Framing Charles

[Fiver]

I think Abby´s post said everything that needs to be said, Fiver, with the possible exception of your "point" that I would not know where 30 Foster Street is on a modern map. Apart from it having nothiong at all to do with the discussion as such, I have actually visited the Sainsburys supermarket within which the site of old 30 Foster Street is situated today.

I did not say that you would not know where 30 Foster Street is on a modern map. I said that I could not find 30 Forster Street on a modern map, because the newspaper account of inquest testimony said "Forster". Thank you for providing the correct street name of "Foster" and a modern landmark to make the location even easier to find on a map.

[rjpalmer]

And while I do not consider Robert Paul to be a likely Ripper suspect, there are people that do.

Once upon a time, those people included the officers of H-Division. Walter Dew tells us that the police viewed Paul's behavior as suspicious, recalling that, despite repeated appeals for him to come forward, Paul didn't.

Ed Stowe muses about this in his essay on Lechmere. After 50 years, Dew forgets that Paul was eventually found, but contemporary documentation shows that Paul didn't show up until the 3rd session of the inquest--September 17th--which certainly suggests that he laid low for two weeks. Paul later complained to a newspaper reporter about being dragged out of his bed in the middle of the night by the local police.

Which sounds a hell of a lot like he was initially treated as a suspect, and not a witness. Lechmere, by contrast, appears to have cooperated.

So, somewhat ironically, though people laugh about Paul-as-suspect on this thread, there are indications that he was, in fact, a suspect, however briefly.

[drstrange169]

>> ... you couldnt get any more physically linked to a victim than lech ... <<

You certainly could.

According to Christer, Richardson was alone with a victim prior to discovery holding a knife in his hand!!!

Nothing Cross does tops that.

[drstrange169]

>>Look at who was visiting Bucks Row in September of 1889 and starting marches to the West end from that location.<<

Not just visiting, he moved there.

[Abby Normal]

>> ... you couldnt get any more physically linked to a victim than lech ... <<

You certainly could.

According to Christer, Richardson was alone with a victim prior to discovery holding a knife in his hand!!!

Nothing Cross does tops that.

hi strange
well that of course is very debateable, and even if chapman was there, according to fish he didnt notice.
imho she probably wasnt there yet.

lech was alone with nichols, actually touched her..and that is not debateable its a clear fact. so my point stands.

but all that being said, richardson, like lech are exactly the type of people who could have been the killer.

[Abby Normal]

Once upon a time, those people included the officers of H-Division. Walter Dew tells us that the police viewed Paul's behavior as suspicious, recalling that, despite repeated appeals for him to come forward, Paul didn't.

Ed Stowe muses about this in his essay on Lechmere. After 50 years, Dew forgets that Paul was eventually found, but contemporary documentation shows that Paul didn't show up until the 3rd session of the inquest--September 17th--which certainly suggests that he laid low for two weeks. Paul later complained to a newspaper reporter about being dragged out of his bed in the middle of the night by the local police.

Which sounds a hell of a lot like he was initially treated as a suspect, and not a witness. Lechmere, by contrast, appears to have cooperated.

So, somewhat ironically, though people laugh about Paul-as-suspect on this thread, there are indications that he was, in fact, a suspect, however briefly.

hi rj
alot of what dew said was laughable. and certainly paul being a viable suspect in pollys murder is one of them. he probably confused pauls reluctance to come forward, and the police frustration with it, with some kind of suspician as the years went on.

[Abby Normal]

If your definition of physically linked to a victim, is touched her as she lay dead or dying, then Lechmere was physically linked to Nichols. So was Robert Paul. So was PC Neil.

And while I do not consider Robert Paul to be a likely Ripper suspect, there are people that do. My point was that these supposed geographical links apply to Paul at least as much as they apply to Lechmere.

they do?
whats his link to pinchin? what victims does his route to his work take him near?

was paul seen standing alone with a freshly killed victim?

[rjpalmer]

hi rj
alot of what dew said was laughable. and certainly paul being a viable suspect in pollys murder is one of them. he probably confused pauls reluctance to come forward, and the police frustration with it, with some kind of suspician as the years went on.

