Tweet
I am once again going to bring up the matter of whether or not it is a proven fact that Robert Paul told PC Mizen that he thought that Polly Nichols was dead. I mentioned in in an earlier post, but apart from Fiver, whose posts I do not comment on for reasons given, nobody has answered the question as far as I can see.
I am once again going to use a quotation from Steve Blomers review of my book Cutting Point in Ripperologist Magazine, where it is claimed as a fact that Paul did tell Mizen that he thought that Nichols was dead:
”Christer is also a bit dodgy when it comes to the weight attached to some information. For example, he gives prominence to a comment that Robert Paul thought he felt Nichols breathing, but underplays Paul’s statement to PC Mizen that he thought the woman was dead. ”
Here, Steve Blomer builds his argument about me - and the book, as a consequence - being ”dodgy” on his claim that Robert Paul did inform Mizen that he thought that Nichols was dead. The exact claim is that I would have ”underplayed” this ”fact” which, as we shall see, is no fact at all.
Let’s begin by pointing out, once again, that far from surpassing the notion (I am going to call it a notion forthwith, because calling it a fact would not be true), I actually point to it in two places in the book.
On page 68-69, I write, when quoting Lechmere´s version/s of the events: ”Another element is added in the description in the Echo: ’I said to a constable - the last witness - There´s a woman lying in Bucks-Row. She looks to me as though she was dead, or drunk. The other man then said, I believe she is dead.”
On page 75, I write "... we have seen that Charles Lechmere claimed that Robert Paul told PC Mizen that he believed that the woman in Buck´s Row was dead...", referring back to the passage above.
Here, we may see that I mention the notion that Steve Blomer speaks of as being ”underplayed” by me not once, but twice. Apparently, he would have liked me to mention it on more occasions, but it is of course any writers privilege to shape the text how he chooses to. And it is not as if the notion as such is uninteresting to me. It is not something that I would want to hide, since I think it is part of the evidence AGAINST Charles Lechmere, who I believe lied about it! So why would I want to underplay it? The suggestion is not a sound one.
However, what Blomer says is not that it was claimed that Paul told Mizen that he thought that Nichols was dead. He claims it for a fact, which is why we need to look at it in greater detail.
First up is the Lloyds interview, where Paul is quoted as saying:
”I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead.”
If we were to go by this item only, it would be a done deal: Paul did say to Mizen that he thought that the woman in Bucks Row was dead. However, as we all know, the article is less than truthful when portraying Pauls efforts on the murder morning. It leaves Lechmere out of the proceedings after having left the body, and the inquest testimony proves this wrong. Very clearly, Pauls role is much exaggerated in Lloyds, and so it cannot be used to prove that Paul told Mizen that he thought Nichols was dead.
We instead need to turn to the inquest proceedings to get as clear a picture as possible, and we already know that Lechmere makes a claim in the Echo that he himself AND Paul informed Mizen about how he thought that Nichols was dead. However, since Lechmere is under suspicion of being the killer and since there are numerous discrepancies between what he and other involved parties reported the matter, it cannot be taken as a truth that Paul made the claim of death.
Certainly, a number of factors militate against such a suggestion; Paul said that he felt Nichols breathe, for example, and dead people do not breathe. So why would he say that Nichols was dead if he had felt her breathe? It is quite a riddle! Furthermore, PC Mizen says throughout that ONE man spoke to him, not two men. And that man was Charles Lechmere, not Robert Paul. The coroner even has to remind Mizen about Pauls presence before he gets around to acknowledging it! Therefore, PC Mizen can of course not be used as a source for establishing that Paul told him that he thought that Nichols was dead. His testiminy seems to tell us that Paul never said a iot to him at all.
Our last port of call is therefore Paul himself, and what he said at the inquest. And that boils down to how Paul says that he and Lechmere walked to Bakers Row, where they found Mizen and told him what they had seen (or, in some version, what they had discovered).
Although some will have it that the reports where Paul says ” we told him what we had seen” must mean that both med spoke to Mizen, this is not true. As I have pointed out numerous times, any member of an entity of people may say ”we” although he himself has had no part in the practical measures. One example would be if a man says ”Me and my wife drove over to my father-in-law´s place and made him supper”, it does not have to mean that both the man and his wife actively cooked together. It may well be that the woman alone did it. Another example is if a pupil from a school class says ”We handed our teacher a box of chocolate”. That will not mean that the handing process was repeated throaty-odd times, or that all pupils held on to the chocolate box as it was handed over.
To boot, what Paul says is NOT ”We told the PC that we thought that the woman was dead.” It is only about telling Mizen about ”what they had seen”, nothing more than that. And if we look at Pauyls testiminy as quoted in the Daily News, it looks like this:
He and the man examined the body, and he felt sure he detected faint indications of breathing. the body was partly warm, though it was a chilly morning. He and the man discussed what was best to be done, and they decided that they ought to acquaint the first policeman they met with what they had discovered.
To me, that does emphatically NOT seem to speak of a man who was going to tell a PC that he had found a dead woman. It sounds much more like a man who is going to say that the woman was warm and breathing.
So there we are, I find that Steve Blomer is misrepresenting the evidence and presenting a personal take of his own as a fact - that he accuses me of ”underplaying”. But why would I NOT fail to acknowledge that Paul told Mizen that he thought that Nichols was dead - when I don’t think he ever did?
I would very much like for as many posters as possible to give their respective views on the matter. But I would most of all like for Steve Blomer to explain himself. It is mainly his responsibility to try and straighten this out, not least since he has claimed something that is not a fact for a fact - and allowed it to be instrumental in describing my take on things as ”dodgy”.
