Robert Paul, Jack the Ripper?

[David Orsam]

Either every witness without exception was summonsed after they had given evidence for every remaining day of the inquest (a pure summing-up day aside), in case the jury decided at any moment that one of them needed to be recalled, or the process of summonsing was selective. If the latter then perhaps I have been deceived by the LWN report and Richardson was an exception in being continually summonsed back, possibly due to suspicion attaching to him. The others, apart from Davis, might simply not have had time to be squeezed in on their first summons hence they were re-summonsed. With Davis I don't really understand why he lost two days but perhaps the LWN report was in error here.

In short, if it was up to the coroner whether to summons or not then I simply can't see why he would have summonsed Paul (or any other witness apart form Ede) to attend on the 22nd. Given that the summons stated that "All fees and expenses" would be reimbursed (albeit at the coroner's discretion), it would have been a ludicrous waste of public money, especially bearing in mind that the coroner would have been happy to have closed the inquest on the 17th. Why would he have needed to summons Paul again? It makes no sense!

[Wickerman]

I'm inclined to believe it was never every witness without exception, that would be an incredible waste of both time & money.

It would be nice if we have a guide from the period. I'll take another look at the Coroners Act, 1887, but I'm sure a solution to this problem is not there.

If we think it through, the Coroner pre-selects all the witnesses from police statements.
If he selects say, 14 witnesses in total, then he can summons maybe 6 for the first sitting.
Then, maybe 4 each for a 2nd & 3rd sitting. Allowing for the fact the police are still pursuing enquiries, and new witnesses may be found. Plus, the fact some already scheduled witnesses may need to be recalled, taking up extra time.
So the only schedule he can really fill in advance is the first one.

The Coroner must be allowed to use his discretion to re-summons any witness, or any group of witnesses, at the conclusion of any sitting. This must be the case due to the fact the Coroner cannot predict the progress of any sitting.

I admit I am feeling my way through this but, is this not a reasonable interpretation?

[GUT]

I'm inclined to believe it was never every witness without exception, that would be an incredible waste of both time & money.

It would be nice if we have a guide from the period. I'll take another look at the Coroners Act, 1887, but I'm sure a solution to this problem is not there.

If we think it through, the Coroner pre-selects all the witnesses from police statements.
If he selects say, 14 witnesses in total, then he can summons maybe 6 for the first sitting.
Then, maybe 4 each for a 2nd & 3rd sitting. Allowing for the fact the police are still pursuing enquiries, and new witnesses may be found. Plus, the fact some already scheduled witnesses may need to be recalled, taking up extra time.
So the only schedule he can really fill in advance is the first one.

The Coroner must be allowed to use his discretion to re-summons any witness, or any group of witnesses, at the conclusion of any sitting. This must be the case due to the fact the Coroner cannot predict the progress of any sitting.

I admit I am feeling my way through this but, is this not a reasonable interpretation?

Jon that's more or less how t works today, the other reason to recall a witness is because new information has [or is thought may] need to be put to them for some clarification.

[Wickerman]

Jon that's more or less how t works today, the other reason to recall a witness is because new information has [or is thought may] need to be put to them for some clarification.

Thanks GUT, I thought the true procedure can't be too far removed from common sense, but I was interested in this question because it also has a bearing on the Kelly inquest.
Here we had an inquest that only lasted one day, and we know the Coroner was prepared for further sittings, but then he cut it short unexpectedly.
The procedure in place must require that other witnesses were summoned to appear but never did.
Anyway, I am not going to deflect the thread, so enough on that aspect. My question is answered.

[GUT]

Thanks GUT, I thought the true procedure can't be too far removed from common sense, but I was interested in this question because it also has a bearing on the Kelly inquest.
Here we had an inquest that only lasted one day, and we know the Coroner was prepared for further sittings, but then he cut it short unexpectedly.
The procedure in place must require that other witnesses were summoned to appear but never did.
Anyway, I am not going to deflect the thread, so enough on that aspect. My question is answered.