Walter Dew was there, had a long career at Scotland Yard, and rose to the position of Chief Inspector. He writes after many years, and this must be born in mind, but nothing he says is "laughable," unlike much of the gibberish I read from people who attach gratuitous suspicion to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who has a cameo in this case.

I thought Stowe did a good job of analyzing Paul, and he did so in an honest and thoughtful manner.

RP

[MrBarnett]

Walter Dew was there, had a long career at Scotland Yard, and rose to the position of Chief Inspector. He writes after many years, and this must be born in mind, but nothing he says is "laughable," unlike much of the gibberish I read from people who attach gratuitous suspicion to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who has a cameo in this case.

I thought Stowe did a good job of analyzing Paul, and he did so in an honest and thoughtful manner.

RP

RJ,

Didn’t Dew speak of Fanny Mortimer standing at her garden gate in Buck’s Row? That’s worth a chuckle, surely.

Gary

[rjpalmer]

RJ,

Didn’t Dew speak of Fanny Mortimer standing at her garden gate in Buck’s Row? That’s worth a chuckle, surely.

Gary

All sources are valuable, you just have to keep your wits about you and use them wisely. I find Dew less amusing than those who try to pin the crimes on Richardson, Barnett, Mann, Hutchinson, etc. without even the slightest plausibility, and not the slightest evidence ever found against any of them, year after year after year.

What exactly is "laughable" about this passage describing Paul?

A curious thing then happened. The carman had gone but a short distance when he saw another man on the opposite side of the street whose behaviour was certainly suspicious. The other man seemed to seek to avoid the carman, who went over to him, and said:

"Come and look here. Here's a woman been knocked about."

Together the two men went to the gateway where the poor woman was lying. The newcomer felt her heart. His verdict was not reassuring.

"I think she's breathing," he told his companion, "but it's very little if she is."

The couple parted, ________ promising, as he walked away, to call a policeman.

All this was afterwards told in evidence by the carman. It never had the corroboration of the other man. The police made repeated appeals for him to come forward, but he never did so.

Why did he remain silent? Was it guilty knowledge that caused him to ignore the appeals of the police?

In any other district and in any other circumstances this would have been a natural inference, but in the East End of London at this time the man might have had a dozen reasons for avoiding the publicity which would have followed. He might have been a criminal; or he might have been afraid, as so many were, to risk the linking of his name with a Ripper-crime."

Dew seems to have felt that Paul's attempt to cross the street, and avoid Lechmere was suspicious. Contemporary accounts seem to confirm that Paul did, in fact, behave this way.

As Stowe admits, Dew is wrong about Paul never being found. But -- if we use our noggins-- Paul's belated entry to the inquest, not until the 3rd session, does indeed suggest the police had a hard time locating him. So Dew's memory, though slightly flawed, helps us interpret what happened.

And all of this is seemingly confirmed by Paul himself, when he gripes to the newspaper reporter that he was pounded up in the middle of the night, and complains that attending the inquest cost him time and money.

It seems to me that it is a case of 2 + 2 + 2 = 6, and Stowe is correct in his interpretation. There was some contemporary suspicions against Paul, and he writes this even though he is a Lechmere man.

I had a grandfather who fought in World War One and who could recount events that happened 70 years earlier with clarity, so I tend not to mock those speaking after 50 years, even though I acknowledge their memories can be flawed in certain details. I also tend to think people are generally more stupid now then they were 100 years ago, for a variety of reasons.

Ciao.

[MrBarnett]

Where to start, RJ?

How about the suggestion that Paul may have been reluctant to engage with Lechmere for fear of risking ”the linking of his name with a Ripper-crime."?

Dew was a lowly H Div. PC in 1888. Polly’s murder occurred on J Div’s patch didn’t it?

A great grandmother of mine witnessed her father being murdered in the East End in 1885. She relayed the incident to my father in 1940 and he gave me the details in 2004. When I researched it I was able to confirm every last detail.

[MrBarnett]

Where to start, RJ?

