Another nail in the Lechmere coffin?

[Fisherman]

Hereīs a little something for people to chew on and froth over. I only noticed it in combination with a discussion (well...) I was having with Dusty (Dr Very Very Strange).

In his interview in Lloyds Weekly, Robert Paul claims that he was the one walking to Mizen and telling him about the woman in Bucks Row.

The inquest material, however, points in another direction. Mizen is adamant that Lechmere was the man talking to him, and the coroner has to ask the PC if there was another man present as Mizen and Lechmere spoke. Mizen acknowledges this, and in an article in the Echo, Paul is described as "the other man, who went down Hanbury Street".

I have pointed to how this seemingly means that Paul distanced himself from Mizen and Lechmere, and thus the possibility is there that Lechmere was able to misinform Mizen without Paul noticing it.

This is the backdrop. Here is what Paul was recorded as saying about the manner in which the carmen got to Mizen and what happened when they arrived:

He and the man discussed what was best to be done, and they decided that they ought to acquaint the first policeman they met with what they had discovered. (Daily News, Woodford Times)

The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman. (Daily Telegraph)

Witness and the man who had stopped him walked down Buck's-row to find a policeman, which they did in a few minutes. (Illustrated Police News)

They agreed that the best course to pursue was to tell the first policeman they met. They both walked on and met a policeman at the corner of Montague street. (St James Gazette)

Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen. (Times)

From this, we can conclude that the two carmen walked together to the junction of Bakers Row and Hanbury Street, where they found Mizen, who was engaged in knocking people up.

There can be no doubt about this. It dissolves the picture given in the Lloyds Weekly interview, where Paul leaves Lechmere out of the action altogether after the examination in Bucks Row.
It is clear that the carmen walked together to Mizen.

It has therefore always seemed a riddle that The Morning Advertiser and The Evening News presented a third version:

Robert Paul, Forster street, Whitechapel, said - I am a carman, and on the morning of the murder I left home just before a quarter to four. As I was passing up Buck's row I saw a man standing in the roadway, When I got close to him, he said, "Come and look at this woman;" and together we went across the road. There was a woman lying across the gateway, with her clothes disarranged. I felt her hands and face; they were cold. I sent the other man for a policeman. (Evening Standard, Morning Advertiser)

This does not make any sense at all. We know that Paul did not send Lechmere to find a PC - the two walked together in search of a policeman.

So how can we make this dovetail with the other papers? Well, it may well be quite easy:
The carmen decided to look for a PC together.
They left the body together.
They walked down Bucks Row together.
They approached Mizen together.

...but then Paul said to Lechmere "You go and talk to him, and I will continue down Hanbury Street" - exactly as suggested by the Echo.

If we now return to the Lloyds Weekly interview with Paul, we must ask ourselves "If Paul was not even engaged in discussion with Mizen, and if he was out of earshot, then why does he say that he told Mizen that the woman was so cold that she must have been lying in the street for the longest time? Why does he say that he told Mizen that the woman was dead?

From what source does he know what Mizen was told?

Answer: He knows it beause Lechmere spoke to Mizen, and then he said to Paul that he had told the PC that the woman in Bucks Row was dead, and that this had not made Mizen react accordingly - instead he had gone on knocking people up as if he didnīt care about the poor woman.

And the reason that Paul said that he had told Mizen that the woman was all cold and must have lain long in the street, would - if my hunch is correct - have been because Lechmere sold that view to him; "Did you feel how COLD she was?" "She must have lain there for hours - lazy, incompetent police!"

This is how it all fits into the picture, the way I see things.

What we must keep in mind is that all the papers reported from the same inquest proceedings, their reporters heard Paul saying the same thing, and he could not have said BOTH that he and the other man walked together to Mizen AND that he sent Lechmere to the PC. He said only the first thing. The other thing, Pauls assertion that he sent Lechmere for a PC, must therefore adher to something else.

And WHAM! Thereīs the next nail in the Lechmere coffin.

[Pcdunn]

I think this nail is one of speculation (at worst), or creative nonfiction (at best).

