Evidence of innocence

[Mark J D]

In my view, the most logical conclusion from the evidence is that Cross wasn’t investigated. He gave a statement at some point and it was taken at face value.

Have you ever pondered the question of what were the two days Paul attended the inquest, and when it was he was 'fetched up in the night'? I'm wondering how long it took the police to find and interview him, and which was the day he attended without being reported saying anything...

M.

[FrankO]

Presumably you just don't know about the earlier reports about two men finding the body.

Thanks for posting, Dusty, but is it possible to post a clearer version (as I can hardly read especially the upper part)?

[MrBarnett]

Thanks for posting, Dusty, but is it possible to post a clearer version (as I can hardly read especially the upper part)?

Yes, it would be nice to be able to read it, and to know its source. Plus, since ‘reports’ (plural) are mentioned, it would be useful to know the other sources in question.

[Mark J D]

Yes, it would be nice to be able to read it, and to know its source. Plus, since ‘reports’ (plural) are mentioned, it would be useful to know the other sources in question.

Looks to me like an evening paper crammed with all the cack and scuttlebutt they could accumulate before the deadline. The bit about one man staying with the body surely indicates the presence of Rob the Gob somewhere along the chain of Chinese whispers...

M.

[MrBarnett]

Looks to me like an evening paper crammed with all the cack and scuttlebutt they could accumulate before the deadline. The bit about one man staying with the body surely indicates the presence of Rob the Gob somewhere along the chain of Chinese whispers...

M.

I think it may have been an Edinburgh evening paper.

There were at least 3 ‘two men’ stories that surfaced the day after the murder.

[Mark J D]

I think it may have been an Edinburgh evening paper.

There were at least 3 ‘two men’ stories that surfaced the day after the murder.

Thanks for this! I'd be interested to see them all (with refs!), if they can be uploaded in legible form!

M.

[MrBarnett]

Thanks for this! I'd be interested to see them all (with refs!), if they can be uploaded in legible form!

M.

By that I meant, the 2 slaughterman, the two men allegedly seen at 3 o’clock by the wool warehouse watchman and the 2 finders of the body.

Were there 3 separate sightings? I haven’t looked into it myself. No doubt Dusty will provide us with the full list of early reports that mention 2 finders.

[rjpalmer]

This will allow you to read it easier:

[Mark J D]

Were there 3 separate sightings? I haven’t looked into it myself. No doubt Dusty will provide us with the full list of early reports that mention 2 finders.

I've a feeling those reports will be every bit as valuable as that one from ? Edinburgh (or his imaginary revelation about Nichols' stays): nothing that could have been read at Broad Street before Lechmere went home on the Saturday, and nothing that would have convinced anyone that the body hadn't been found by PC Niel (plausibly Irish spelling from the Penny Illustrated...)

M.

[Mark J D]

This will allow you to read it easier:

There has to be a reason why no-one is naming the paper...

M.

[rjpalmer]

There has to be a reason why no-one is naming the paper...

M.

The reason I don't name the paper is that I'm leaving it up to Dusty's discretion. You childishly insult him one moment (**boggle**) and then beg for more information or clarification the next (maybe Dusty should consider joining the Maybrick threads!)

Although I know the source, what I think it actually represents is a report that first appeared in Star (London) probably taken from one of their later editions. Much of the info. is identical and similarly worded to a more well-known Star report of the same date. More research would confirm this, I think, but I'm not all that interested at the moment.

[Mark J D]

The reason I don't name the paper ...

... is that the paper's name and details undermine the hostile point the clipping is meant to make.

M.

[FrankO]

This will allow you to read it easier:

Thanks, Roger!

[FrankO]

In my view, the most logical conclusion from the evidence is that Cross wasn’t investigated. He gave a statement at some point and it was taken at face value.

I agree, Gary. Based on the evidence we have, it doesn’t seem they investigated him. If true, I think it has to mean that the police either never took note of the fact that Lechmere didn't tell Mizen that he and Paul had found & examined the body, or they did, questioned him about it and found his explanation for it satisfactory. I can’t really see why the police shouldn’t have wanted to get that cleared up.

[MrBarnett]

... is that the paper's name and details undermine the hostile point the clipping is meant to make.

M.

Edinburgh Evening News, Saturday 1st December.