Evidence of innocence

[Elamarna]

You if anybody should be aware of what confusion is. There were all sorts of rumours afloat after the murder, among which could be found Pauls claims in Lloyds Weekly. The wording you speak of in the Star seems to be built on insufficient information, but it nevertheless mirrors what Paul said in Lloyds Weekly. Paul did not name the PC he spoke to, but since Neil was recorded as the PC who found the body from the 31st on, it would be completely logical if the Star connected the dots as if HE was the PC contacted by the carmen.
You have a dodgy habit of taking your own ideas as gospel when they really cannot be. Itīs not the first time we can see this. I would advice anybody reading anything by your hand and starting out "It is therefore clear..." to take it with a barrel of salt.

Did it never occur to you that the idea that the idea that there were TWO stories about, both of them speaking about two men helping the police to find the body, is somewhat over the top?

Once again ignoring that the statement of Neil says he was not taken to the body by two men, and nothing even implying that occurrs in Lloyds.
The Star could not connect dots to the lloyds account on 31st, when Lloyds had not been published at that date.

There clearly were two stories ( probably with a common source , but significantly different)involving two men, one saying the men took PC Neil to the body, in the public domain 31st and again on 1st; and one which did not envolve the men leading anyone to the body, published later.

To claim Neil and the police did not belive Paul and Lloyds on 2nd is simply not supported by the actual statement made.
However, the report of Neil, fits exactly with the Star account, and it is therefore illogical to argue this is not the report being dismissed on 2nd, which was clearly untrue

[Aethelwulf]

This is why for example William Bury has been much spoken for...
Personally, I think he is a bad suspect; his murder was a domestic affair, and clearly the Ripper murders were not.

Fisherman, I've noticed this phrase of yours (or something similar) crop up in a lot of your Bury dismissal lectures over the years - she was a 'domestic/not a prostitute'. I think this is irrelevant and naive. JtR hated women and accessed his victims through their vulnerability. By far the most vulnerable women on the streets in the early hours were prostitutes, so that is who he attacked. But he could just as easily attacked any other women in a vulnerable position (e.g., walking home alone, in need of help assistance, looking for someone to trust). If you have seen the BBC documentary about the police mistakes concerning the Yorkshire Ripper, you are ploughing the same naive furrow. 'He hates prostitutes/he only attacks prostitutes' only for him to attack university students walking alone at night.

Ellen Bury was one of the most vulnerable women in this whole saga - under the control of her brutal husband - and it is simply irrelevant that she was a 'domestic' as you put it.

[Fisherman]

Once again ignoring that the statement of Neil says he was not taken to the body by two men, and nothing even implying that occurrs in Lloyds.
The Star could not connect dots to the lloyds account on 31st, when Lloyds had not been published at that date.

Of course they had not published, Steve, I know that quite well. They published on the 2nd (which may be why Neil refuted what was said in it on the same evening, incidentally, instead of refuting something that was printed two days earlier...), but the interview was made on the Friday, that is to say on the evening of the 31:st. Which means that it is in all probability what lies behind the Star story too.

There clearly were two stories involving two men, one saying the men took PC Neil to the body, in the public domain 31st and again on 1st; and one which did not envolve the men leading anyone to the body, published later.

I think you will find that much harder to prove than you would be hoping for. Impossible, actually. So letīs not invent any facts where they should not be invented. The mere idea of two entirely unrelated stories surfacing, both of them telling about how two men were able to direct the police to the murder site of Polly Nichols is somewhat exotic, to say the least. Then again, I am not the one of us who believes in all sorts of coincidences. But you are.

To claim Neil and the police did not belive Paul and Lloyds is simply not supported by the actual statement made.

What is supported by the statementS (plural) made is that there was on the 31st a story doing the rounds about how two men directed the police to the murder site on the murder morning. We have a saying here in Sweden when somebody makes a very odd interpretation of factual matters, that goes "Han läser fakta som Fan läser Bibeln". Iīll supply the interpretation to save you the trouble: He reads the facts the way the Devil reads the Bible.

I think that just about covers all there is to say, Steve. Itīs the same old story. We disagree, you claim that you must be right and I then show you that, as so often, you are likely wrong.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Christer,

If you had said that Dew's memory of events had previously been shown to be less than 100% reliable, I would have to agree! But you keep saying that Lechmere was seemingly not investigated. It seems to me to be a little bit odd that a very experienced and senior police officer would describe an Eastender as thoroughly honest, unless he had some sort of evidence to back it up. You seem to be suggesting that little or nothing was actually known about Lechmere, but Dew still gave him a glowing report, based on his total ignorance of any relevant facts.

