Evidence of innocence

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here, from memory, is my brief timeline FWIW.

The Murder took place in the early hours of Friday 31 Aug 1888.
On that afternoon a journalist from Lloyds Weekly intercepted Robert Paul on his way home.

The first day of the Inquest was Saturday 1 Sep 1888.
Testimony was given by the victim's father, PC Neil and Dr Llewellyn.
PC Neil testified that he found the body. He made no mention of Cross or Paul.

Sunday 2 Sep 1888. Lloyds publish account of Paul's interview disputing Neil being the finder of the body and effectively exposing Cross to the attention of the police. - https://www.casebook.org/press_repor.../18880902.html

Monday 3 Sep 1888. Second day of Inquest. Testimony from Spratling, Tomkins, Helson and then Mizen and then Cross.
From Evening News Sep 3 1888:
Police-constable Mizen, of the H Division, said on Friday last, about a quarter to four, he was in Baker's-row, at the end of Campbell-street. A man who had the appearance of a carman passed him and said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row."

A man named Cross was here brought into the room and identified by witness as the man to whom he referred.

According to a report that I cannot locate, Cross turned up at the inquest dressed in a hessian apron.

Sometime between the second and third days of the inquest Robert Paul was taken from his home in the early hours of the morning and questioned extensively.

Monday 17 Sep 1888. Third day of Inquest..
Testimony by Robert Paul.

My opinion, not presented as fact, is that Cross just turned up at the inquest. Had he been to the police before that they would have already had Mizen identify him (jmo). If the report of the raid on Paul's home is correct, then I would venture to say that both men were extensively questioned. Paul certainly changed his story.

To answer a question to me raised previously by Herlock, I don't think JtR was a maniac. I don't think he could have evaded detection and capture for multiple murders without a high level of calm and cunning. Had not Paul blathered to the journalist from Lloyds, Cross and Paul may have escaped the notice of history. IF Cross was guilty he would have been demonstrating a level of cunning to voluntarily turn up to the inquest to discredit Paul's interview with Lloyds and then further divert attention to Paul by planning his next murder near Paul's workplace, all the while appearing to be good citizen cooperating with police. IF he was innocent then he was just a good citizen.

Cheers, George

Just a small point George but would the police have known Paul’s place of work when they went to his house? I can’t recall. I only mention it because maybe the early visit was just to catch him before he’d left for work?

[SuperShodan]

I’d just like to ask everyone a very simple question. Which one of the following is the one taking an honest, open approach and which one isn’t?

Poster A admits that it’s possible that Lechmere could have left he house earlier than stated and or could have met up with Paul slightly later and that this could have left a gap of time but it could just has possibly lef no gap.

or

Poster B who says that Lechmere could only have left the house within a minute or 2 of 3.30 and that he met up with Paul at the later end of the estimate (and possibly whilst Mizen said that he was with him)

Honest answers to this just might do the subject a service.

Poster B says Lechmere can only leave within a few minutes of 03.30. I don’t think anyone has claimed this is the only option. Poster B just gets uncomfortable when times start to get totally demolished. We end up with a new timeline that bears no relation whatsoever to the inquest evidence.

For example, Paul leaving home at 03.45 becomes 03.38 !? Lechmere leaves at 03.30 becomes 03.35, body found at 03.45 becomes 03.40 and so on and so forth. While this is indeed possible, poster B thinks this is cheating. What’s the probability of every data point being so very wrong, and only ever in Lechmere’s favour ?

So poster B accepts that the times are not all GMT to the exact second. He’s just skeptical of explanations where every data point is very generously moved towards the same objective.

Hey presto ! There is no time gap. I changed absolutely everything possible in my favour and now it’s gone.

[MrBarnett]

The bottom left hand corner of your map is clearly in the area of Mitre Square. Now, either it was on his way to work (to make the idea that the victims were all on his way to work) or it wasn't on his way to work (and, therefore, the argument that the victims were all on his way to work is total fabrication). You can't have both. No tantrum - just facts and not invention.




And you kindly prove my point for me that you can draw lines from anywhere to anywhere and that in doing so you are merely constructing a falsehood to support a discredited theory.

If you assume (as your map does) that the first 2 victims were on Cross's way to work why isn't there a similar theory that says that Paul was the killer - as a map from his house to his place of work would show that both victims were on that route? I would think that it's easily possible to find other places connected with Paul that look equally as fatuous as the imaginatively constructed 'routes to work' for Cross. And, of course, when 'routes to work' is shown not to apply speculation is then applied to suggest that another victim was near Cross's mother's house.

The map is pure desperation to shore up a theory that has more holes than a sieve.

Eddowes was killed on a Sunday morning when, it is suggested, Lechmere wasn’t at work.

[MrBarnett]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n778457]

Just a query but do we know which side of Bucks Row Neil passed along on his route? You can probably guess where I’m going on this point.

