Evidence of innocence

[Dickere]

Hi Wulf
i dont think we know his exact height, but fish has posted a picture of him in later years and I remember thinking-well he dosnt look short or stout. he looks kind of raily or wiry if I recall correctly.

Lechmere was 6', Cross was 5'6". Cross was a long way away though.

[Mark J D]

Lechmere was 6', Cross was 5'6". Cross was a long way away though.

I have occasionally found myself thinking that the less physically prepossessing he appeared in person, the less likely it would be that anyone thought he was a 'person of interest' in regard to the killings. A married, caucasian male with a steady job was already close to the bottom of the police's 'possible suspect' list; add in an obvious physical impairment or two, and he's a man who will not be suspected of nothing, to cohen a phrase. I think this angle is worth exploring.

M.

[rjpalmer]

But as Paul Begg pointed out on an early stage, providing only the points against would be perfectly kosher to establish if they warranted a court case.

Hi Fish.

I have to question whether this his how the Crown Prosecution Service would see it. The CPS doesn't like prosecuting cases that they can't win, and they are surely going to look at both sides of the equation. Even if a maverick QC was reckless enough to want to take a weak case into court, it doesn't mean the CPS would allow him to do it.

At the CPS's own website, they state that they do not chose which cases to pursue. The police do. They then offer their own legal advice on whether the prosecution should proceed, based on two questions. The second question is whether it would be in the public interest to proceed. (In most murder cases, it obviously would be).

But the first, and most relevant question is this:

"Does the evidence provide a realistic prospect of conviction? That means, having heard the evidence, is a court more likely than not to find the defendant guilty?"

How on earth could the CPS make this decision, if they didn't have some sense of the exculpatory evidence, ie., the evidence tending to show the defendant's innocence? Obviously, they would need to know what they were up against to make an informed decision. This comes from the CPS themselves.

Further, even if the QC is allowed to take the case to court, that's only the first step. Ultimately he has to convince a jury, and judging by the Lechmere threads, that's going to be a strenuous uphill battle. The make-up of the jury pool is not going to be significantly different from the make-up of the people voicing skepticism and/or reasonable doubt on these threads.

That Scobie was enthusiastic about the case against Lechmere is certainly a feather in your cap, but let's not pretend that there wouldn't also be a queue of salivating QCs lined-up, willing to defend CAL.

Regards,

RP

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish.

I have to question whether this his how the Crown Prosecution Service would see it. The CPS doesn't like prosecuting cases that they can't win, and they are surely going to look at both sides of the equation. Even if a maverick QC was reckless enough to want to take a weak case into court, it doesn't mean the CPS would allow him to do it.

At the CPS's own website, they state that they do not chose which cases to pursue. The police do. They then offer their own legal advice on whether the prosecution should proceed, based on two questions. The second question is whether it would be in the public interest to proceed. (In most murder cases, it obviously would be).

But the first, and most relevant question is this:

"Does the evidence provide a realistic prospect of conviction? That means, having heard the evidence, is a court more likely than not to find the defendant guilty?"

How on earth could the CPS make this decision, if they didn't have some sense of the exculpatory evidence, ie., the evidence tending to show the defendant's innocence? Obviously, they would need to know what they were up against to make an informed decision. This comes from the CPS themselves.

Further, even if the QC is allowed to take the case to court, that's only the first step. Ultimately he has to convince a jury, and judging by the Lechmere threads, that's going to be a strenuous uphill battle. The make-up of the jury pool is not going to be significantly different from the make-up of the people voicing skepticism and/or reasonable doubt on these threads.

That Scobie was enthusiastic about the case against Lechmere is certainly a feather in your cap, but let's not pretend that there wouldn't also be a queue of salivating QCs lined-up, willing to defend CAL.

Regards,

RP

They would be deprived of the prospect, though, R J. The reason being that Charles Lechmere died from brain hemmorhage on December 23rd 1920. This of course throws a spanner in the works of any endeavour to defend Charles Lechmere.