It MAY have happened that way, or it MAY NOT have happened at all.

A simpler explanation is that Paul was an attention-seeker with a distrust of policemen, and phrased his interview accordingly.

[Fisherman]

I think this nail is one of speculation (at worst), or creative nonfiction (at best).

It MAY have happened that way, or it MAY NOT have happened at all.

A simpler explanation is that Paul was an attention-seeker with a distrust of policemen, and phrased his interview accordingly.

But this is not about the interview. This is about how the inquest testimony was reported by the Morning Advertiser as claiming that Paul said that he had sent Lechmere for a policeman.

And we know that when it comes to the trek from the murder spot to Mizen, Paul said that the two carmen walked there in company.

So where does all of a sudden the Morning Advertisers claim come from?

If Paul factually said BOTH that the carmen walked in company to Bakers Row/Hanbury Street AND that he sent Lechmere for a policeman, then the only explanation that covers this would be if they walked in company to Bakers Row/Hanbury Street, whereupon Paul launched Lechmere for the conversation with Mizen.

[Pierre]

But this is not about the interview. This is about how the inquest testimony was reported by the Morning Advertiser as claiming that Paul said that he had sent Lechmere for a policeman.

And we know that when it comes to the trek from the murder spot to Mizen, Paul said that the two carmen walked there in company.

So where does all of a sudden the Morning Advertisers claim come from?

If Paul factually said BOTH that the carmen walked in company to Bakers Row/Hanbury Street AND that he sent Lechmere for a policeman, then the only explanation that covers this would be if they walked in company to Bakers Row/Hanbury Street, whereupon Paul launched Lechmere for the conversation with Mizen.

Hi Fisherman,

What is your point?

Regards, Pierre

[Rainbow]

whereupon Paul launched Lechmere for the conversation with Mizen

Its very clear Fisherman, otherwise The Coroner would have asked Paul in the inquest what had he told Mizen, and he would have asked him if they realy told Mizen he is wanted in Buck's Row by another policeman, as he did when he asked Lechmere the same question, especially after there was contradiction between Lechmere and Mizen about this very point.


Rainbow°

[Robert St Devil]

My issue with this piece, Fisherman, comes from The Echo. September 3rd. At the inquest, Charles Cross says "the other man" [Paul] told PC [Mizen] that he [Paul] thought that she was dead.

Aside. Who touched what? Again from The Echo. Cross says he took face and hands. In other reports, it,s Paul.

[Elamarna]

There can be no doubt about this. It dissolves the picture given in the Lloyds Weekly interview, where Paul leaves Lechmere out of the action altogether after the examination in Bucks Row.
It is clear that the carmen walked together to Mizen.

We can agree on something.

It has therefore always seemed a riddle that The Morning Advertiser and The Evening News presented a third version:

Robert Paul, Forster street, Whitechapel, said - I am a carman, and on the morning of the murder I left home just before a quarter to four. As I was passing up Buck's row I saw a man standing in the roadway, When I got close to him, he said, "Come and look at this woman;" and together we went across the road. There was a woman lying across the gateway, with her clothes disarranged. I felt her hands and face; they were cold. I sent the other man for a policeman. (Evening Standard, Morning Advertiser)

This does not make any sense at all. We know that Paul did not send Lechmere to find a PC - the two walked together in search of a policeman.

Agree again.

The obvious conclusion is that the reports are wrong.

To suggest another alternative is fine, however it will need evidence to prove it.

So how can we make this dovetail with the other papers? Well, it may well be quite easy:
The carmen decided to look for a PC together.
They left the body together.
They walked down Bucks Row together.
They approached Mizen together.

...but then Paul said to Lechmere "You go and talk to him, and I will continue down Hanbury Street" - exactly as suggested by the Echo.

I know you are trying to make a point, so the invented quotes are fine, but they remain that invention.

If we now return to the Lloyds Weekly interview with Paul, we must ask ourselves "If Paul was not even engaged in discussion with Mizen, and if he was out of earshot, then why does he say that he told Mizen that the woman was so cold that she must have been lying in the street for the longest time? Why does he say that he told Mizen that the woman was dead?