I don’t think we do, Mike. I guessing you’re wondering whether he might have passed on the north side at 3.15 and not spotted the body?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Poster B says Lechmere can only leave within a few minutes of 03.30. I don’t think anyone has claimed this is the only option. Poster B just gets uncomfortable when times start to get totally demolished. We end up with a new pro Lechmere timeline that bears no relation whatsoever to the inquest evidence.

For example, Paul leaving home at 03.45 becomes 03.38 !? Lechmere leaves at 03.30 becomes 03.35, body found at 03.45 becomes 03.40 and so on and so forth. While this is indeed possible, poster B thinks this is cheating. What’s the probability of every data point being so very wrong, and only ever in Lechmere’s favour ?

So poster B accepts that the times are not all GMT to the exact second. He’s just skeptical of explanations where every data point is very generously moved towards the same objective.

Hey presto ! There is no time gap. I changed absolutely everything possible in my favour and now it’s gone.

Palpable nonsense I'm afraid.

Even now you keep mentioning that it’s some kind of issue that “about 3.30” could possibly have been 3.35.

How many times do I have to state this Bob? Im not claiming anything as a fact!

Im not even claiming that there could not have been a gap.

Im simply stating that there are very plausible, reasonable scenario’s where there could easily have been no gap.

You are in utter denial of this fact and it absolutely goes to show that there is almost nothing that you won’t resort to.

Anyone who claims that there must have been a sinister gap is posting dishonestly.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=MrBarnett;n778461]

I don’t think we do, Mike. I guessing you’re wondering whether he might have passed on the north side at 3.15 and not spotted the body?

Yeah that’s what I was wondering Gary. We would also have to ask why he missed it the first time but not the next of course but these things can happen. Its a point that we can’t make without evidence though of course.

[MrBarnett]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n778453]

Again, pure inventivness on your behalf , and now other posters have explain it in cleary detail the series of events. .P.C neil passed through bucks row at 3.15am and saw no one, and Nichols was discovered at 3.45am . She was murdered between these two times, and whats abundantly clear to me is your the only one that cant see it . [or wont]

There is no corrobration to show Pc Neil passed by the murder spot at 3.15am, on the contrary there is clear evidence that he might not have done which i have posted previoulsy and dont intend to keep re posting the same stuff over and over again because poster like you totall ignore what is posted

Ok lets work on that shall we , Nicoles last seen alive at 2.30am , 15 mins to gets to murder, spot dead at 2.50 am . option 1 , Nobody sees the body till paul and lech at 3.45am , [ if neil is wrong or lied ] lets take him out of the picture for a 1 min . Nichols now lays dead for 55mins with out discovery, is that what you think ?. Because thats an awful long time laying dead with all them police walking the beat that morning to believe this would be the case . Or option 2, P.C NEIL walks through bucks row at 3.15am ,see nothing , body found at 3.45am , doctor says at roughly at 4.00am ''death not more than 30 mins'' . t.o.d 3.30 am . Option 2 is for obvious reasons is far and away the better of the two . . out of 100 people how many would say 1 ?:/QUOTE]

But taking Pc Neil out of the equation does not allow Nichols to lay dead for 55 mins she was last seen alive at 2.30am and found dead at 3.45am she could have been killed as late as 3.30am just before Lechmere foudn the body for all we know he could have disturbed the killer.

and do we believe his account as to how his cape came to be left at the slaughterhouse because if you do I certainly dont !!!!!!!

I can speak from exeperience that in my early days as a beat officer on nights I would always call in to premises where I knew people were working overnight, sometimes to get out of the cold and to get a hot cuppa. sometimes just for a chat sometime staying for long periods !!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott,co.uk

Trevor,

It was Thain’s cape that was left at the slaughterhouse, ‘by a brother officer’, he insisted, because he wasn’t allowed to deviate from his beat. And it was Thain who went to the slaughterhouse around 4.15 to retrieve the cape - after he’d fetched Llewelyn. That’s when the knackers were informed of the murder.

Gary

[MrBarnett]

Re-readings these posts I now realise where I got the "must have" from.

Abby's post, #4815,

"except most of the anti lechers claim he must have been investigated and cleared."

Doesn't alter the fact that I made a mistake, but can anyone point to posts where numerous people have stated Lechmere," must have been investigated and cleared
or do semantic word games only work one way?

Are you obsessing on the exact words ‘must have’? If not, you might like to track down Jeff Hamm’s posts where he insisted that checking out Lechmere would have been standard procedure.

[SuperShodan]

Just my tuppence worth about Nichols being killed as early as 02.30.

It would require PC Neil to twice walk down Bucks Row 02.45 and 03.15 and not see the body. Depending on what side he walked down Bucks Row he could actually trip over her.

It would also require her body to be lying in the street unnoticed for 1hr and 15 minutes.

Since PC Neil noticed the body on his patrol at 03.45 this suggests that his not noticing at 02.45 and 03.15 is unlikely.

I think Nichols being killed between 03.15 and 03.45 is solid. This is what we should work with.