Dew was writing about events that had occurred 50 years previously - events he may not have had any personal involvement in. His contrasting of Paul and Lechmere was probably no more than a literary device employed to show Paul in a bad light.

[Trevor Marriott]

Just imagine a barrister asking him, ‘Is Cross your real name?’ And following that question up with, ‘Did you not feel it was appropriate to disclose your real name to the court?’

Not a good start.

And why would that question be followed up by”and why do you use two different names?”

his reply would be satisfactory and eliminate the sinister reasons you infer

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

What is supported by the statementS (plural) made is that there was on the 31st a story doing the rounds about how two men directed the police to the murder site on the murder morning. We have a saying here in Sweden when somebody makes a very odd interpretation of factual matters, that goes "Han läser fakta som Fan läser Bibeln". Iīll supply the interpretation to save you the trouble: He reads the facts the way the Devil reads the Bible.

I think that just about covers all there is to say, Steve. Itīs the same old story. We disagree, you claim that you must be right and I then show you that, as so often, you are likely wrong.

We will of course disagree.
I did not say the stories were unrelated, they probably have a common source, but they are significantly different.

You have certainly not demonstrated that I am likely to be wrong, far from it.
It is the Star account being rejected, rightly, not the Lloyds account.
Bye

[MrBarnett]

And why would that question be followed up by”and why do you use two different names?”

his reply would be satisfactory and eliminate the sinister reasons you infer

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If it had been, the honest answer may have included something along the lines of ‘I only use the name Lechmere in formal situations.’

[Fisherman]

I now note that you seem to have edited your post, Steve, writing:

There clearly were two stories ( probably with a common source , but significantly different)...

Since you speak of a common source, that source must be Robert Paul, who delivered what you perceive as a second story.

Now, if Paul WAS the sole source, why would he change his story?

Here are my five cents:

Robert Paul played a part in a sensational case of murder. He did not know this as he stood outside Browns Stable Yard, but the word on the street will have made him realize it as the day passed by. When he found out, he also found out that he had a story to tell that would make people lift an eyebrow or two. And so he told his story during the Friday, to all and sundry. He was a carter, and so he would have come in contact with all sorts of people.
Pauls story will have spread like wildfire, and it will have been picked up on by reporters among other people. A Lloyds reporter would then have been dispatched to try and find Paul in the evening, and succeeded. Another reporter, from the Star, was not so lucky, and was forced to rely on second hand accounts, accounts that didnīt have the story correct, but worked from the idea that the PC that was said to be the finder was also the PC that was supposedly directed to the murder site.

We are getting somewhere now. The same source, you say, and you will be right - to a degree. Itīs more like the same story, and from two sources, one of them being Paul and the other one/s remaining unidentified.

Anyways, this is much better than the suggestion that two unrelated stories about two men directing a PC to the murder site would have done the rounds, the first one being pure invention and the second one being true.

It surely must have been the other way around if your suggestion was correct: Pauls story could have inspired false stories, but not until Paul had told his version. The notion that Pauls version was not spread before the 2nd, in Lloyds Weekly, is contradicted by how a similar story is out there on the 31st.

There was never anything wrong with logic.

[Fisherman]

It is the Star account being rejected, rightly, not the Lloyds account.

Once again, you are inventing facts. This time over, you are (to a degree) excused by not having been able to read my latest post. Once you do, you may - with any luck - realize how it all likely fits together.
PC Neil would have been able to read BOTH the Star and Lloyds Weekly as far as the timings are concerned. Therefore, we do not know which paper he read, or iof he and the police even had read both of them (which I find very likely). But the fact that the information was given by Neil and his colleagues on the same evening as Lloyds came out (and on a Sunday!) makes for a good case that Lloyds was the primary cause for Neils concerns.

A final remark: you say that in Lloyds, nothing implicates that the PC was taken to the site by two men, but if you look closer at what Paul says, it goes like this: "I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not."

Therefore, Paul seems to be suggesting not that the PC should go himself but instead that he should come - arguably come along with Paul. After that, itīs small wonder if Neil had a hard time making heads or tails of the two articles.