Why do you have a starting point of assuming he is not telling the truth?

From what source does he know what Mizen was told?

Answer: He knows it beause Lechmere spoke to Mizen, and then he said to Paul that he had told the PC that the woman in Bucks Row was dead, and that this had not made Mizen react accordingly - instead he had gone on knocking people up as if he didnīt care about the poor woman.

Hang on, you have just suggested that Paul carried on down Hanbury Street leaving Lechmere and Mizen alone:what happens? Does Lechmere chase after Paul? A man he does not know.

And the reason that Paul said that he had told Mizen that the woman was all cold and must have lain long in the street, would - if my hunch is correct - have been because Lechmere sold that view to him; "Did you feel how COLD she was?" "She must have lain there for hours - lazy, incompetent police!"

Again it is flight of fancy, fuelled by "lechmere is the killer"

This is how it all fits into the picture, the way I see things.



What we must keep in mind is that all the papers reported from the same inquest proceedings, their reporters heard Paul saying the same thing, and he could not have said BOTH that he and the other man walked together to Mizen AND that he sent Lechmere to the PC. He said only the first thing. The other thing, Pauls assertion that he sent Lechmere for a PC, must therefore adher to something else.

Maybe, however they could just as easily be totally erroneous.

And WHAM! Thereīs the next nail in the Lechmere coffin.

Actually its several removed because it is a premature burial.




Steve

[Robert St Devil]

Actually. When you put Robert Paul,s interview with Lloyd,s and The Echo report of Charles Cross at the inquest side-by-side, it sounds like...

Paul did indeed depart (separate from Lechmere) first, arranging her dress before he left.
Cross gives the impression that he left soon after.

Could it have been that PC Mizen was approached at different intervals? The first man, he dismisses. But when the second man, Cross, approaches him, he decides that it may be worth the investigation.

It,s the part of ,,the other man,, that is throwing me for a loop. What does Cross mean by this if he,s indicating that they left her body at different times?

[Rainbow]

Again it is very clear:

Both Lechmere and Paul walked to Mizen

Mizen was knocking on the doors.

Lechmere: hey officer, you must go to Buck's Row, a woman is laying there

Mizen still knocking on the doors

Paul felt he is ignoring them, he said:

hey man, the woman is cold and she might be dead common man....

and because he was behind time he couldn't wait more, and said to Lechmere:

I will leave you to deal with him, goodbye.

He left him and went towards Hunbery street.

Before Lechmere could go too, Mizen came to him, since Lechmere was the one who came first and started talking to him

Mizen: you said in Buck's Row the woman was laying ?

Lechmere: yes , and there is a policeman there who wants you now!

Mizen: Alright, I am going.

and thats all.


Rainbow°

[Pcdunn]

But this is not about the interview. This is about how the inquest testimony was reported by the Morning Advertiser as claiming that Paul said that he had sent Lechmere for a policeman.

And we know that when it comes to the trek from the murder spot to Mizen, Paul said that the two carmen walked there in company.

So where does all of a sudden the Morning Advertisers claim come from?

If Paul factually said BOTH that the carmen walked in company to Bakers Row/Hanbury Street AND that he sent Lechmere for a policeman, then the only explanation that covers this would be if they walked in company to Bakers Row/Hanbury Street, whereupon Paul launched Lechmere for the conversation with Mizen.

Hello, Fisherman,
Yes, I see you were talking about the two newspapers which reported that Paul sent the other carman for a policeman. I suppose, if you want to make all of the reported incidents fit together, then this scenario works just as well as any.

But I recall that when I asked about the paper that reported that Cross had suggested propping up the woman, and Paul had refused to do so-- in that instance, you said most of the others had it the other way around (that Cross had refused to touch her) and you preferred to go with the majority of the papers.

Why should we worry about a minority of two papers that say something different from most of them? Maybe the reporter wasn't listening, or lost his notes, or his article was edited by someone who added something.

