Evidence of innocence

[FrankO]

LECHMERES CLAIMS:


Daily News, Daily Telegraph and East London Observer: The Coroner - Did the other man tell you who he was?

The Witness - No, sir. He merely said that he would have fetched a policeman but he was behind time. I was behind time myself.

Illustrated Police News: The other man merely said that he would have fetched a policeman, but he was behind time. Witness was behind time himself.

These four papers are very much alike; the three first ones are exact copies of each other. They all seem to point out how Lechmere describes how Paul said that if he had not been so late, he would have gone to search out a policeman. To my ears, it sounds as if Lechmere perhaps suggests that what Paul led on was that he would seek out a police station and find a PC there. It does not sound as if Paul merely suggests that he should look for one along his route to work.

Thanks for posting this, Christer! If I have to be frank, which, obviously, I am, I hadn’t given these quotes much thought with regards to what we’re discussing here. But you’re right, they might help us to reconstruct what was said between the two carmen about going for a policeman.

The first thing that strikes me is the word “fetched”. To me, that means: to get and bring back. And that’d make sense, as that would take extra time, putting Paul even more behind time than he already was, regardless of whether he would go fetch an officer at the station or one on the beat in the neighbourhood.

So, to me, it seems that Lechmere suggested to get a policeman & bring him back and that Paul responded he was disinclined to do so as he was late already. In other words, that he didn’t find that a good idea.

Summing up, we can see that Lechmere does claim in some sources that he was the instigator, and that he in no paper says that Paul was the instigator.

Agreed all around.

We may also see that Robert Paul in some sources claim that HE was the instigator and that he in no case claims that Lechmere was the instigator.

My conclusion would be different from yours, Christer.

What I see is that we have a few quotes suggesting a one-man action:
“You had better go on, and if you see a policeman tell him."
“so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw.”
“I sent the other man for a policeman.”

If we’d leave out these quotes (as we know that neither of the men went on alone in search of a PC), the picture would become clearer and we might see something along these lines:
- Paul suggests to prop Nichols up, but Lechmere refuses, suggesting instead that one of them goes to fetch a policeman.
- Paul then declines that, as going in search of a policeman and bringing him back to the scene would take too much time and he was already late as it was.
- Then Lechmere suggests that they continue on their way to work and alert the first policeman they see along their way. (That way, neither of them loses any more time, but they still get a policeman to the scene, so that the situation will be in the right hands.)

Something like this would fit with the unquestionable parts of the statements made by both carmen individually. It seems like a very natural course of discussion. And I (still) don’t see any reason why Lechmere should have lied about it.

In fact, if he did lie with regards to conversations he had with two different witnesses, then he would double the chance of being found out. Not only Mizen would know and could take action, but also Paul. And maybe one contradiction would not stick out so much, but would the police think the same about two contradictions? And looking at it through your eyes, I can understand why he would have lied to Mizen, as that would serve to get him past Mizen without being searched and/or taken back to the scene. But lying about who first suggested to go and tell a copper seems a rather unimportant thing to lie about in terms of gain versus risk.

[harry]

You need proof of some kind,Fisherman,or you would not be asking for it.It was not recorded what was said when Paul and Cross met Mizen,so there was only memory to rely on.That the situation needed the presence of some kind of authority is not arguable,and Cross and Paul went looking for that authority,and found Mizen.
Mizen was told a woman was either drunk or dead.So yes,Steve is correct.There was proof of a dead woman to back the claim made to Mizen.

[Fisherman]

You need proof of some kind,Fisherman,or you would not be asking for it.

True: I need to prove that it canīt be proven that Paul spoke to Mizen. And I have proven that.

It was not recorded what was said when Paul and Cross met Mizen,so there was only memory to rely on.That the situation needed the presence of some kind of authority is not arguable,and Cross and Paul went looking for that authority,and found Mizen.
Mizen was told a woman was either drunk or dead.So yes,Steve is correct.There was proof of a dead woman to back the claim made to Mizen.