G'day Jon

Not necessarily, they usually subpoena more witnesses than they expect to get through, but sometimes still finish them all in one day, when they don't those witnesses are usually the ones sub'd for day 2 plus extras as found.

So as an example we might find 10 witnesses called for one day, knowing that in all likelihood 3 or 4 will go over to day 2, rather than actually subpoenaing 7 for day 1 and 3 for day 2, then by day 2 we've found 6 more so they are all called but 2 go to day 3.

That's also why we will have complaints of missing 2 days of work.

But if he summonsed 10 for day 1 and got through them all he may not need day 2. He'd have only had summonses issued for day 2 if there was no hope of reaching those witnesses on day 1 [also the date for the second day is not usually chosen till the end of the first day if there was any chance of getting it done in one day] so those summons aren't issued till after day 1.

I hope that all makes sense.

[lynn cates]

Latin to me

Hello Abby. What about:

"Ad stultus omnia stulti sunt"?

Cheers.
LC

[David Orsam]

I don't think we've quite cracked this yet. I understand the issue of overloaded or over-optimistic witness lists which is why my immediate response was that Paul must have been summonsed on 3 Sept but there wasn't time for him that day so he was summonsed to re-appear on 17 Sept.

There are two problems with that, however. Firstly, the LWN report of 30 Sept makes it seem as if Paul missed 3 days work, including one due to police questioning which, if he wasn't located by police until after the LWN story of 2 Sept, means that that first day of work he could possibly have missed was 3 Sept; so that if was summonsed on that day, and on 17 Sept, this would equate to only two days missed in total. That wouldn't bother me so much because the reporter could simply have misunderstood what Paul was telling him. The second problem is that there were only three witnesses produced in the afternoon session of the inquest on 3 Sept - none of them seemed to occupy too much time - and the Evening Post report of that day concluded by saying "This being all the evidence available to-day, the inquest was adjourned until this day fortnight, September 17, at two-o’clock" which doesn't sound like they couldn't fit anyone in.

So, okay, let's assume Paul's first summons was on 17 Sept. He gave his evidence and it looks to have been reasonably straightforward. The coroner asked him a few questions but the jury doesn't seem to have been interested. At the conclusion of the day, the coroner asked the jury if they wanted to close the inquest - so he clearly didn't have anything more to ask Paul - but they wanted to adjourn until Saturday to allow the police to make further enquiries. On Saturday only one witness was called, or rather re-called, which was Ede simply to clarify who the man was he had seen with a knife. There were no new witnesses so no new information was going to be forthcoming. Almost the entire day was the summing-up and verdict. That being so, and assuming it was at the coroner's discretion to summons witnesses, why would Paul have been summonsed to appear again on the 22nd?

Moreover, if summonsing was at the coroner's discretion what criteria did he use and on what authority?

Looking at the other inquests, I see that Michael Kidney gave evidence on 3 Oct in the Stride inquest and was clearly in the hall again on 5 October when he was recalled to answer further questions. Doctors Phillips and Blackwell were also recalled that day.

If Paul was summonsed to attend again on 22 Sept then, unless there was something special about him, surely all other witnesses were summonsed too but, as everyone seems to agree, that makes no sense, in which case nothing makes sense!

[Fisherman]

I don't think we've quite cracked this yet. I understand the issue of overloaded or over-optimistic witness lists which is why my immediate response was that Paul must have been summonsed on 3 Sept but there wasn't time for him that day so he was summonsed to re-appear on 17 Sept.

There are two problems with that, however. Firstly, the LWN report of 30 Sept makes it seem as if Paul missed 3 days work, including one due to police questioning which, if he wasn't located by police until after the LWN story of 2 Sept, means that that first day of work he could possibly have missed was 3 Sept; so that if was summonsed on that day, and on 17 Sept, this would equate to only two days missed in total. That wouldn't bother me so much because the reporter could simply have misunderstood what Paul was telling him. The second problem is that there were only three witnesses produced in the afternoon session of the inquest on 3 Sept - none of them seemed to occupy too much time - and the Evening Post report of that day concluded by saying "This being all the evidence available to-day, the inquest was adjourned until this day fortnight, September 17, at two-o’clock" which doesn't sound like they couldn't fit anyone in.