[Fisherman]

Its very clear Fisherman, otherwise The Coroner would have asked Paul in the inquest what had he told Mizen, and he would have asked him if they realy told Mizen he is wanted in Buck's Row by another policeman, as he did when he asked Lechmere the same question, especially after there was contradiction between Lechmere and Mizen about this very point.


Rainbow°

It would certainly have helped! And you make a fair and logical point. But we should keep in mind that it seems the coroner and jury did not realize the potential implications of the so called Mizen scam, just as generations of Ripperologists have missed out on this too.
So we are seemingly faced with a situation where there was no suspicion against Lechmere, and therefore I donīt think that the coroners ommision to ask the questions you speak of can be seen as any confirmation that the coroner must have accepted that Paul never heard what Lechmere said.
Certainly, Lechmere did tell the inquest that Paul spoke to Mizen, and since the coroner never asked any questions about this, it seems he was not aware of the conundrum existing.

[Fisherman]

My issue with this piece, Fisherman, comes from The Echo. September 3rd. At the inquest, Charles Cross says "the other man" [Paul] told PC [Mizen] that he [Paul] thought that she was dead.

Aside. Who touched what? Again from The Echo. Cross says he took face and hands. In other reports, it,s Paul.

Yes, I know what Lechmere said. I am simply predisposing that he lied, in order to create a picture where it was not obvious to the inquest that Paul was excluded from the conversation with Mizen.
Paul himself says nothing at the inquest of having spoken to Mizen, itīs a case of "we informed" which may simply mean that Lechmere did the informing.
And Mizen syas not a iot about Pauls role. I think it is very revealing how he says "a man came up to me" and not "two men came up to me". If both men had done so, Mizen would reasonably have said that they did. There was no reason for him not to.
He also said - as per the Echo - that he recognized Lechmere as the man who had spoken to him on the murder night.
And the coroner had to remind Mizen that there was another man present at the scene.

The important thing to keep in mind is that IF Paul said both that he and Lechmere walked in tandem to Bakers Row/Hanbury Street AND that he sent Mizen for a policeman, then there is, as far as I can tell, only one logical solution to why he did so:
The two men walked in tandem to Bakers Row/Hanbury Street, where Paul sent Lechmere over to Mizen, while he himself continued walking down Hanbury Street.
Is there any other way it can be construed logically, if Paul said both things?

As for where the men were when they examined Nichols, I remember that Edward made a weighing of it where he concluded that Lechmere was up at the head and Paul further down. I cannot recall all the parameters he used, though, but it seemed logical enough to me; I recall that much.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna:

The obvious conclusion is that the reports are wrong.

No, Steve, it is not the obvious conclusion. It is one POSSIBLE conclusion. I have offered another possible conclusion that is in line with what was written. If I am correct, then all the papers reported what they heard in a correct manner. For you suggestion to be correct, there must have been severe misreportings.

So where we stand is here:

Either Paul told his story, the papers reported correctly and we can conclude that Paul sent Lechmere over to Mizen to do the talking. This is in line with what Mizen tells us and the only person to claim it was not so at the inquest is Lechmere.

Or Paul told his story, some of the papers got it completely wrong and the sources are of no real use. Plus we are out of line with what Mizen tells us, but we accept what Lechmere said as the truth.

Both can be correct, but your suggestion seems a bit of a shipwreck, does it not? And a tad desperate.

To suggest another alternative is fine, however it will need evidence to prove it.

Actually, I am going with the sources, so I am not "suggesting an alternative". You seem to be the one doing so.


I know you are trying to make a point, so the invented quotes are fine, but they remain that invention.

An invention, letīs not forget, that is in line with the evidence.


Why do you have a starting point of assuming he is not telling the truth?

Can you see how I start the question with the word "If"? That is because I am exploring a possibility. I am doing so to check how the scenario works if Paul was not telling the truth. The reason I do so is to check how it all works together with my theory.


Hang on, you have just suggested that Paul carried on down Hanbury Street leaving Lechmere and Mizen alone:what happens? Does Lechmere chase after Paul? A man he does not know.