We are not going to discuss this as some sort of mistake on Scobies behalf. He was not asked to actually take the case to trial; he was asked whether or not the points of accusation against Charles Lechmere would be sufficient to warrant a modern day trial. And so we need not worry about how the CPS could take the decision to take Lechmere to trial until they had seen the exculpatory evidence. Because nobody is taking Lechmere to trial. All that has happened is that James Scobie has said that there is a prima facie case against him, and that basically means that on the face of things, the evidence involved would warrant a trial that suggests that the carman was guilty. he seems to be the man we are looking for, and unless he can explain himself, there is a case against him.

I have said so before, and I donīt mind doing it again: Maybe Lechmere had an alibi for each and every one of the other Ripper murders. We cannot know, because he is long dead and the information that was once there has been lost in the river of time. This is something that must be regarded as a possibility, and so it must also be regarded as a possibility that there would have been that material available that would clear Lechmere, had he stood trial back in 1888. I am the last one to deny a person a fair and proper hearing. A world in which we don' t look at both sides of the coin is a hideous world.

Having said that, I genuinely believe that if Lechmere had been accused by way of the circumstantial evidence gathered against him, he would not be able to produce the evidence to clear himself. I also believe that the reason for this is that there can be no exculpatory evidence once the real culprit is put on trial. You know that too. Any alibi for the real culprit is a made up alibi, any exonerating evidence is made up evidence.

I firmly believe that if we could see his working schedule for the nights of the Chapman and Kelly slayings, he would have gone to work on those dates, and he would have nobody who could exonerate him from the murders. And yes, I beleiee that this would be so because he was the killer.

Furthermore, I believe that if we were able to check his whereabouts on the night of the double event, we would have his wife telling us that he went over to St Georges in the evening and came home late.

To me, and I know I have said so a thousand times, but it cannot be said often enough, all the things that point in his way simply cannot all be coincidental.

He just happened to find Nichols.

She just happened to bleed for many minutes after he left her.

She just happened to be the only Ripper victim with the damage hidden by the clothing.

Paul just happened to arrive at the perfect moment to supply an alibi.

He just happened not to see or hear Lechmere, 30 or 40 yards in front of himself.

Lechmere just happened to feel and touch the body of Nichols - and he just happened to decline to help prop her up when Paul suggested it.

He just happened to disagree about having told Mizen that a second PC was in place in Bucks Row.

He just happened to disagreee with Mizen about whether or not he told the PC that it was a grave errand.

He just happened to leave out that he was the finder himself when speaking to Mizen.

He just happened to traverse the exact small area where the Spitalfields murders took place.

He just happened to have all sorts of links to the exact area where Stride died.

He just happened to use the name Cross with the police and inquest, whereas he otherwise ALWAYS used Lechmere in any contacts with the authorities.

He just happened to give a departure time that should have seen him halfways down Hanbury Street at 3.40, not to speak of 3.45.

He just happened to surface at the second day of the inquest - after Pauls interview in Lloyds.

You see, R J, having ploughed through criminal history for decades in all sorts of directions, I have never found anyone with this kind of evidential rucksack who was NOT guilty. I have found nobody with HALF of this evidential burden who was not guilty. And so my conviction is that if Charles Lechmere was not guilty, then it is by far the weirdest thing I have come across in forty plus years of researching mainly serial killers and their activities.

Yes, anybody should have a fair trial with both sides represented. And I am leaving the field open for both sides - the thread you are currently posting on is called "Evidence of innocence" and is devoted to presenting the kind of evidence that could exonerate Lechmere. Feel free!

Then again, as Gary Barnett just put it, no such evidence has been brought forward. All that has happened is that alterantive innocent explanations have been piled up, but it has no impact on the huge amount of coincidences that must be explained away. ALL of the points above MUST be coincidental only if we are to clear Lechmere. All of them. Each and every one of them.

Is it even remotely likely that a person can amass such a huge amount of circumstantial evidence pointing in his direction if he is innocent? Where are the examples of any similar cases from history? I canīt find any.

And as I have pointed out, when a case against an individual is presented, it is presented in unshakeable terms:

Lechmere killed Polly Nichols by way of strangling her and cutting her. End of.

That is the one and only point I can present. I cannot vary it in absurdum, I have to be to the point and exact. I even give a time schedule.