What Steve said was not that Mizen was told that a woman was either drunk or dead, though, What Steve claimed for a fact was that PAUL told Mizen that Nichols was likely dead, and that is no fact at all. It is a personal view, unsupported by other personal views.

To move along, there is not even proof that Mizen was told by Lechmere that a woman was either drunk or dead. Lechmere SAYS he did, but Mizen says he was told that there was a woman flat on her back in Bucks Row, end of.

We really need to be careful about what we regard as proven, otherwise weīll be inventing facts before we know it. Which is the whole point I am making.

[Fisherman]

Thanks for posting this, Christer! If I have to be frank, which, obviously, I am, I hadn’t given these quotes much thought with regards to what we’re discussing here. But you’re right, they might help us to reconstruct what was said between the two carmen about going for a policeman.

The first thing that strikes me is the word “fetched”. To me, that means: to get and bring back. And that’d make sense, as that would take extra time, putting Paul even more behind time than he already was, regardless of whether he would go fetch an officer at the station or one on the beat in the neighbourhood.

So, to me, it seems that Lechmere suggested to get a policeman & bring him back and that Paul responded he was disinclined to do so as he was late already. In other words, that he didn’t find that a good idea.

Hmm. I donīt see that at all, Frank. I agree that "fetched" seems to indicate getting a PC and returning with him, and I think you are right in pointing out that it would be a time-consuming exercise for Paul, who abstained from the idea for that reason. But where and how does the idea that it was Lechmereīs suggestion come into play?? If it was like that, why did not Lechmer say so: "I suggested that the other man should fetch a policeman, but he said he was behind in time and would not do so".
To me, it seems like Paul introduces the policeman into the discussion by himself.


Agreed all around.


My conclusion would be different from yours, Christer.

What I see is that we have a few quotes suggesting a one-man action:
“You had better go on, and if you see a policeman tell him."
“so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw.”
“I sent the other man for a policeman.”

If we’d leave out these quotes (as we know that neither of the men went on alone in search of a PC), the picture would become clearer and we might see something along these lines:
- Paul suggests to prop Nichols up, but Lechmere refuses, suggesting instead that one of them goes to fetch a policeman.
- Paul then declines that, as going in search of a policeman and bringing him back to the scene would take too much time and he was already late as it was.
- Then Lechmere suggests that they continue on their way to work and alert the first policeman they see along their way. (That way, neither of them loses any more time, but they still get a policeman to the scene, so that the situation will be in the right hands.)

Something like this would fit with the unquestionable parts of the statements made by both carmen individually. It seems like a very natural course of discussion. And I (still) don’t see any reason why Lechmere should have lied about it.

In fact, if he did lie with regards to conversations he had with two different witnesses, then he would double the chance of being found out. Not only Mizen would know and could take action, but also Paul. And maybe one contradiction would not stick out so much, but would the police think the same about two contradictions? And looking at it through your eyes, I can understand why he would have lied to Mizen, as that would serve to get him past Mizen without being searched and/or taken back to the scene. But lying about who first suggested to go and tell a copper seems a rather unimportant thing to lie about in terms of gain versus risk.

Letīs begin from the end. I would say that the lie about the other PC is another matter than the lie about who instigated the search for a PC. The lie about the other PC has no discussion between Mizen and Lechmere behind it and it is a total contradiction. It cannot be missed, it stands out like a sore thumb.
The matter about who made the first suggestion was something that was discussed, and so it is much easier to muddle. This is what I mean:
Paul: -What should we do?
Lechmere: -I donīt know, maybe we...
Paul: -Maybe we should get help?
Lechmere: -The police, you mean?
Paul: -Yes, why not! Letīs get a PC.
And lo and behold, the one first mentioning the word "police" is not the one first suggesting to go and get them.

Bearing this in mind, I think there is every chance that Lechmere may have wanted to polish on his image, not least given that the other matter of the second PC may have been something he feared would be harder to sell to the inquest.