When he met Paul, he did not know him. At this stage, the two have examined a woman in the street together, they have taken a joint decision to go looking for a policeman together and they have walked a couple of hundred yards together, presumably discussing the matter. So you see, Steve, not only DO they know each other somewhat by now, but they have also decided to cooperate.
The informing of Mizen may have taken seconds only (try to say "Officer, you are wanted by another policeman down in Bucks Row. Thereīs a woman lying on the broad of her back there" and time it. I just did, and it took all of six seconds) and Lechmere may well have said "Iīll just tell this PC what we saw, and then Iīll catch up with you" before the two parted. Or not, six seconds is not an unbridgeable gap. And would it not be odd for Lechmere to stay six seconds behind Paul down Hanbury Street - a man with whom he had established contact and shared an experience with one minute earlier? Would the reasonable thing not be to catch up and rejoin Paul?


Again it is flight of fancy, fuelled by "lechmere is the killer"

And it is not a flight of fancy to state unequivocally that it is "obvious" that the papers must have gotten Pauls statement at the inquest wrong, although there is a perfectly fine other suggestion where we must not predispose that the papers got it wrong?
If you are right, I am wrong, but if I am wrong, then you are right, eh? Steve, the fair judge, hmm?
It is not a "flight of fancy". It is a suggestion, part of a suggested scenario.

Maybe, however they could just as easily be totally erroneous.

And what did my professor friend say was the norm? That we get things right or that we get them wrong?
"Just as easily" suddenly becomes your very own flight of fancy, Steve.


Actually its several removed because it is a premature burial.

There is no burial. There is a road leading to understanding what happened. Lechmere is a very viable bid for the killerīs role, and this does in no way detract from that, since it opens up for what I have always suggested - that Paul was left out of the conversation with Mizen.
You may have missed that I left a question mark after "coffin". I did so because I want a discussion, not because I am laying down as a fact that I am correct. I am laying down as a fact that the find opens up for me being correct.

[Fisherman]

Hello, Fisherman,
Yes, I see you were talking about the two newspapers which reported that Paul sent the other carman for a policeman. I suppose, if you want to make all of the reported incidents fit together, then this scenario works just as well as any.

But I recall that when I asked about the paper that reported that Cross had suggested propping up the woman, and Paul had refused to do so-- in that instance, you said most of the others had it the other way around (that Cross had refused to touch her) and you preferred to go with the majority of the papers.

Why should we worry about a minority of two papers that say something different from most of them? Maybe the reporter wasn't listening, or lost his notes, or his article was edited by someone who added something.

The propping up business consisted of, say, nine papers saying that Paul suggested it and one only suggesting that Lechmere did.
It was obvious that either nine or one paper were misreporting.
The obvious thing must be to conclude that the Daily Telegraph got it wrong.

This matter is different. The Morning Advertiser and itīs evening colleague are in my view not contradicting the other papers. The other papers are telling us that the cuple walked in tandem to the murder spot - which may well be (and reasonably is) the truth. They do NOT, however, report on how Paul sent Lechmere for Mizen as they arrived.
Conversely, The Morning Advertiser and itīs evening colleague are not telling us how the couple walked in tandem to Bakers Row, but they ARE telling us that Paul sent Lechmere for MIzen - which may well be true too.
So here, we must not have any mistakes on the part of any of the involved papers, whereaa we MUST have so concerning the propping up business.

I hope I managed to explain the difference to you!

[Fisherman]

Actually. When you put Robert Paul,s interview with Lloyd,s and The Echo report of Charles Cross at the inquest side-by-side, it sounds like...

Paul did indeed depart (separate from Lechmere) first, arranging her dress before he left.
Cross gives the impression that he left soon after.

Could it have been that PC Mizen was approached at different intervals? The first man, he dismisses. But when the second man, Cross, approaches him, he decides that it may be worth the investigation.

It,s the part of ,,the other man,, that is throwing me for a loop. What does Cross mean by this if he,s indicating that they left her body at different times?

Mizen lays down that Paul was present at the scene as he spoke to Lechmere, so they arrived together. Neither man says that they left the body at different points in time. It was said that they decided together to go and look for a policeman, and I think some source says they did indeed leave together.

But the thread is about a slightly different matter!