Next time over, you should not be so rash, perhaps.

[FrankO]

A disastrous one, that would set the bar for the rest of a trial, regardless if had a sinister origin or not.

OK Christer, let's suppose for a minute that the police did interview Lechmere and asked him ‘Is Cross your real name?’ and following that question up with, ‘Did you not feel it was appropriate to disclose your real name to us?’. And let's suppose Lechmere would have answered those questions with what you have in mind for Lechmere to have answered in case he was asked these type of questions.

Would you also say that this would have been disastrous for Lechmere, regardless of whether not disclosing his birth name had a sinister reason gehind it or not?

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;n768998]I now note that you seem to have edited your post, Steve, writing:

There clearly were two stories ( probably with a common source , but significantly different)...

Since you speak of a common source, that source must be Robert Paul, who delivered what you perceive as a second story.

Now, if Paul WAS the sole source, why would he change his story?

Here are my five cents:

Robert Paul played a part in a sensational case of murder. He did not know this as he stood outside Browns Stable Yard, but the word on the street will have made him realize it as the day passed by. When he found out, he also found out that he had a story to tell that would make people lift an eyebrow or two. And so he told his story during the Friday, to all and sundry. He was a carter, and so he would have come in contact with all sorts of people.
Pauls story will have spread like wildfire, and it will have been picked up on by reporters among other people. A Lloyds reporter would then have been dispatched to try and find Paul in the evening, and succeeded. Another reporter, from the Star, was not so lucky, and was forced to rely on second hand accounts, accounts that didnīt have the story correct, but worked from the idea that the PC that was said to be the finder was also the PC that was supposedly directed to the murder site.

We are getting somewhere now. The same source, you say, and you will be right - to a degree. Itīs more like the same story, and from two sources, one of them being Paul and the other one/s remaining unidentified.

Anyways, this is much better than the suggestion that two unrelated stories about two men directing a PC to the murder site would have done the rounds, the first one being pure invention and the second one being true.

It surely must have been the other way around if your suggestion was correct: Pauls story could have inspired false stories, but not until Paul had told his version. The notion that Pauls version was not spread before the 2nd, in Lloyds Weekly, is contradicted by how a similar story is out there on the 31st.

There was never anything wrong with logic.[/QUdOTE]

Progress of a sort, I agree.
The Star account is a corrupted version of part of the Lloyds account, there are too many similarities for it to be independent.


I agree, it seems highly probable that knowledge of the Lloyds account was in circulation, even if limited, before the 2nd.

So back to Neil's statement, What is being denied is that two men took Neil to the body. Can we agree on that?

There is no indication that the account as published in Lloyds is being disputed in Neil's statement.

[Elamarna]

Once again, you are inventing facts. This time over, you are (to a degree) excused by not having been able to read my latest post. Once you do, you may - with any luck - realize how it all likely fits together.
PC Neil would have been able to read BOTH the Star and Lloyds Weekly as far as the timings are concerned. Therefore, we do not know which paper he read, or iof he and the police even had read both of them (which I find very likely). But the fact that the information was given by Neil and his colleagues on the same evening as Lloyds came out (and on a Sunday!) makes for a good case that Lloyds was the primary cause for Neils concerns.

A final remark: you say that in Lloyds, nothing implicates that the PC was taken to the site by two men, but if you look closer at what Paul says, it goes like this: "I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not."

Therefore, Paul seems to be suggesting not that the PC should go himself but instead that he should come - arguably come along with Paul. After that, itīs small wonder if Neil had a hard time making heads or tails of the two articles.

Next time over, you should not be so rash, perhagps.

We will disagree I am afraid, I have certainly not be rash in my assesment and conclusions.

No facts have been invented.

The claim that Lloyds is probably the primary concern for Neil, is simply your opinion.

To attempt to link Paul saying that Mizen should come to the body, to the Star account and thus to Neil's statement is not surprising, if in no way convincing, given the Lloyds account makes it clear that the men did not take Mizen to the body
That you wish to perpetuate the claim that the police disbelieved the Lloyds account is your choice, it's not supported by the facts.

We won't agree, such is life.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Dew was writing about events that had occurred 50 years previously - events he may not have had any personal involvement in. His contrasting of Paul and Lechmere was probably no more than a literary device employed to show Paul in a bad light.

