Evidence of innocence

[drstrange169]

The police weren't professional Knocker Uppers. You went to the police station and booked a time nearest to when the policeman would be in your area. If that meant it was 20 mins before your ideal time too bad. The old adage, you get what you pay for, comes to mind.

[drstrange169]

I was going to post that Pereira pic, but, I could find a year for it. No matter, no clock there anyway, so just another useless pick eh Gary?

This seems to have dissolved into a, how far can you piss contest. What if an imagery clock did exist, what would to prove? To help Paul it would have to tell a different time from the brewery clock Thain passed within minutes of being called by Neil.

[MrBarnett]

I was going to post that Pereira pic, but, I could find a year for it. No matter, no clock there anyway, so just another useless pick eh Gary?

This seems to have dissolved into a, how far can you piss contest. What if an imagery clock did exist, what would to prove? To help Paul it would have to tell a different time from the brewery clock Thain passed within minutes of being called by Neil.

Perhaps you can tell me what you think RJ is getting at when he goes on about the 14ft wall?

[drstrange169]

Don't need to think anything, RJ has explained what he meant in posts 5377 and 5398.

To which you posted pictures (5382 and 5443) of the view from Foster Street where no clock is visible.

I genuinely don't understand what point you are trying to make.

But, what does it matter? Does it change the time on the Whitechapel Road clock?

[rjpalmer]

I genuinely don't understand what point you are trying to make.

Neither do I, which is why I quit responding.

Paul's deposition said that it was 3:45 when he left home. If he was going by a theoretical clock high above a 14' wall as he rounded the corner of Bath Street, why didn't he say it was 3.45 'when I passed the brewery'? Does a person generally say 'when I left home' when he sees a clock during his commute? Making matters worse, in the Llyod's piece, he says (or supposedly says) it was 3.45 when he was in Buck's Row. Which was it? Where was this clock in Buck's Row?

[rjpalmer]

If Paul kept a watch at home, what's not to say he didn't stumble down to the pub on Saturday nights to make sure it kept time?

And, as Gary notes, pub time is often 5 or 10 minutes fast, so what is not to say that Paul's watch wasn't 5 or 10 minutes fast?

Mystery solved. Paul said he left home at 3.45, but it was really 3.35. This synchronizes with Lechmere and Thain and everyone else.

There we have it. Paul was on pub time; everyone else was on real time.

If we are just kicking around scenarios without any evidence of what clock Paul saw or heard, one theory is as good as the next.

That's why the 'evidence' for there being missing time in Lechmere's account is weak in the extreme. Way too many unknowns.

[JeffHamm]

Hi rj,

Neither do I, which is why I quit responding.

Paul's deposition said that it was 3:45 when he left home. If he was going by a theoretical clock high above a 14' wall as he rounded the corner of Bath Street, why didn't he say it was 3.45 'when I passed the brewery'? Does a person generally say 'when I left home' when he sees a clock during his commute? Making matters worse, in the Llyod's piece, he says (or supposedly says) it was 3.45 when he was in Buck's Row. Which was it? Where was this clock in Buck's Row?

In the The Daily Telegraph, September 18, 1888, there's no mention in Paul's inquest testimony as to when he left home. (this is under the Casebook official documents, inquest testimonies set of links).

Under the press reports, though,

In The Times (same date), his testimony opens with:
Robert Baul [Paul], a carman, of 30, Foster-street, Whitechapel, stated he went to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields. He left home about a quarter to 4 on the Friday morning and as he was passing up Buck's-row he saw a man standing in the middle of the road. ...

In the Daily News, (same date) we have: Robert Paul said he lived at 30 Forster street, Whitechapel. On the Friday he left home just before a quarter to four, and on passing up Buck's row he saw a man in the middle of the road, who drew his attention to the murdered woman.

So, while the phrasing of the qualifier is different between The Times and the Daily News, both are consistent with Paul leaving "before" 3:45 ( and that's explicitly stated in the DN), but neither indicate specifically by how much.

That means, if we speculate he did have a watch, it need not even be out of time depending upon the size of the temporal window that corresponds to "about" or "just before".

The only article I could find in a fairly quick check where Paul's time is presented as being specific during the inquest (so not the Lloyd's interview) was in the Pall Mall Gazette, where they state he was in Bucks Row at 3:45. However, their coverage is a summary paragraph of the inquest, not a transcription of the individual witnesses, so that claim appears to reflect how the journalist summarized Paul's entire statement rather than a statement from Paul per se).