[MrBarnett]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n778453]

Again, pure inventivness on your behalf , and now other posters have explain it in cleary detail the series of events. .P.C neil passed through bucks row at 3.15am and saw no one, and Nichols was discovered at 3.45am . She was murdered between these two times, and whats abundantly clear to me is your the only one that cant see it . [or wont]

There is no corrobration to show Pc Neil passed by the murder spot at 3.15am, on the contrary there is clear evidence that he might not have done which i have posted previoulsy and dont intend to keep re posting the same stuff over and over again because poster like you totall ignore what is posted

Ok lets work on that shall we , Nicoles last seen alive at 2.30am , 15 mins to gets to murder, spot dead at 2.50 am . option 1 , Nobody sees the body till paul and lech at 3.45am , [ if neil is wrong or lied ] lets take him out of the picture for a 1 min . Nichols now lays dead for 55mins with out discovery, is that what you think ?. Because thats an awful long time laying dead with all them police walking the beat that morning to believe this would be the case . Or option 2, P.C NEIL walks through bucks row at 3.15am ,see nothing , body found at 3.45am , doctor says at roughly at 4.00am ''death not more than 30 mins'' . t.o.d 3.30 am . Option 2 is for obvious reasons is far and away the better of the two . . out of 100 people how many would say 1 ?:/QUOTE]

But taking Pc Neil out of the equation does not allow Nichols to lay dead for 55 mins she was last seen alive at 2.30am and found dead at 3.45am she could have been killed as late as 3.30am just before Lechmere foudn the body for all we know he could have disturbed the killer.

and do we believe his account as to how his cape came to be left at the slaughterhouse because if you do I certainly dont !!!!!!!

I can speak from exeperience that in my early days as a beat officer on nights I would always call in to premises where I knew people were working overnight, sometimes to get out of the cold and to get a hot cuppa. sometimes just for a chat sometime staying for long periods !!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott,co.uk

Incidentally, Trevor, we have it on good authority, from someone high in the Anti-Lechmerian upper echelons, that anything given in evidence in court or written in a newspaper is a ‘fact’. And when it comes out of the mouth of a copper it’s presumably doubly unchallengeable. I’m not quite sure how it works when one newspaper says one thing and another says something different, but I’m sure there’s a solution to that which conveniently supports the case for Lechmere’s innocence.

[Mark J D]

The bottom left hand corner of your map is clearly in the area of Mitre Square. Now, either it was on his way to work (to make the idea that the victims were all on his way to work) or it wasn't on his way to work (and, therefore, the argument that the victims were all on his way to work is total fabrication). You can't have both. No tantrum - just facts and not invention.




And you kindly prove my point for me that you can draw lines from anywhere to anywhere and that in doing so you are merely constructing a falsehood to support a discredited theory.

If you assume (as your map does) that the first 2 victims were on Cross's way to work why isn't there a similar theory that says that Paul was the killer - as a map from his house to his place of work would show that both victims were on that route? I would think that it's easily possible to find other places connected with Paul that look equally as fatuous as the imaginatively constructed 'routes to work' for Cross. And, of course, when 'routes to work' is shown not to apply speculation is then applied to suggest that another victim was near Cross's mother's house.

The map is pure desperation to shore up a theory that has more holes than a sieve.

You are very confused.

And it's not my problem.

M.

[John Trent]

So you don't think the police questioned Lech at all, before or after the Inquest ?

The procedure for calling a witness at an inquest was the same in 1888 as it is now. The only difference between inquests then and now is that in 1888 if a coroner decided that it was murder by a particular suspect he would order him to be arrested. In regard to anything else - if someone volunteers to give evidence they are either interviewed by the police or give a written statement. The police pass that evidence to the coroner who decides whether or not to call that person. It is his decision only - based on evidence that is supplied to him. That removes the possibility of the deranged or self-serving appearing. Thus, Cross will have been interviewed even if he turned up unannounced. Indeed, he would have given his name, address and place of work in that interview.

[John Trent]

You are very confused.

And it's not my problem.

M.

No confusion on my part at all. The simple fact is that Mitre Square isn't on or near any reasonable journey between Cross's house and his place of work. Denying it only shows the desperation of the case against Cross.

[MrBarnett]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n778463]

Yeah that’s what I was wondering Gary. We would also have to ask why he missed it the first time but not the next of course but these things can happen. Its a point that we can’t make without evidence though of course.

He may have missed it. But it was his job to keep an eye out for anything out of the ordinary on his beat, so on that basis you’d imagine he’d be more likely to spot something like that than a workman on his way to work.

And of course Trevor might be right about him possibly not having passed along Buck’s Row at 3.15. That bloody cape raises a few questions.

[MrBarnett]

No confusion on my part at all. The simple fact is that Mitre Square isn't on or near any reasonable journey between Cross's house and his place of work. Denying it only shows the desperation of the case against Cross.

As far as I know, no one has ever said he was on his way to work on SUNDAY 30th September. The closest to that is the suggestion that he may have been familiar with that part of Aldgate from when he lived in James Street and took a more southerly route to work. Also, when he first started working at Pickfords, they were operating out of the Haydon Square goods depot, a short distance from Mitre Square.