Robert Pauls

[Patrick S]

Fisherman was good enough to take the time to answer my question about why Lechmere felt compelled to appear at the Nichols' inquest as the result of Robert Paul's statement in Lloyd's. I'd like to ask two further questions with relative to Paul's Lloyd's statement. First, here is the statement in it's entirety:

“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.”

According to your theory Mizen was truthful in his inquest testimony. You cite two important details of his testimony that - according to the theory - point to Lechmere's guilt. The first is that he was told only that a woman was lying in Buck's Row. He claims that he was not told that the woman may be dead. Second, Mizen stated that he was told (by Lechmere) that he (Mizen) was wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row.

Question One: Why did/would Robert Paul lie in his statement to Lloyd's?

Paul claims in Lloyd's that he told Mizen explicitly that the woman (Nichols) was dead. Mizen claims he was told only that she was "laying" in Buck's Row. According to your theory Mizen was told two lies - both by Lechmere: he was told only that a woman was laying in Buck's Row and that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row. Yet here was have PAUL claiming that it was HE who told Mizen that Nichols was DEAD (not your suspect, Lechmere). Lechmere agrees with Paul that Mizen was told the woman was (or was likely) dead. To believe in your theory, Paul must have been lying to Lloyd's. Why did he do so?

Question Two: If Lechmere did tell Mizen that there was a policeman awaiting him in Buck's Row, why didn't Paul contradict him?

We know that Paul does not mention anyone telling Mizen that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row. Lechmere, again, agrees with Paul on this point. Why would Paul have allowed Lechmere to tell Mizen something that he knew wasn't true?

Thanks in advance. Note - I fat fingered the title and I can't edit it. Thus, it makes no sense. Sorry all.

[Fisherman]

Question One: Why did/would Robert Paul lie in his statement to Lloyd's?

One of the main problems here is that we cannot tell if Paul DID lie. There are two people involved, Paul and the Lloyds reporter. It may be that the reporter preferred to have the star of the story instead of the guy playing the second violin.

My best guess - on sale on another thread right now - is that Paul told the Lloyds reporter what Lechmere had told Paul that he had told Mizen.
I think that Paul was out of earshot when Lechmere spoke to Mizen. And then I think that he either asked Lechmere, or perhaps more likely was told by Lechmere, how the conversation between Mizen had the carman had gone down.

And since I think Lechmere lied to Mizen (as reflected in Mizenīs subsequent actions and as reflected by the fact that Mizen did nit take the carmens names and addresses, but instead let them go, the way you let people you do not need any further information from go), I believe that Lechmere then took precautions to put the blame on Mizen by claiming that he had told the PC that the errand was potentially very serious, at which time the PC seemed not to care but instead carried on knocking people up.

Having been given this picture of things, I suggest that when Paul met the Lloyds reporter, he told the story he had been told by Lechmere, thus painting Mizen out as an uninterested, lazy, incompetent PC.

Question Two: If Lechmere did tell Mizen that there was a policeman awaiting him in Buck's Row, why didn't Paul contradict him?

Because Paul never heard a single thing Lechmere told Mizen. As you know by now, I think that the Morning Advertiser quotation "I sent the other man for a policeman" means that Paul handed over the conversation with Mizen to Lechmere.
I notice that you think it odd that Paul says that he was the one who governed things, but please compare it to the Lloyds interview where Paul tries to steal the thunder from Lechmere. The exact same thing may be what is going on here.
Conversely, Lechmere may have handed the inititative to Paul, by telling him "If you want me to do the talking to the police, Iīd be happy to do so. It may drag out, and you are late, so maybe itīs better like that?"
This is of course a suggestion only, but I find it works quite well. In this case, Paul may well have thought that he was the one sending Lechmere for a police, although Lechmere was the orchestrator of things just the same.

I notice that you put forward the suggestion that the Morning Advertiser may have misunderstood and misreported, that the paper work is sloppy.
But what if it is not? What if what they say is what they mean - as is more often than not the case?
What if they report correctly - as is more often than not the case?
I have worked for many, many hears on newspapers, and I know how often we tell people who find a misspelling or a factual mistake the same thing: "Have you considered all the things we got right?"

That often makes people stop short. Misreportings and factual errors are incredibly more uncommon than common.

If we manage to keep up this kind of tempered conversation, I am happy to keep the debate going. It is a welcome change.

[MysterySinger]

Since Lechmere was the one who found the body, it seems natural enough that Paul would want him to be the one to speak to a Policeman.