look at it in the right way.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Sally View Post
                Did Paul have a domineering mother?

                I can also imagine that Paul was particularly clever here in ensuring that he murdered his next victim in Hanbury Street so as to possibly implicate that Cross had potentially implicated him - thus hopelessly confusing the mentally challenged police force of the day and diverting attention away from himself forever thus allowing him to continue to murder at will for the rest of his life.

                It all makes sense if you look at it in the right way.
                And did he have delusions of granduer, like I guess everyone must have that is descended from royalty , maybe that's my big problem
                G U T

                There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Here's one for you all how about the possibility that Paul was telling the truth and he is not jack the ripper I know it's quite a far fetched theory but with a bit of thought it might just stand up.
                  Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by pinkmoon View Post
                    Here's one for you all how about the possibility that Paul was telling the truth and he is not jack the ripper I know it's quite a far fetched theory but with a bit of thought it might just stand up.
                    G'day Pinkmoon

                    Next you'll be saying it weren't cross neither.
                    G U T

                    There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Well that just about nails it.

                      Thank goodness!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by GUT View Post
                        And did he have delusions of granduer, like I guess everyone must have that is descended from royalty , maybe that's my big problem
                        Oh, everyone's descended from royalty, more or less. It doesn't make you special, you know.

                        The big question is - did Paul realise that?

                        It is Paul we're discussing here.... right?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Can I ask an inappropriately serious question? Why does Paul apparently tell the Lloyd's Weekly News journo that he was on his way to work at Covent Garden Market when, at the inquest, he said he was off to Cobbett's Court, Spitalfields? Are those two answers in some way consistent?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                            Can I ask an inappropriately serious question? Why does Paul apparently tell the Lloyd's Weekly News journo that he was on his way to work at Covent Garden Market when, at the inquest, he said he was off to Cobbett's Court, Spitalfields? Are those two answers in some way consistent?
                            What a newspaper not reporting the correct facts I'm not having that!!!!!
                            Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                              Can I ask an inappropriately serious question? Why does Paul apparently tell the Lloyd's Weekly News journo that he was on his way to work at Covent Garden Market when, at the inquest, he said he was off to Cobbett's Court, Spitalfields? Are those two answers in some way consistent?
                              Maybe misheard, or didn't write it down and mis-remembered.
                              G U T

                              There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X