As for cutting away parts of the testimony given that we feel make our points less good, Frank, I think you know where I am going. It is on record, and so we have it on record that Robert Paul in some sources claim that HE was the instigator and that he in no case claims that Lechmere was the instigator.

I think you make a suggestion that must be considered, the way you always do. But in the end, I think that whenever two sources in a murder investigation either gainsay each other or fail to verify each other, then the tie has come to ask oneself why this is. And as I pointed out before, Lechmereīs track record is already a very bad one, going on how he also failed to agree on some hugely important matters with Mizen; according to the PC, Lechmere said that there was another PC in place in Bucks Row. According to the PC, Lechmere only told him about how the wwoman was likely drunk. Both of these matters sit extremely well with an intention of getting past the police unsearched and uninvestigated. Further to this, it seems very apparent that Lechmere never once said that he (or, for that matter, he and Paul) were the finders of the body, leaving Mizen to - very naturally - feel that the phantom PC was the man who did it.
Once we see how Lechmere also finds it very hard to agree with Paul about the proceedings in Bucks Row, it would be foolhardy not to go and fetch some really red cloth and start sewing up a really big flag. Can we agree on that? We donīt have to agree on how Lechmere was the killer, but surely you must agree that there is more than ample reason to point a finger in his direction?

[harry]

It was proven to the satisfaction of the coroners court,Fisherman.That should be enough.I regard that as proven.So I am careful in what I choose.

[Fisherman]

It was proven to the satisfaction of the coroners court,Fisherman.That should be enough.I regard that as proven.So I am careful in what I choose.

It was never tried by the court. There were opposing statements, and the court didnīt favour any of them specifically. They were allowed to pass unchallenged, all of them.

What you regard as facts has always been something very different, I know that much. I would not call it a careful approach, though.

[harry]

'A woman flat on her back in Bucks Row'.First time I have heard that is what Mizen was told.

[Harry D]

Many people, involving Edward Stow, who has the perhaps best and most far-reaching knowledge of the case, is of the meaning that the exchange between Lechmere and Paul did not seem quite right. That does not mean that Edward - and a fair few others who are of the same meaning - predispose that the raman would scream like a banshee and clutch his pearls.
Maybe you need to extend a little more respect to your fellow posters, Harry?

If you bothered to read the original post instead of taking up the cudgel for whomever incriminates your guy, you’d see they mentioned Lechmere’s lack of “verbal shock and surprise”.

At this point, all Lechmere has seen is a woman lying in the street. There wasn’t any Ripper hysteria at this point, so for all Lechmere knew Nichols was just another drunk unfortunate. Hardly a unusual occurrence in the rough part of the East End.

Anyway, according to you, Lechmere was laying on the Good Samaritan act to cover up his own guilt, so you can’t have it both ways.

[Fisherman]

'A woman flat on her back in Bucks Row'.First time I have heard that is what Mizen was told.

I suppose you are objecting to the "flat on her back" passage? Which we know was the case? If we look at the Daily News, for example, we have this:

Police constable Mizen said that about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, when a carman passing by in company with another man said, "You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there." The witness went to Buck's row, where Police constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body. On returning with the ambulance he helped to put the deceased upon it.

This was what Mizen was informed about - if we ask himself. A woman was lying in Bucks Row.

Can you see Mizen acknowledging that he was told that the woman was probably dead? Here, or in any other press report? What you WILL find is that Mizen pointed out that Lechmere said nothing at all about any murder or suicide.

So, in essence, if you should get it into your head to claim that it is proven that Mizen was told about a possibly dead woman, here is the remedy for that mistake. It is and remains an open question - and Lechmereīs overall record of disagreeing with people is not in favour of him being the innocent and truthful party here.

[Fisherman]

If you bothered to read the original post instead of taking up the cudgel for whomever incriminates your guy, you’d see they mentioned Lechmere’s lack of “verbal shock and surprise”.