Those who dislike the idea do not have that problem. ANY amount of innocent alternative explanations can always be presented. Take, for example, the covering of the wounds. I am stuck with the one explanation that Lechmere did it to fool Robert Paul.

But YOU! The OTHER side!! You can say that:

The clothing did not cover the wounds, the carmen just failed to see the wounds in the darkness.

The clothing had blown up over the abdomen by way of a gust of wind.

A passer by had felt it looked bad and so he covered it up to soften the impression (and yes, something like this HAS seemingly happened in another case!)

Nichols did not die immediately and so she pulled the dress down herself.

The killer lifted the dress and then let go of it after cutting the abomen and the clothing fell back in place by itself.

... and Iīm sure that you can think of other explanations too; the possibilities are endless.

But isnīt the really interesting thing that the Nichols case was one out of five or six or so cases, and the ONLY one where this happened? The exact case where Lechmere "found" the body? Doesnīt that belong to the discuyssion more than the endless array of alternative explanations we can come up with?

If it had happened in Mitre Square instead, then Paul would have seen what had happened as he arrived, with Nichols īdamage on full display.

But it didnīt happen in Mitre Square. It happened in Bucks Row, where a carman who stands accused of having produced a large number of lies "found" the body.

And so another point of circumstantial evidence pointing in the carmans direction was added. Another item that can be lightheartedy explained away, just as all of the points can.

Thank you for acknowledging that Scobies words are "a feather in my hat". I never wear hats, because they and I do not agree with each other, but I bow to your generosity nevertheless. Every litte piece counts.

[Fiver]

It’s quite simple: if CAL had been known to anyone by the name of Lechmere only (i.e. not Cross) and they were unaware that he had just moved to Doveton Street, they would not have recognised the person they knew as the finder of Nichols’ body. Pickfords carmen were ten a penny, but Charles Allen Lechmeres - Lechmeres of any sort - were rather thin on the ground.

These hypothetical people who knew him as CAL and did not know he had moved to Doveton Street are irrelevant.

CAL gave his work and home addresses at the Inquest. Using the name Charles Allen Cross did not hide CAL's identity from the police. They knew where to find him.

Using the name Charles Allen Cross did not hide CAL's identity from his wife, mother, or children. They were the people most likely to know if he was lying in his to the police or acting suspiciously.

Using the name Charles Allen Cross did not hide CAL's identity from his neighbors at Doveton Street. While less likely to know than CAL's immediate family, they would have a decent chance of knowing if he was lying or acting suspiciously.

Using the name Charles Allen Cross did not hide CAL's identity from his employers. While less likely to know than CAL's immediate family, they would have a decent chance of knowing if he was lying or acting suspiciously.

Using the name Charles Allen Cross did not hide CAL's identity his coworkers that knew him. While less likely to know than CAL's immediate family, they would have a decent chance of knowing if he was lying or acting suspiciously.

Why he felt the need to go to the police and provide them with a partial identity in the first place is a mystery. But he did, and his omission of his real name when he did is an anomaly that just won’t go away.

CAL had no need to go to the police if he was the killer. He knew that neither PC Mizen nor Robert Paul had gotten his name and both could be easily avoided in the future by changing his route to work.

CAL's use of his step-father's surname in court is unusual, but he was doing it a decade before the Ripper started killing. Using the name Cross would not have hidden his identity from the police nor from the people most likely to know if he was lying - his immediate family, his Doveton Street neighbors, his employers, or the coworkers who knew him.

[Fiver]

As I have pointed out before, it seems he did NOT give his address before the inquest. If he had, I think all papers would have had it. Only the Star did, and they probably got it from a clerk. Compare, if you will, the accident where a carman Charles Cross ran over a young boy; that carman did NOT give his address. If you cannot see a likely consistency here, I can.

This is speculation piled on speculation on your part.

It's also self-contradictory. If the clerk knew CAL's home address then either CAL gave his home address at the Inquest, or he gave his home address to the court before the Inquest, or both. Whatever the source, CAL wasn't trying to hide his identity and any newspaper that cared could have published the information.

