Evidence of innocence

[MrBarnett]

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

It was no great mystery though, was it? The two carmen found the body then left the scene and alerted Mizen. In the meantime Neil found it and initially believed he was the first to do so.

[MrBarnett]

Does anyone know the names of the watchmen at Schneider’s and the Wool warehouse?

[FrankO]

It was no great mystery though, was it? The two carmen found the body then left the scene and alerted Mizen. In the meantime Neil found it and initially believed he was the first to do so.

Odd 'reply' that. Where do I imply that this was a mystery, great or otherwise? I'm not even talking about the sequence of events. Oh well.

[FrankO]

Does anyone know the names of the watchmen at Schneider’s and the Wool warehouse?

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/witnesses/769408-william-court

[MrBarnett]

Odd 'reply' that. Where do I imply that this was a mystery, great or otherwise? I'm not even talking about the sequence of events. Oh well.

You didn’t, you said you thought the police would have wanted to clear it up. I agree.

[JeffHamm]

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

Hi Frank,

I was able to read most of it, here's what I've transcribed. ?? means a word I can't make out, and [word?] means I think it's this word. I'm sure I've got a few typos, or have misread some minor words here and there, but this should be close:

SEPTEMBER 1, 1999,
THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER.
The body of deceased has been identified as that of a married woman named Mary Ann Nichols, who has been living apart from her husband for some years. She had been an inmate of Lambeth Workhouse on and off for several years. She was discharged from the workhouse a few months ago, and would take domestic service at Woolsworth, suddenly leaving her situation under ?? ?? ?? weeks ago. ?? ?? ?? {Since that time?} she had frequented the locality of Whitechapel, and was seen in Whitechapel Road on the night of the murder under the influence of drink.
BODY DRAGGED SOME DISTANCE.
It was evident yesterday morning that the murder was committed some distance from the place where the body was found. This was in Buck’s Row, about midway down the length. Buck’s Row is a short street, ?? ?? ?? the street is the house of Mrs. Green. Next to it is a large stable yard, whose wide closed gateway is next to the house. In front of this gateway the woman was found by two men, who at first supposed her to be drunk, but closer inspection saw first a pool of blood in the gutter just before her, and then the deathly whiteness of the woman’s face, stained as it was with blood. One of them remained by her, while the other found Constable Neil. Constable Neil immediately woke the Green family, and asked them if they had heard any [unnatural?] noises. Neither Mrs. Green, her son,
….

P.S. I see a clearer version had been posted already.

[FrankO]

You didn’t, you said you thought the police would have wanted to clear it up. I agree.

Then why not just say so right away, instead of giving some 'non-answer'?

[MrBarnett]

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/witnesses/769408-william-court

Thanks, Frank!

[MrBarnett]

Then why not just say so right away, instead of giving some 'non-answer'?

Thanks, Frank!

[JeffHamm]

So, Edinburgh Evening News, and it looks like some of the details come from the inquest held that day. The story was probably sent by wire to get it published right away.

Interesting, on Sept 2nd, Lloyd's states that Paul has repeated his story that he and another man found the body before Neil, and I believe in Paul's original Lloyd's statement he suggests that Cross/Lechmere (not by name) stayed with the body and he alone went to find PC Mizen?

The text from the above Sept 2nd Lloyd's that I'm referring to reads:
"...
Despite the policeman's assertion that he was the first to discover the body, Mr. Paul last night repeated the statement made to our representative on Friday evening that he and another man found the corpse long before the police. He says the policeman he spoke to was not belonging to that beat. Every word he had said was true.
..."

Anyway, the details in the EEN story about Nichols life all come from the inquest, held on Sept 1st, apart from the bit about the two men finding the body. That part sounds like Paul's original Lloyd's story, and Lloyd's of the 2nd claims Paul has repeated that story.

The first line of speculation is that the EEN reporter has just lifted those details from the original Lloyd's article, and somehow Lloyd's has got wind of the EEN's report and has presumed that Paul has restated things.

A second line of speculation is that Paul attended the first day of the inquest spoke to a few reporters afterwards, repeating his first version, which both the EEN and Lloyd's (of the 2nd) reporters comment upon.

A third line of speculation, similar to the 2nd, is that Paul is revisited after the inquest by a Lloyd's reporter, who is either the same author of the EEN story, or maybe is followed by the EEN reporter, or is located by the EEN reporter alone (the last because the Lloyd's story doesn't say Paul repeated the story to the Lloyd's reporter, only that he repeated his story - this gets complicated as to explain Lloyd's Sept 2nd story one also has to speculate that Lloyd's got wind of the EEN's reporter having spoke with Paul and getting much the same information type thing). Anyway, lines 2 and 3 are related, with the idea that Paul is spoken to a 2nd time, either because he was in the audience at the inquest (highly doubtful) or after the inquest he is in contact with reporters again, repeating what he said the first time.

