Why is the possibility of Lechmere interrupting the ripper so often discarded?

[Fisherman]

Christer, I'm confused now. I thought we were discussing Neil's reaction to what the Lloyd's of 2 September wrote about Paul. Since Neil during the "press conference" on Sunday evening hadn't read the inquest statements of Paul, Mixen or Cross yet, he possibly couldn't react to them and that's why I said we must stick to what Paul said in his statement in the Lloyd's of that date, because that's what he would have reacted to. Nothing to do with the big picture or me wanting to have things both ways.

That’ s true, of course. I’ m just allergic to how these things are often reflected in a less than factual way, I guess. Sorry about that.
Yes, if Neil was going on the interview only, he would have been of the impression that Paul claimed that the woman was long dead. Reasonably, that would have strengthened Neils take on things if he thought the carman was making things up since Neil would know that Nichols was warm and recently dead.

[harry]

What other cases was Griffith referring to?
What crimes of the Ripper nature, has a suspect pretending to find the body of a victim he has killed,waited at the scene ,drew the attention of the first passer by to the victim,voluntarrily searched for a policeman,then later attended an inquest and gave evidence under oath?I am asking a simple question which should be capaple of an answer,being as you and Griffith claim it was a normal happening.
Now a question that a clever fellows like you and Griffith should be able to answer. When does a person become a suspect? Officially that is,and when did Cross become suspect.Officially that is. I suppose Griffith will be writing a foreword to your book?

[Kattrup]

Christer, I'm confused now. I thought we were discussing Neil's reaction to what the Lloyd's of 2 September wrote about Paul. Since Neil during the "press conference" on Sunday evening hadn't read the inquest statements of Paul, Mixen or Cross yet, he possibly couldn't react to them and that's why I said we must stick to what Paul said in his statement in the Lloyd's of that date, because that's what he would have reacted to. Nothing to do with the big picture or me wanting to have things both ways.

Hi Frank

is there any particular reason to think that Neil's "statement" is anything but a journalist's summary of his inquest evidence?

Why would he have reacted to anything? A constable giving statements to the police would be at odds with police procedure. The ahistorical use of the term "press conference" is designed to make it seem palatable that Neil was interviewed, but is there anything supporting the notion, do you think?

[FrankO]

I'm just allergic to how these things are often reflected in a less than factual way, I guess.

Yes, I suspected that you might have had an allergic reaction.

Sorry about that.

Thanks, but no worries.

For what it’s worth, Christer, the way I read the whole thing is as follows.

On Friday evening the Lloyd’s Weekly places a “stakeout” in Buck’s Row, who gets rewarded with a statement from Paul, but, for some reason, they don’t print it, yet.

On Saturday Neil deposes that he found the body just walking by the spot where she lay on his regular beat, and in reply to a juryman’s question(s) he states that the first to arrive on the scene after he’d discovered the body were two men who worked at a slaughter-house opposite.

On Saturday evening, after having heard Neil’s inquest deposition and his remark about the 2 men, the Lloyd’s checks with Paul again to see if he still stood by the statement he made on Friday evening. He did and, in answer to a question, he also said the PC he spoke to wasn't the one responsible for the beat where the body was found.

The Lloyd’s put these 2 statements together and, obviously, think there’s something odd going on, as Paul claimed that he and another man had found the body, while Neil also claims to have found Nichols and didn’t mention any two men.

So, on Sunday evening, at the “press conference”, a Lloyd’s reporter asks Neil if it was true or not that he was called to the body by 2 men, to see if the gets the same answer as they got from Paul and of who actually found the body. And Neil replies that it isn’t true that he was called to the body by two men, because, simply, he was not. He likely didn’t know about Mizen - although he and his superiors may have begun to suspect something at this point - but he just answers the question with what he knows.

And, undoubtedly, the Lloyd’s of the second and the “press conference” made the police put 2 and 2 together, too and, as a result, it was only then that they discovered Mizen.

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

Hi Kattrup,

is there any particular reason to think that Neil's "statement" is anything but a journalist's summary of his inquest evidence?

Because there's additional information in it with regards to his inquest statement and earlier newspaper statements.

Why would he have reacted to anything? A constable giving statements to the police would be at odds with police procedure.

If that's true, then perhaps Inspector Helson passed on Neil's reaction. Oddly then, the newspaper writes Helson's words in the past tense and Neil's in the present.

The ahistorical use of the term "press conference" is designed to make it seem palatable that Neil was interviewed, but is there anything supporting the notion, do you think?

It reads a bit like Helson was there with Abberline and Neil, but I think it was just an interview with Inspector Helson and perhaps Neil was there, too, but it's not quite clear whether he was or not.

[Joshua Rogan]

On Friday evening the Lloyd’s Weekly places a “stakeout” in Buck’s Row, who gets rewarded with a statement from Paul, but, for some reason, they don’t print it, yet.

I think the clue is in the name, Frank...

[Fisherman]

Yes, I suspected that you might have had an allergic reaction.

Thanks, but no worries.

For what it’s worth, Christer, the way I read the whole thing is as follows.

On Friday evening the Lloyd’s Weekly places a “stakeout” in Buck’s Row, who gets rewarded with a statement from Paul, but, for some reason, they don’t print it, yet.

Lloyds was a Sunday Newspaper only. I think they staked out Bucks Row and got lucky.

On Saturday Neil deposes that he found the body just walking by the spot where she lay on his regular beat, and in reply to a juryman’s question(s) he states that the first to arrive on the scene after he’d discovered the body were two men who worked at a slaughter-house opposite.