When it comes to the 1876 Inquest you are assuming that the CAL did not give his address, while ignoring the possibility that the Islington Gazette just didn't bother to list it.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

And you have a double standard about addresses being listed in the newspapers. In 1876, the Inslington Gazette did not give a home address for witness George Porter and gave only a partial address for Dr Hindhaugh, yet you do not assume that they deliberately kept their home addresses back>

Your double standard continues with the newspaper accounts of 1888. For example, from the Nichols Inquest, the Daily Telegraph did not give home addresses for Mary Monk, Thomas Ede, or Alfred Mushaw and only partial addresses for William Nichols, Emma Green, Walter Purkiss, yet you don't accuse any of them of deliberately withholding the information.

[Mark J D]

It's also self-contradictory. If the clerk knew CAL's home address then either CAL gave his home address at the Inquest, or he gave his home address to the court before the Inquest, or both. Whatever the source, CAL wasn't trying to hide his identity and any newspaper that cared could have published the information.

God Almighty.

Christer wrote this, folks:

As I have pointed out before, it seems he did NOT give his address before the inquest. If he had, I think all papers would have had it. Only the Star did, and they probably got it from a clerk.

People not in the grip of blind rage can easily see that when Christer says 'before the inquest' he means spatially before, not chronologically before. Jeeezus.

M.

[Fiver]

Not when Nichols died, they werenīt. They were not even murder/s (plural) at that stage if we are to rely on MAcNaghten. I have pointed out the lax attitude on behalf pf the police during the Nichols investigation. It was something that would never have been allowed to pass further down the line, when it had become clear that the murders were unique.
By that stage, the carman had retreated into the shadows.

They were considered murders [plural] at the time of Nichols death. Most newspapers thought Nichols was the second victim, with Tabram being the first, though a few papers thought Nichols was the killers' third victim.

"Another most horrible murder was perpetrated in Whitechapel yesterday morning." - 1 September 1888 Daily Telegraph.

"ANOTHER WHITECHAPEL MYSTERY. HORRIBLE MURDER IN BUCK'S ROW, WHITECHAPEL. The Central News says: Scarcely has the horror and sensation caused by the discovery of the murdered woman in Whitechapel some short time ago had time to abate when another discovery is made which, for the brutality exercised on the victim, is even more shocking and will no doubt create as great a sensation in the vicinity as its predecessor." - 1 September 1888, East London Advertiser

"SCARCELY has the horror and sensation caused by the discovery of the murdered woman in Whitechapel recently had time to abate, when another discovery is made, which for the brutality exercised on the victim is even more shocking. As Constable John Neil was walking down Buck's Row, Thomas Street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning, he discovered a woman lying at the side of the street with her throat cut from ear to ear." - 1 September 1888 The Eastern Post

"One of the chief theories of the police with respect to the matter is that the sort of "High Rip" gang exists in the neighbourhood which, blackmailing women of the same class as the deceased, takes vengeance on those who do not find money for them. They base their surmise on the fact that within twelve months two other women have been murdered in the district by almost similar means, and left in the gutter of the street in the early hours of the morning." - 1 September 1888 Echo

"The locality of Whitechapel has long been associated with the committal of crimes of a brutal and at times almost incredible nature, in many of which women have been the victims. Some few months ago a woman was barbarously murdered near Whitechapel Church by being stabbed with a swordstick. On the night of last Bank Holiday a woman named Turner was found dead in George-yard, Whitechapel, with 30 stabs on her body. In both cases no clue to the perpetrators of the deed was discovered, and now even a more ghastly deed has come to light." - 1 September 1888 Evening News

"A woman of the class known as "unfortunate" was murdered under circumstances of a most revolting character in Buck's row, Whitechapel road, yesterday morning; and as this is the second murder of the same kind which has taken place within three weeks, the whole district is in a great state of excitement." - 1 September 1888 Evening Standard

"Following on the murder committed in Whitechapel early in August, the fearful crime brought to light in Buck's-row, on Friday morning, has naturally roused great excitement in the neighbourhood." - 2 September 1888 Lloyd's Weekly