That being said, there may be newspapers that attribute Paul with making a definite statement of time during the inquest, but I've not seen them listed. I've only seen the Lloyd's article do that, and it's not from the inquest nor a statement made under oath.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

Lloyds (Sept 2)
It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's row

Lloyds (23 Sept)
was going to work at Cobbett's-court (no time given)

Morning Advertiser
I left home just before a quarter to four

Daily News
He left home about a quarter to 4

St James Gazette
left home just before a quarter to four o'clock

Times
He left home about a quarter to 4

Daily Telegraph
said as he was going to work (no time given)

Pall Mall Gazette
passing along Buck's-row at a quarter to four

Illustrated Police News
he left home at about a quarter to four o'clock

Morning Post
just before a quarter to four

Evening Standard
just before a quarter to four

Reynolds
was going to work at Cobbett's-court (no time given)

Birmingham Daily Post
left home about a quarter to 4

Birmingham Mail
left home about a quarter to 4

If Paul knew the time "exactly" when he entered Buck's Row, the time he left home is irrelevant, so why'd he avoid repeating his Lloyds claim?

The fact that Paul would not state an exact time under oath is highly significant.

If he saw/heard a clock you would expect him it say so. If he had a pocket watch you would expect hime to say, "I looked at my watch and it said ..." .

Since Paul could give no time for being in Buck's Row, Baxter had no time from him to use in his summation. "about a quarter to four" does not contradict the three policemen's testimony.

Lloyds Sept 2
It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's row

Inquest
I left home just before a quarter to

Lloyds Sept 2
I saw a man standing where the woman was

Inquest
I saw a man standing in the roadway

Lloyds Sept 2
I was anxious to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw.

Inquest
They agreed that the best thing they could do would be to tell the first policeman they met. ...Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman

Lloyds Sept 2
The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time ... 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

Inquest
he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint.

The Lloyds Sept 2 interview is the foundation the case against Lechmere is built on.

Nuff said.

[Mark J D]

Lloyds Sept 2
I was anxious to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw.

What happened to 'I was obliged to be'...?

M.

[drstrange169]

Great point!

I cut and pasted the Morning Advertiser's version by mistake.

After all these years I've never noticed the difference before.

The Morning Advertiser wrote, anxious and Lloyds wrote, obliged.

Seems to be the only word different in the two reports.

[Mark J D]

If Paul knew the time "exactly" when he entered Buck's Row, the time he left home is irrelevant, so why'd he avoid repeating his Lloyds claim?

Paul's Lloyd's interview doesn't say 'exactly' when he entered Buck's Row.

M.

[SuperShodan]

This is an interesting article. Looks like Bucks Row was better lit than I thought. It makes Paul not seeing Lechmere walking ahead even more improbable.
So as Paul is walking up Bucks Row where is Lechmere?
I would say Lechmere’s version of finding the body is clearly a fabrication.




Evening News
London, U.K.
7 September 1888

FIFTH EDITION.
THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER.
WATCHING BUCK'S ROW.
This morning, at one o'clock, two reporters commenced a watch in Buck's-row, which terminated at eleven o'clock, and from what they then observed, coupled with the evidence already given, they came to the conclusion that the police are altogether wrong in their assumption that the murder was committed on the spot where the body was found. This seems to be absolutely impossible, for the following reasons. In the first place, Buck's-row is a decently wide thoroughfare, running at right angles from Baker's-row to Brady-street. Buck's-row is in every sense thoroughly respectable, every tenant being an old inhabitant, and of good class. In addition to well-to-do artisans, the row contains a mission hall, the factory of Messrs. Schneider and Sons, and the factories and warehouses of Messrs. Torr, and Browne and Eagle, together with the private residence of the Rev. Henry North Hall, the curate of St. Mary, Whitechapel. There are watchmen at night at these factories, and many of the private residents were awake at the time the deceased was murdered, but none heard any cries for help on Friday morning.
It has been stated that the street is a dark one, but this is altogether wrong, for it is well lighted at all hours of the night by the great lamps outside the [Albion] brewery of Messrs. Mann and Crossman, in addition to the ordinary street lamps, and it seems inconceivable that such a well-lighted street would be selected for the crime.
WINTHROP STREET.
Winthrop Street, on the other hand, is very narrow and very dark, and tenanted by many of the worst characters in London, and there seems to be no doubt whatever that the murder was committed there, and the body brought round the corner and left a few yards up Buck's-row. The extensive nature of the injuries and the absence of blood in Buck's-row, as proved by the police, also goes to show that the murder was not committed there, and if this be so there was probably a second party cognisant of the murder, if not a participator in it. It may be stated that a thorough search of the houses in Winthrop-street has not been made by the police yet, and there is good reason to believe that had this been done at the outset a clue to the murder and the actual spot where it took place would have been discovered.
POLICE BEATS.
The police system of particular beats and regular time for certain constables to be upon those beats is thoroughly well-known by the criminal classes, and the medical evidence gives colour to the theory that Constable Neil was watched, and the moment he had passed through Buck's-row the body was carried there and left where he found it half an hour afterwards on his return along that beat; and as the body was not cold the murder was committed perhaps three-quarters of an hour before the discovery of the victim.
The whole of the inhabitants of Buck's-row are of one opinion, viz., that the murder was not done there, and as many of them know the locality well, having lived there for 20 or 30 years (the youngest inhabitant three years), some respect might, it is thought, be shown to their knowledge.