I did read that, Harry. Which was why I said that such a sshock and surprise need not result in running around, yelling like a banshee. I thought you were belittling the poster you responded to. And I still think so.
You may have reasd, perhaps, about how policemen and ambulance drivers sometimes say "I was shocked", although they are not recorded as having run around as headless chickens as a result of it?

At this point, all Lechmere has seen is a woman lying in the street. There wasn’t any Ripper hysteria at this point, so for all Lechmere knew Nichols was just another drunk unfortunate. Hardly a unusual occurrence in the rough part of the East End.

Anyway, according to you, Lechmere was laying on the Good Samaritan act to cover up his own guilt, so you can’t have it both ways.

Why would you ascribe other posters claims and suggestions as "my way", Harry? I can defend their right to have a useful discussion instead of being ridiculed without necessarily agreeing with them all over, canīt I?

[Fisherman]

Further to the posts about what Mizen said about how he was informed about the woman in Bucks Row, the Star has a VERY interesting passage:

"Policeman George Myzen said that at a quarter to four on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row. A man passing said to him, "You're wanted round in Buck's-row." That man was Carman Cross (who came into the Court-room in a coarse sacking apron), and he had come from Buck's-row. He said a woman had been found there."

Itīs the same in for example the Times:

The man, named Cross, stated that a woman had been found there.

A woman had "been found there". But not a word that he himself had been the one doing the finding? Couple that with how Mizen says that Lechmere told him "You are wanted in Bucks Row" and see what happens.

A jury would not like that, as James Scobie would have succinctly put it.

[rjpalmer]

Paul suggests to prop Nichols up, but Lechmere refuses, suggesting instead that one of them goes to fetch a policeman.

Paul then declines that, as going in search of a policeman and bringing him back to the scene would take too much time and he was already late as it was.

Hi Frank,

No offense, but I prefer it this way:

Paul suggests to prop Nichols up, but Lechmere declines, suggesting that one of them should go fetch a policeman.

Paul refuses, as going to search for a policeman would take too much time.

Do you see the subtle difference?

I don't see why there is any reason to make Lechmere out to be the difficult one. Why not Paul? The word "refuses" is the one the Lechmere theorists use, but it's loaded. There are any number of reasons why a person might think shifting a body on the sidewalk is not a good idea. Fear of having the woman's head fall off is surely among the least likely.

[Fisherman]

Hi Frank,

No offense, but I prefer it this way:

Paul suggests to prop Nichols up, but Lechmere declines, suggesting that one of them should go fetch a policeman.

Paul refuses, as going to search for a policeman would take too much time.

Do you see the subtle difference?

I don't see why there is any reason to make Lechmere out to be the difficult one. Why not Paul? The word "refuses" is the one the Lechmere theorists use, but it's loaded. There are any number of reasons why a person might think shifting a body on the sidewalk is not a good idea. Fear of having the woman's head fall off is surely among the least likely.

Hi R J!

First of all, it seems you may have missed my post 2952? At least, you have failed to answer it. It would be good if you defended your views instead of just dropping them as you go along, if you see what I mean?

Now, over to this post of yours, and letīs start by quoting yourself:

There are any number of reasons why a person might think shifting a body on the sidewalk is not a good idea. Fear of having the woman's head fall off is surely among the least likely.

I must say that I SO agree with you about this! Fear of having a persons head fall off - or, at least to fall to the side, displaying a deep cut to the neck - must certainly be one of the rarest reasons for somebody to decline to help shifting a person on a pavement.
But what does that owe to? The rarity, I mean?

I would suggest that it owes to how so very few of us lie around on pavements with our necks severed to the bone. This is why it is much more common to decline helping to shift a person on a sidewalk for OTHER reasons, such as how it is cumbersome, how we donīt want to get infected, how we feel it is not our business or so on.

So why are so very few of us lying around on pavements with our necks cut down to the spine? Correct: that is of course because murder is so very rare.
And murder involving cutting necks down to the bone are even rarer.
And of course, serial murder involving that inclusion is rarer still!
Therefore, one should not expect that somebody lying on a pavement has had his or her neck cut down to the bone. It is far more likely that he or she is drunk, for example.