"The suggestion is made that the crime was committed by a maniac, and that the other murders that have lately occurred in the neighbourhood point to the fact that a being inspired by a hellish mania for homicide is at large. The deed is so inhumanly ferocious and many of its circumstances are so analogous to the discovery a few weeks ago of a woman on a landing of a lodging house with thirty nine deadly stabs upon her, that the suggestion has some colour of truth." - 1 September 1888 Morning Advertiser

"Scarcely have the horror and sensation caused by the discovery of the murdered woman in Whitechapel some short time ago had time to abate, when another discovery is made, which, for the brutality exercised on the victim, is even more glaringly outrageous and horrible." - 2 September 1888 People

"THE WHITECHAPEL HORROR. THE THIRD CRIME OF A MAN WHO MUST BE A MANIAC." - 1 September 1888 The Star

"Another murder of the foulest kind was committed in the neighbourhood of Whitechapel in the early hours of yesterday morning, but by whom and with what motive is at present a complete mystery." - 1 September 1888 Times

[Fiver]

He refused to help prop Nichols up on his own account. He did walk right through the killing fields. He did have his mother and daughtrr living in Mary Ann Street, close by Berner. He did have links to StGeorges. He did disagree with Mizen on a number of matters. He did say he left home at a time that does not fit with when he was outside Browns. He was alone with Nichols at a time that fits with him being the killer. Nichols did bleed for many minutes after he left.
I did not make these things up. They are no inventions of mine. Instead, they are the precise kind of material that elevates a person who is present at a murder site at the approximate time of death into a prime suspect!

You did not make those things up, but you do interpret them as guilty until proven innocent.

* A guilty man would have been stupid to refuse to prop up Nichols - it would have provided an innocent explanation for any blood on his hands or clothes.

* Lechmere lived and worked in the area - just like Robert Paul and hundreds, if not thousands of other men.

* Lechmere did disagree with PC Mizen. So did Robert Paul.

* The estimated time Lechmere gave matches well with the estimated times of PC Mizen, PC Thain, and PC Neil.

* If bodies bleed out as fast as you claim, then the most likely killer is PC Neil. Of course your experts don't support your claim - they said they had little or no data and one estimated 10 to 15 minutes.

[rjpalmer]

He just happened to surface at the second day of the inquest - after Pauls interview in Lloyds.

This is a bizarre suggestion, Fish. Based on what evidence? What evidence can you present to show that he didn't 'surface' before Monday, September 3rd?

Are you suggesting that CAL read Lloyd's newspaper on Sunday afternoon, saw Paul's interview, raced down to the police station to turn himself in (the coppers not noticing anything curious about the timing) and by morning the police managed to summons him to the inquest with the coroner's stamp and approval? All on a Sunday? Didn't you and Neill Bell go round & round about this years ago?

Again, on what is this suggestion based?

Lloyd's reported that Robert Paul was chased down on Friday (August 31st) when he returned from work; why couldn't this also be true of CAL? Further, Paul didn't come before the inquest for another 17 days! Nor did he give the name of the man he had met in Buck's Row--and, anyway, Mizen, etc. already knew he existed--Mizen had seen him with his own eyes---so what on earth was so damaging about this report that supposedly smoked CAL out of his hiding spot in the woodpile??

CAL did indeed appear before the inquest on Monday, 3 September--as did Mizen, Tomkins, etc., when they deposed about the discovery of the body. It was entirely natural and expected that CAL would also depose at this time. He could have been summoned anytime on Friday or Saturday.

I think you're reading far too much into these events, old boy. You know what Elvis said about 'Suspicious Minds.'

[harry]

Well lets take your first lie of your last post to me Fisherman,when you say I thought a Prima Facie case was the same as a prima facie hearing.You a mind reader now.I neither thought nor expressed what you claim,but I'll set it right for you.A prima facie case is the evidence presented to a court .A prima facie hearing is where that evidence is considered.In a murder hearing it is police who present the case.
I'll reply to your other points later.Just chew on what iv'e written above for now.

[Trevor Marriott]

Well lets take your first lie of your last post to me Fisherman,when you say I thought a Prima Facie case was the same as a prima facie hearing.You a mind reader now.I neither thought nor expressed what you claim,but I'll set it right for you.A prima facie case is the evidence presented to a court .A prima facie hearing is where that evidence is considered.In a murder hearing it is police who present the case.
I'll reply to your other points later.Just chew on what iv'e written above for now.