[JeffHamm]

This is an interesting article. Looks like Bucks Row was better lit than I thought. It makes Paul not seeing Lechmere walking ahead even more improbable.
So as Paul is walking up Bucks Row where is Lechmere?
I would say Lechmere’s version of finding the body is clearly a fabrication.




Evening News
London, U.K.
7 September 1888

FIFTH EDITION.
THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER.
WATCHING BUCK'S ROW.
This morning, at one o'clock, two reporters commenced a watch in Buck's-row, which terminated at eleven o'clock, and from what they then observed, coupled with the evidence already given, they came to the conclusion that the police are altogether wrong in their assumption that the murder was committed on the spot where the body was found. This seems to be absolutely impossible, for the following reasons. In the first place, Buck's-row is a decently wide thoroughfare, running at right angles from Baker's-row to Brady-street. Buck's-row is in every sense thoroughly respectable, every tenant being an old inhabitant, and of good class. In addition to well-to-do artisans, the row contains a mission hall, the factory of Messrs. Schneider and Sons, and the factories and warehouses of Messrs. Torr, and Browne and Eagle, together with the private residence of the Rev. Henry North Hall, the curate of St. Mary, Whitechapel. There are watchmen at night at these factories, and many of the private residents were awake at the time the deceased was murdered, but none heard any cries for help on Friday morning.
It has been stated that the street is a dark one, but this is altogether wrong, for it is well lighted at all hours of the night by the great lamps outside the [Albion] brewery of Messrs. Mann and Crossman, in addition to the ordinary street lamps, and it seems inconceivable that such a well-lighted street would be selected for the crime.
WINTHROP STREET.
Winthrop Street, on the other hand, is very narrow and very dark, and tenanted by many of the worst characters in London, and there seems to be no doubt whatever that the murder was committed there, and the body brought round the corner and left a few yards up Buck's-row. The extensive nature of the injuries and the absence of blood in Buck's-row, as proved by the police, also goes to show that the murder was not committed there, and if this be so there was probably a second party cognisant of the murder, if not a participator in it. It may be stated that a thorough search of the houses in Winthrop-street has not been made by the police yet, and there is good reason to believe that had this been done at the outset a clue to the murder and the actual spot where it took place would have been discovered.
POLICE BEATS.
The police system of particular beats and regular time for certain constables to be upon those beats is thoroughly well-known by the criminal classes, and the medical evidence gives colour to the theory that Constable Neil was watched, and the moment he had passed through Buck's-row the body was carried there and left where he found it half an hour afterwards on his return along that beat; and as the body was not cold the murder was committed perhaps three-quarters of an hour before the discovery of the victim.
The whole of the inhabitants of Buck's-row are of one opinion, viz., that the murder was not done there, and as many of them know the locality well, having lived there for 20 or 30 years (the youngest inhabitant three years), some respect might, it is thought, be shown to their knowledge.

Where does Paul say he was unaware of Cross/Lechmere?

- Jeff

[SuperShodan]

Where does Paul say he was unaware of Cross/Lechmere?

- Jeff

Paul doesn’t see Lechmere until he see’s him standing in the middle of the road near the body. He clearly hasn’t seen Lechmere prior to that.

[Dickere]

So Mr Blotchy seems to be getting some traction in other threads. Do people feel he fits Lech or is there anything that rules him out of being the killer if it was Blotchy ?