But what happens when we actually HAVE a proven case of serial murder on our hands, involving cutting the neck down to the bone? Yes, exactly: when we have that situation, the risk of somebody declining to help shifting such a person on account of not wanting to have the murder discovered raises astronomically. We are suddenly dealing with a situation where something like this can actually come into play.

And you know what? Yes, I know you know: the Nichols murder is EXACTLY that kind of a situation! And therefore, the point you make - which is a perfectly logical point on the surface of things - becomes slightly disingenous when we try to shoehorn it in to our particular scenario.

You say that you donīt think that we must make Lechmere look like the "difficult one". But he IS the difficult one, no matter how we look on things. He is the one person who disagrees with the other persons involved. Take, for instance, the matter at hand: Did he lie about what he said and did at the murder site?

Well, itīs either that, or Mizen misheard/misunderstood him - on one item after another.
Lechmere did not say anything about a second PC, but Mizen thought he did.
Lechmere did tell Mizen that the woman could well be dead, but Mizen failed to hear that.
Lechmereīs description of how he had found a woman in Bucks Row was overheard by Mizen as a simple claim that she "had been found" there.
Although Lechmer spoke of death, Mizen said that he had said nothing of murder or suicide - something he would have been aware of if the phantom PC had sent him to fetch Mizen.
Itīs incredible how Mizen was able to misinterpret, mishear and misunderstand just about everything the stand-up carman told him. Or what BOTH carmen told him, according to Lechmere - but not to Mizen. For some unfathomable reason.

So how do we decide what is likeliest (and yes, R J, I know that serial murder is not likely at all in the first place, but once we know it was in swing, weīd better adjust our thinking to that fact), that PC Mizen misheard a number of things - or indeed that he perhaps lied about them! - or that Lechmere was the liar, a liar who tried to hide his deed?

The answer is simple: If Mizen was the failing party, then Lechmere should be scot free from any other suspicious behavior. It was quite bad enough as it was, and there should not be more. And so, Lechmere:

- should not disagree with Paul about what was said.

- should not call himself by any other name than the one he otherwise used in contacts with authorities.

- should not give a departure time from home that does not dovetail with him being in Bucks Row when Paul arrived there.

- should not have the rotten luck to be caught in the eye of the storm by the blood evidence.

Finally, he should not have a trodden path right through the killing fields, plus a reason to visit the Berner Street area on a Saturday night.

In all of these tests, he should emphatically not be a perfect fit for the killers role.

But he is.

And so, refusing to help Paul prop Nichols up is just one of the many things that tell us that he is beoynd reasonable doubt the Whitechapel killer. It is game over and case closed unless we are totally biased (yes, I donīt see myself as the biased part around these premises - others fill that gap).

Now, that post 2952? If you please?

[Fisherman]

A question for everybody out here:

How many of you, after having found a person lying on the ground in X Street and after having gone off in search for help as a result of it, would tell the first person you see "A person has been found lying on the ground in X Street" instead of "Thereīs a person lying on the ground in X Street" or "I found this person lying on the ground in X Street"?

Hands up!

[Great Aunt]

Did you expect Lechmere to be screaming like a banshee and clutching his pearls because he saw a woman lying in the street? They didn’t know she was murdered, let alone gruesomely mutilated. She could’ve been just been another drunk sleeping in the gutter. It was a rough part of the East End. Also, Lechmere probably wanted to approach the situation cautiously seeing as he didn’t know Paul or his intentions.

Not particularly, no, but he comes across as rather lacking in emotion - any emotion - as though it was a tarpaulin he had found on the street. I do find the initial interaction between the two men strange under the circumstances also - I would expect the finder of a body to wait to speak to the approaching person expectantly, even speaking before the second person fully arrived at the scene, but Lechmere chose to wait until they were side by side and felt the need to touch Paul making the contact between them very up close and personal. Maybe Lechmere still hadn't quite decided his next step ...