So far, Steve has avoided the question. I hope he will make his stance this time so that we can clear the matter up.
I am once again going to use a quotation from Steve Blomers review of my book Cutting Point in Ripperologist Magazine, where it is claimed as a fact that Paul did tell Mizen that he thought that Nichols was dead:
”Christer is also a bit dodgy when it comes to the weight attached to some information. For example, he gives prominence to a comment that Robert Paul thought he felt Nichols breathing, but underplays Paul’s statement to PC Mizen that he thought the woman was dead. ”
Here, Steve Blomer builds his argument about me - and the book, as a consequence - being ”dodgy” on his claim that Robert Paul did inform Mizen that he thought that Nichols was dead. The exact claim is that I would have ”underplayed” this ”fact” which, as we shall see, is no fact at all.
Let’s begin by pointing out, once again, that far from surpassing the notion (I am going to call it a notion forthwith, because calling it a fact would not be true), I actually point to it in two places in the book.
On page 68-69, I write, when quoting Lechmere´s version/s of the events: ”Another element is added in the description in the Echo: ’I said to a constable - the last witness - There´s a woman lying in Bucks-Row. She looks to me as though she was dead, or drunk. The other man then said, I believe she is dead.”
On page 75, I write "... we have seen that Charles Lechmere claimed that Robert Paul told PC Mizen that he believed that the woman in Buck´s Row was dead...", referring back to the passage above.
Here, we may see that I mention the notion that Steve Blomer speaks of as being ”underplayed” by me not once, but twice. Apparently, he would have liked me to mention it on more occasions, but it is of course any writers privilege to shape the text how he chooses to. And it is not as if the notion as such is uninteresting to me. It is not something that I would want to hide, since I think it is part of the evidence AGAINST Charles Lechmere, who I believe lied about it! So why would I want to underplay it? The suggestion is not a sound one.
However, what Blomer says is not that it was claimed that Paul told Mizen that he thought that Nichols was dead. He claims it for a fact, which is why we need to look at it in greater detail.
First up is the Lloyds interview, where Paul is quoted as saying:
”I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead.”
If we were to go by this item only, it would be a done deal: Paul did say to Mizen that he thought that the woman in Bucks Row was dead. However, as we all know, the article is less than truthful when portraying Pauls efforts on the murder morning. It leaves Lechmere out of the proceedings after having left the body, and the inquest testimony proves this wrong. Very clearly, Pauls role is much exaggerated in Lloyds, and so it cannot be used to prove that Paul told Mizen that he thought Nichols was dead.
We instead need to turn to the inquest proceedings to get as clear a picture as possible, and we already know that Lechmere makes a claim in the Echo that he himself AND Paul informed Mizen about how he thought that Nichols was dead. However, since Lechmere is under suspicion of being the killer and since there are numerous discrepancies between what he and other involved parties reported the matter, it cannot be taken as a truth that Paul made the claim of death.
Certainly, a number of factors militate against such a suggestion; Paul said that he felt Nichols breathe, for example, and dead people do not breathe. So why would he say that Nichols was dead if he had felt her breathe? It is quite a riddle! Furthermore, PC Mizen says throughout that ONE man spoke to him, not two men. And that man was Charles Lechmere, not Robert Paul. The coroner even has to remind Mizen about Pauls presence before he gets around to acknowledging it! Therefore, PC Mizen can of course not be used as a source for establishing that Paul told him that he thought that Nichols was dead. His testiminy seems to tell us that Paul never said a iot to him at all.
Our last port of call is therefore Paul himself, and what he said at the inquest. And that boils down to how Paul says that he and Lechmere walked to Bakers Row, where they found Mizen and told him what they had seen (or, in some version, what they had discovered).
Although some will have it that the reports where Paul says ” we told him what we had seen” must mean that both med spoke to Mizen, this is not true. As I have pointed out numerous times, any member of an entity of people may say ”we” although he himself has had no part in the practical measures. One example would be if a man says ”Me and my wife drove over to my father-in-law´s place and made him supper”, it does not have to mean that both the man and his wife actively cooked together. It may well be that the woman alone did it. Another example is if a pupil from a school class says ”We handed our teacher a box of chocolate”. That will not mean that the handing process was repeated throaty-odd times, or that all pupils held on to the chocolate box as it was handed over.
To boot, what Paul says is NOT ”We told the PC that we thought that the woman was dead.” It is only about telling Mizen about ”what they had seen”, nothing more than that. And if we look at Pauyls testiminy as quoted in the Daily News, it looks like this:
He and the man examined the body, and he felt sure he detected faint indications of breathing. the body was partly warm, though it was a chilly morning. He and the man discussed what was best to be done, and they decided that they ought to acquaint the first policeman they met with what they had discovered.
To me, that does emphatically NOT seem to speak of a man who was going to tell a PC that he had found a dead woman. It sounds much more like a man who is going to say that the woman was warm and breathing.
So there we are, I find that Steve Blomer is misrepresenting the evidence and presenting a personal take of his own as a fact - that he accuses me of ”underplaying”. But why would I NOT fail to acknowledge that Paul told Mizen that he thought that Nichols was dead - when I don’t think he ever did?
I would very much like for as many posters as possible to give their respective views on the matter. But I would most of all like for Steve Blomer to explain himself. It is mainly his responsibility to try and straighten this out, not least since he has claimed something that is not a fact for a fact - and allowed it to be instrumental in describing my take on things as ”dodgy”.
So far, Steve has avoided the question. I hope he will make his stance this time so that we can clear the matter up.
Comment