Yup.

On Saturday evening, after having heard Neil’s inquest deposition and his remark about the 2 men, the Lloyd’s checks with Paul again to see if he still stood by the statement he made on Friday evening. He did and, in answer to a question, he also said the PC he spoke to wasn't the one responsible for the beat where the body was found.

No, he didn´t SAY that per se, but he may well have meant it!

The Lloyd’s put these 2 statements together and, obviously, think there’s something odd going on, as Paul claimed that he and another man had found the body, while Neil also claims to have found Nichols and didn’t mention any two men.

Lloyds believed in Paul, and so they would have realized that the police were at a loss to get the full picture, I´d say.

So, on Sunday evening, at the “press conference”, a Lloyd’s reporter asks Neil if it was true or not that he was called to the body by 2 men, to see if the gets the same answer as they got from Paul and of who actually found the body. And Neil replies that it isn’t true that he was called to the body by two men, because, simply, he was not. He likely didn’t know about Mizen - although he and his superiors may have begun to suspect something at this point - but he just answers the question with what he knows.

Exactly so.

And, undoubtedly, the Lloyd’s of the second and the “press conference” made the police put 2 and 2 together, too and, as a result, it was only then that they discovered Mizen.

All the best,
Frank

Undoubtedly is a strong word. For all the police knew, Paul could have been telling porkies and if - as I strongly suspect - the police did not have access to Lechmere, they could not confirm Pauls story. Unless Paul was able to convince the police, it was not until Lechmere surcfaced that we can bank on the business being cleared up.And we do not know when Lechmere surfaced. You may be correct, but there can be no certainty.

[Fisherman]

The ahistorical use of the term "press conference" is designed to make it seem palatable that Neil was interviewed ...

Unpalatable? That is just so uncalled for. The police gave what they called an interview and it seems the intention was to inform the press about the proceedings of the case. Today, this is what we call a press conference. To what extent this interview was held in order to allow for Neil to give his view is impossible to say, it could have been a major aim or a minor one, but the fact remains that Neil is quoted in first person singularis, meaning that he apparently gave his view personally and in doing so, he denied Paul being correct.
Of course, if Neil was not there in person but instead represented by his superiors who gave his view, it changes nothing much. However, I find that it is only if Neil was there in person that some little (but very little) trust in the suggestion that he said "It is not true that I was directed to the body by two men" instead of "It is not true that I was directed to the body by two men". I find it impossible that his superiors would have given his view and said that "It is not true that PC Neil was directed to the body by two men" without expanding on who actually was.

If it is about palatability, it seems you find my view unpalatable - but I was kind of hoping it was instead about trying to find out what happened as best as we can.

[Fisherman]

I think the clue is in the name, Frank...

Beat me to it, Joshua!

[Fisherman]

What other cases was Griffith referring to?
What crimes of the Ripper nature, has a suspect pretending to find the body of a victim he has killed,waited at the scene ,drew the attention of the first passer by to the victim,voluntarrily searched for a policeman,then later attended an inquest and gave evidence under oath?I am asking a simple question which should be capaple of an answer,being as you and Griffith claim it was a normal happening.
Now a question that a clever fellows like you and Griffith should be able to answer. When does a person become a suspect? Officially that is,and when did Cross become suspect.Officially that is. I suppose Griffith will be writing a foreword to your book?

I said - and mneant - that Griffiths view was that generally speaking, what people say is what provides the best insight into what happened.

As for when somebody becomes a suspect, that will be caserelated, as you hopefully understand. You may even understand that each case is unique, who knows. If so, that should be useful for you to mull over.

[FrankO]

I think the clue is in the name, Frank...

Of course, Joshua - thanks for putting me right! When you're focusing on one thing you sometimes don't see another thing right in front of you...

[Joshua Rogan]

Of course, Joshua - thanks for putting me right! When you're focusing on one thing you sometimes don't see another thing right in front of you...

No worries - I decided to go for a walk in the woods the other day, and kept bumping into the trees.
Incidentally, given that the same story was told verbatim in the daily papers on Monday, do you think it points to the reporter being from an agency rather than Lloyds themselves, but they were the first to print because it coincided with their Sunday publishing date?

[FrankO]

Undoubtedly is a strong word. For all the police knew, Paul could have been telling porkies and if - as I strongly suspect - the police did not have access to Lechmere, they could not confirm Pauls story. Unless Paul was able to convince the police, it was not until Lechmere surcfaced that we can bank on the business being cleared up.

Of course, they needed Lechmere, too, but I wouldn't say that the police couldn't clear up the part of Paul's story that he had spoken to a policeman in "Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row". They could try and find out who this PC might have been and see what he had to say about it.

I imagine they wouldn't be inclined to do so if they thought Paul was telling porkies, but, seeing that Mizen appeared at the inquest the next morning, it appears that they did. Although, of course, it's also possible that Mizen "came forward" himself.

[FrankO]

No worries - I decided to go for a walk in the woods the other day, and kept bumping into the trees.

Incidentally, given that the same story was told verbatim in the daily papers on Monday, do you think it points to the reporter being from an agency rather than Lloyds themselves, but they were the first to print because it coincided with their Sunday publishing date?

Now that you mention it, I think it's quite possible that it was a reporter from an agency to type up the article, and perhaps he also aksed the question having read the Lloyd's earlier that day.

[Fisherman]

Frank, for the police to invest in Pauls story, I would have thought that they should have spoken to him in person. If they did, then why was he not at day two of the inquest? My money is on Lechmere coming forward to the inquest only very late.