So, okay, let's assume Paul's first summons was on 17 Sept. He gave his evidence and it looks to have been reasonably straightforward. The coroner asked him a few questions but the jury doesn't seem to have been interested. At the conclusion of the day, the coroner asked the jury if they wanted to close the inquest - so he clearly didn't have anything more to ask Paul - but they wanted to adjourn until Saturday to allow the police to make further enquiries. On Saturday only one witness was called, or rather re-called, which was Ede simply to clarify who the man was he had seen with a knife. There were no new witnesses so no new information was going to be forthcoming. Almost the entire day was the summing-up and verdict. That being so, and assuming it was at the coroner's discretion to summons witnesses, why would Paul have been summonsed to appear again on the 22nd?

Moreover, if summonsing was at the coroner's discretion what criteria did he use and on what authority?

Looking at the other inquests, I see that Michael Kidney gave evidence on 3 Oct in the Stride inquest and was clearly in the hall again on 5 October when he was recalled to answer further questions. Doctors Phillips and Blackwell were also recalled that day.

If Paul was summonsed to attend again on 22 Sept then, unless there was something special about him, surely all other witnesses were summonsed too but, as everyone seems to agree, that makes no sense, in which case nothing makes sense!

I donīt think that Paul was localized by the third, David. Walter Dew very clearly tells us that he was sought after for some time, and to me, that means that he was found somewhere inbetween the second and the third inquest days. I find it quite likely that a number of days had passed after the second inquest day before he was found.

Reading Dew, the notion that Paul consciously avoided the police becomes an obvious possibility. And therein may lie the explanation as to why Paul was summonsed to two days of inquest - the police may have felt that there may have been some underlying reason for Pauls avoiding them that needed to be clarified, and they - and the coroner - may not have wanted to go glip of him should any explanation surface inbetween the third and the last of the inquest days.

I know that you question whether Paul was actually searched for, but Dews recollections taken together with Pauls story of being dragged out of bed in the middle of the night dovetail very well with a scenario where Paul had been searched for for some time, and where the police were not very pleased with his absence.

Then, as things evolved, it became apparent that no matter if Paul was unwilling to help out, he realistically could have had nothing to do with the murder as such, and there was never any real reason to bring him on the stand on the last day of the inquest. Thatīs as likely an explanation as I can think of to the matter.

As an aside, if Lechmere was the killer, Paulīs staying away would probably have played Lechmere in the hands, taking the focus away from him. But thatīs another story!

All the best,
Fisherman

[David Orsam]

Walter Dew very clearly tells us

I can hardly believe that you say that Fisherman. Who cares what Walter Dew said in his memoirs? He was a lowly constable in H Division which wasn't actually investigating the murder and he himself played absolutely no role in the inquiry. Not to mention that he was writing 50 years later when he could probably hardly remember anything. And much of what he wrote on the subject appears to have been published some years before his own book, apparently by someone else. So Dew doesn't really help us here at all.

As it happens, it's not quite correct to say that I question whether Paul was actually searched for. I think it quite likely that, following the LWN article on the Sunday morning, a circular message went round all the police stations asking for information about Robert Paul. Beat constables were supposed to know the identities of those living on their beat so I have always imagined that the beat constable for Rupert Street fingered him quite quickly, but I have no problem with the notion that there was some kind of search.

But I'm not satisfied with your explanation - because if it were the case that the police had been frustrated by Paul's failure to come forward and communicated this to the coroner, thus explaining why the coroner wanted him back again, despite the fact that he had provided full testimony to the inquest on the 17th, then I would have expected the coroner to ask Paul why he had not come forward immediately. But he didn't! So that leads me to the conclusion that it's a non-point.