Hi Harry
I think the prima facie hearing you refer to was commonly known as committal proceedings.

This is where after a person has been charged and the witnesses attend a court and give their evidence in person before magistrates who then after hearing all the witness testimony decide if their is a prima facie case to answer and if so will send the case to trial if not the case is thrown out. It is very rarely used in this day and age.

In 1888 the court system operated in the same way All of the cases due to be heard at those sessions would first be put before a grand jury which sat on the opening morning of the sessions. It was their role to examine each case to ensure there was sufficient evidence to put before the jury. If so, this was known as a “true bill”. Cases they felt did not meet the necessary criteria would be thrown out, marked as “Not found” and the prisoner released.

Based on what is known in the case of Lechmere and based on the evidence the case would never have got to this stage

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Well lets take your first lie of your last post to me Fisherman,when you say I thought a Prima Facie case was the same as a prima facie hearing.You a mind reader now.I neither thought nor expressed what you claim,but I'll set it right for you.A prima facie case is the evidence presented to a court .A prima facie hearing is where that evidence is considered.In a murder hearing it is police who present the case.
I'll reply to your other points later.Just chew on what iv'e written above for now.

Yes, all the times Iīv lied to you, Harry - revolting! I mean, when I said that a prinma facie case did not involver rebuttals and you said that a prima facie hearing DID, I should of course have understood that you were not mixing the two up.

And to those who wonder why Harry brought up the prima facie hearing at all if it didnīt have anything to do with the subject matter, I say shame on you! Harry is allowed to be as confused as he wishes to!!

[Fisherman]

Hi Harry
I think the prima facie hearing you refer to was commonly known as committal proceedings.

This is where after a person has been charged and the witnesses attend a court and give their evidence in person before magistrates who then after hearing all the witness testimony decide if their is a prima facie case to answer and if so will send the case to trial if not the case is thrown out. It is very rarely used in this day and age.

In 1888 the court system operated in the same way All of the cases due to be heard at those sessions would first be put before a grand jury which sat on the opening morning of the sessions. It was their role to examine each case to ensure there was sufficient evidence to put before the jury. If so, this was known as a “true bill”. Cases they felt did not meet the necessary criteria would be thrown out, marked as “Not found” and the prisoner released.

Based on what is known in the case of Lechmere and based on the evidence the case would never have got to this stage

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

A prima facie case is a case good enough to put before a jury, Iīm afraid. And there is a prima facie case against Lechmere, as per Scobie.

[Fisherman]

This is a bizarre suggestion, Fish. Based on what evidence? What evidence can you present to show that he didn't 'surface' before Monday, September 3rd?

Bizarre? Are you familiar with the case details, R J? it would seem not.

To begin with, have a fresh look at what I said. You quoted it, so you should know:

He just happened to surface at the second day of the inquest - after Pauls interview in Lloyds.

The point I am making is not that he surfaced on the Monday. It is that he surfaced after the LLoyds interview. But I can play the game in two ways, actually, so letīs go with the idea that what I actually said was that Lechmere only surfaced on the Monday!

Is there any evidence to bolster such a take? Actually, yes. And it appears in the shape of an article in the Daily News on said Monday. In the article, it says:

"Inspector Helson, at an interview yesterday evening, said ... Police constable Neil, 79 J, who found the body, reports the time as 3.45. ...He has been severely questioned as to his "working" of his "beat" on that night...It is not true, says Constable Neil, who is a man of nearly 20 years' service, that he was called to the body by two men. He came upon it as he walked, and, flashing his lanthorn to examine it he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the street."

Here, we can see how the idea that two men helping out with the finding is denied by Neil, who says he did the finding himself. So on the evening of the 2nd, clearly Charles Lechmere had not yet surfaced. His story, the one of two men being involved in the finding of the body, is denied.

And there is actually more. We know that when Lechmere took the stand in the Working Lads Institution on the Monday, he was firmally identified by PC Mizen. Apparently, no such identification had taken place before, and so we have further evidence that Lechmere was very late in coming forward.