I agree that you are basically right - Dew's recollections have been a bit approximate at best. However, he did give Lechmere a rather glowing report, and not just an "OK" one, and Christer seems to want to quote this as evidence that Lechmere was not investigated, and really there is no evidence to back this. It is an assumption. I could equally validly argue that if the police considered Lechmere to be so "clean" then they must have investigated him thoroughly, and found nothing! However, I don't make any such assumption from Dew's account, because, as I said previously, his memory is not always reliable.

[MrBarnett]

I agree that you are basically right - Dew's recollections have been a bit approximate at best. However, he did give Lechmere a rather glowing report, and not just an "OK" one, and Christer seems to want to quote this as evidence that Lechmere was not investigated, and really there is no evidence to back this. It is an assumption. I could equally validly argue that if the police considered Lechmere to be so "clean" then they must have investigated him thoroughly, and found nothing! However, I don't make any such assumption from Dew's account, because, as I said previously, his memory is not always reliable.

Yes, the truth is that we don’t know if or to what extent Lechmere was checked out by the police. Because there is no mention of their having done so and no record of the Lechmere name in connection with the case, I lean towards him not having been investigated. But I could be wrong - it wouldn’t be the first time. :-)

[rjpalmer]

Paul criticised the police in his press interview and that will be what coloured Dew’s opinion of him.

Come on, Gary, this is getting ridiculous. You are so eager to make a point against Lechmere that you aren't even making sense. Dew doesn't even remember Paul--so how does he remember Paul criticizing the police? Please explain.

Dew was writing about events that had occurred 50 years previously - events he may not have had any personal involvement in. His contrasting of Paul and Lechmere was probably no more than a literary device employed to show Paul in a bad light.

Again, this makes no sense.

Dew doesn’t paint Paul in a bad light—he just remembers that an unknown man in Buck's Row acted suspiciously. Dew doesn’t remember anything specific about Paul at all. He doesn’t name him. He doesn’t even remember that Paul was eventually traced. All Dew writes is that there were ‘repeated appeals’ for the 2nd man in Buck’s Row to contact the police, but he never did.

Dew then admits that not too much emphasis should be placed on this:

“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.”

This is entirely reasonable and circumspect and non-committal.

Yet, from your initial post, you seem to be implying that Dew does remember Paul—and his complaints against the police--and has decided to slur him by turning him into a man of mystery who was never found?

A little bit overly subtle, don’t you think?

Let me suggest a better interpretation.

Walter Dew is not the self-aggrandizing imbecile that some like to imply. He was a man of considerable intelligence and talent who rose all the way to Chief Inspector.

But after 50 years, all he remembers is the difficult time the police had in bringing Paul to the inquest, but by now the conclusion has slipped his memory.

Is there any supporting evidence for this in the contemporary records?

I think there is.

The first session of the Nichols inquest, September 1st, dealt with the identity of the victim, and with the medical evidence as to the cause of death.

The second session, on September 3rd, dealt with the discovery of her body.

Who gave depositions about this? Inspector Spratling, Henry Tompkins, PC Mizen, and Charles Cross.

Who is noticeable in his absence? Robert Paul. This would have been the obvious time for Paul to testify, but he’s nowhere to be found---just as Walter Dew remembered.

An entire two weeks pass before Paul is brought before the inquest …September 17th.

And we know from Paul’s interview that he was roused from his bed in the night, and that he complained bitterly that he was losing pay by having to attend the inquest, and that he then turned the tables on the police and pointed the finger at Mizen, as if to say, why should I have to sufferer all this inconvenience when the copper didn’t even take the matter seriously and kept knocking on doors?

So no. I don’t think Dew is trying to slur Paul—if he wanted to, he could made it infinitely worse than paint him as an unnamed man who was never traced. That makes little sense. Dew’s memory is accurate…but incomplete. The delay in Paul coming to the inquest, coupled with his own bitter account, suggests that, after coming forward, Paul had ‘gone to ground,’ and the police DID have trouble in dragging him before the coroner… that’s the part Dew remembers, probably because he was involved in the efforts to trace him…but, after 50 years, he no longer remembers the outcome. Which happens. People get old. They forget details, even important details.

Thus, wouldn’t a more reasonable conclusion be that any ‘contrast’ between Cross and Paul was entirely justified—Cross (birth name Lechmere) was a cooperative and honest witness, whereas Paul was somewhat sketchy?

The police aren’t always wrong.