How about the suggestion that Paul may have been reluctant to engage with Lechmere for fear of risking ”the linking of his name with a Ripper-crime."?

Dew was a lowly H Div. PC in 1888. Polly’s murder occurred on J Div’s patch didn’t it?

A great grandmother of mine witnessed her father being murdered in the East End in 1885. She relayed the incident to my father in 1940 and he gave me the details in 2004. When I researched it I was able to confirm every last detail.

I should add that some of my maternal grandfather’s tales of his exploits in WWI would have made Hans Christian Andersen jealous.

[Abby Normal]

RJ,

Didn’t Dew speak of Fanny Mortimer standing at her garden gate in Buck’s Row? That’s worth a chuckle, surely.

Gary

didnt he also call bowyer a boy with his eyes bulging out too? dew certainly had some howlers

[MrBarnett]

Drew on Nichols:

“The remains were taken to the mortuary-what terrible places these were in those days-where further examination proved beyond all doubt that the hand which had struck down Martha Turner had also committed the crime in the gateway of the Essex Wharf.

We began our inquiries at once.”


“We”? Was lowly PC Dew seconded to J Div. on account of his precocious detective skills?

Or is this just one example of many of his pretending to have been closer to events than he actually was?

[Abby Normal]

All sources are valuable, you just have to keep your wits about you and use them wisely. I find Dew less amusing than those who try to pin the crimes on Richardson, Barnett, Mann, Hutchinson, etc. without even the slightest plausibility, and not the slightest evidence ever found against any of them, year after year after year.

What exactly is "laughable" about this passage describing Paul?

A curious thing then happened. The carman had gone but a short distance when he saw another man on the opposite side of the street whose behaviour was certainly suspicious. The other man seemed to seek to avoid the carman, who went over to him, and said:

"Come and look here. Here's a woman been knocked about."

Together the two men went to the gateway where the poor woman was lying. The newcomer felt her heart. His verdict was not reassuring.

"I think she's breathing," he told his companion, "but it's very little if she is."

The couple parted, ________ promising, as he walked away, to call a policeman.

All this was afterwards told in evidence by the carman. It never had the corroboration of the other man. The police made repeated appeals for him to come forward, but he never did so.

Why did he remain silent? Was it guilty knowledge that caused him to ignore the appeals of the police?

In any other district and in any other circumstances this would have been a natural inference, but in the East End of London at this time the man might have had a dozen reasons for avoiding the publicity which would have followed. He might have been a criminal; or he might have been afraid, as so many were, to risk the linking of his name with a Ripper-crime."

Dew seems to have felt that Paul's attempt to cross the street, and avoid Lechmere was suspicious. Contemporary accounts seem to confirm that Paul did, in fact, behave this way.

As Stowe admits, Dew is wrong about Paul never being found. But -- if we use our noggins-- Paul's belated entry to the inquest, not until the 3rd session, does indeed suggest the police had a hard time locating him. So Dew's memory, though slightly flawed, helps us interpret what happened.

And all of this is seemingly confirmed by Paul himself, when he gripes to the newspaper reporter that he was pounded up in the middle of the night, and complains that attending the inquest cost him time and money.

It seems to me that it is a case of 2 + 2 + 2 = 6, and Stowe is correct in his interpretation. There was some contemporary suspicions against Paul, and he writes this even though he is a Lechmere man.

I had a grandfather who fought in World War One and who could recount events that happened 70 years earlier with clarity, so I tend not to mock those speaking after 50 years, even though I acknowledge their memories can be flawed in certain details. I also tend to think people are generally more stupid now then they were 100 years ago, for a variety of reasons.

Ciao.

well first of all it seems dew has the two mixed up. hes got the carman, lechmere, playing the part of paul.

either that or hes got the suspicious one mixed up- paul was suspicious of lech and tried to avoid him naturally. nothing paul did was suspicious in any way. he was trying to walk around and past a suspicious man lingering in the street in the darkness of night in a notoriously dodgy area.

but dew even opts for paul avoiding coming forward because of other reasons rather than being guilty of the murder. he got that part right at least, but i suppose you missed it.