Are you suggesting that CAL read Lloyd's newspaper on Sunday afternoon, saw Paul's interview, raced down to the police station to turn himself in (the coppers not noticing anything curious about the timing) and by morning the police managed to summons him to the inquest with the coroner's stamp and approval? All on a Sunday? Didn't you and Neill Bell go round & round about this years ago?

Yes, I am suggesting that he was aware of what was written in Lloyds, but Lloyds was not the forst paper to write about two men being involved in the finding of the body. It was suggested as early as the 31st, in the Star, as pointed out earlier on this thread by Steve Blomer. An article in the paper claimed that two men had taken PC Neil to the site. So the notion that two men had been involved was doing the rounds as early as the 31st, although in a muddled form. Apparently, Pauls interview with Lloyds, made when he returned from work on 31:st, was what set off the story. Arguably, Paul would have talked to a good many people about how he was involved, and the story made itīs way out to the streets, where it took on various shapes, one of them being that the two men led Neil to the site, the version in the Star.

So the story was out there long before the Lloyds interview was printed. But when that happened, Robert Pauls name and story told Lechmere that he now had to deal with a first hand account instead of flawed rumours, and he knew that he needed to be proactive. What he would not be aware of was that the police on Sunday evening actively denied the story; that didnīt break in the papers until he had already gone to the inquest.

So what do we know?

We know that the police denied the story of the two men on the evening of the 2nd, and so we can see that Lechmeres story was not available to them at this stage. And we know that Mizen identified the carman at the inquest. Therefore, I would not say that Lechmere necessarily went to the police before going to the inquest - it may just as well be that he only appeared there, and was interviewed by the policemen attending it before he was added to the witness list.

Again, on what is this suggestion based?

Lloyd's reported that Robert Paul was chased down on Friday (August 31st) when he returned from work; why couldn't this also be true of CAL?

Because if he was, the polie would have two mutually corroborating sources telling the same story, and Neil and the police would not go public two days after denying their role. And of course, there would have been two days for the police to let Mizen identify Lechmere before the inquest.

Further, Paul didn't come before the inquest for another 17 days!

14 days, R J. 3-17 September. And that is no good indicator of when Paul surfaced, because there were no inquest dated in between these dates.

Nor did he give the name of the man he had met in Buck's Row--and, anyway, Mizen, etc. already knew he existed--Mizen had seen him with his own eyes---so what on earth was so damaging about this report that supposedly smoked CAL out of his hiding spot in the woodpile??

The information that there had been a man standing "where the body was" as Paul arrived at the murder spot of course meant that there was a man at large in London who had been found alone with the body of a murder victim at a remove in time that was rouughly consistent with the TOD, and who could well be the killer. It would have been very obvious to the police that they needed to identify this man if he did not come forward on his own account. Furthermore, if he did NOT come forward, that would heighten the interest in his person, not least when it became apparent that he had seemingly fooled a PC by claiming that another PC was in place in Bucks Row. All the signs of fould play would have been readily at hand, as you may realize.
So to Lechmere, it would have been a choice of coming forward and trying do defuse the situation or staying away and hoping the police would not ask any questions about carmen who were likely to pass tbrough Bucks Row at around 3.40-3,45 in the morning. Plus, there would be a copper out there who was able to identify him on sight.
It is not a situation that is soothing to live with, Iīd say.

CAL did indeed appear before the inquest on Monday, 3 September--as did Mizen, Tomkins, etc., when they deposed about the discovery of the body. It was entirely natural and expected that CAL would also depose at this time. He could have been summoned anytime on Friday or Saturday.

No, he could not have been summoned on Friday or Saturday, becasue if he was, why on earth would PC Neil, cheered on by his superiors, state on the Sunday that he was not called to the site by two men? And why was he not identified by Mizen before the inquest? If Lechmere had gone to the police on Friday or Saturday, there would have been no confusion about who was the finder of the body on Sunday.

I think you're reading far too much into these events, old boy. You know what Elvis said about 'Suspicious Minds.'

Yes, I know that quite well - along with a lot of other things, old boy.