A fourth line of speculation is that the EEN story has simply incorporated Paul's original Lloyd's article information and Lloyd's Sept 2nd story is presuming that Paul has repeated his story to the EEN reporter (or the EEN reporter, when questioned by a colleague from Lloyd's, claims that is what happened so as not to admit he's lifted the information from the original Lloyd's article).

A fifth line of speculation is that after the inquest the EEN reporter got hold of someone who is aware of the witnesses being scheduled to appear on the 3rd for the 2nd day of the inquest, which includes PC Mizen and Cross/Lechmere, and provides the scoop that a witness will be testifying that he and another man found the body before PC Neil. This line doesn't account for the detail of one man staying with the body, so I think this line starts to suffer as a result.

I'm sure there are other hypotheses one could come up with.

- Jeff

[FrankO]

P.S. I see a clearer version had been posted already.

Thanks for it anyway, Jeff!

[FrankO]

The first line of speculation is that the EEN reporter has just lifted those details from the original Lloyd's article, and somehow Lloyd's has got wind of the EEN's report and has presumed that Paul has restated things.

Hi Jeff,

One remark for now.

There was no "original Lloyd's article" as the Lloyd's was a weekly that appeared on Sunday. So, Paul told his story to a Lloyd's reporter on Friday night on his return home and then repeated it on Saturday night.

Cheers,
Frank

[JeffHamm]

Thanks for it anyway, Jeff!

No worries.

The blurry version cuts out a sentence, so my transcription misses a line at this point:

Buck’s Row is a short street, ?? ?? ?? the street is the house of Mrs. Green.

There's a sentence missing between the question marks and before the word "the", which in the clearer version reads:

"half by factories and half by dwellings. Half-way down"

And I just noticed I typo'd the date as 1999! oops!

Anyway, I've copied the clearer version out, correcting some other minor errors on my part. I've not kept the original formatting for line breaks, or the hyphens where words in the original story split over lines. Also I've put the name of the paper at the top. This might be easier for people to copy/paste into their notes if they wish, but I would encourage anyone who does to double check my transcription with the clearer version on the previous page in case there are still some mistakes in my transcription:

Edinburgh Evening News
SEPTEMBER 1, 1888,
THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER.
The body of deceased has been identified as that of a married woman named Mary Ann Nichols, who has been living apart from her husband for some years. She had been an inmate of Lambeth Workhouse on and off for seven years. She was discharged from the workhouse a few months ago, and went into domestic service at Wandsworth, suddenly leaving her situation under suspicious circumstances seven weeks ago. Since that time she had frequented the locality of Whitechapel, and was seen in Whitechapel Road on the night of the murder under the influence of drink.
BODY DRAGGED SOME DISTANCE.
It was evident yesterday morning that the murder was committed some distance from the place where the body was found. This was in Buck’s Row, about midway down its length. Buck’s Row is a short street, occupied half by factories and half by dwellings. Half-way down the street is the house of Mrs. Green. Next to it is a large stable yard, whose wide closed gateway is next to the house. In front of this gateway the woman was found by two men, who at first supposed her to be drunk, but closer inspection saw first a pool of blood in the gutter just before her, and then the deathly whiteness of the woman’s face, stained as it was with blood. One of them remained by her, while the other found Constable Neil. Constable Neil immediately woke the Green family, and asked them if they had heard any unusual noises. Neither Mrs. Green, her son, nor her daughter, all of whom were sleeping within a few feet of where the body lay, had heard any outcry. All agreed that ….

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

One remark for now.

There was no "original Lloyd's article" as the Lloyd's was a weekly that appeared on Sunday. So, Paul told his story to a Lloyd's reporter on Friday night on his return home and then repeated it on Saturday night.

Cheers,
Frank

Oops! My error, and indeed the "original" story appears in the same edition. Thanks for that. That negates lines involving just lifting the information from the article after it appeared.

It suggests that the EEN reporter either 1) is also the author of the Lloyd's story or 2) was also present when Paul told his original story on Friday or when he repeated it on Saturday night, after the inquest was over (so he's rebutting the police claim to have first found the body). This implies Paul knows of what was testified to by Saturday night, however, that could be the result of the reporter(s) tracking him down again to recheck his story (given the police testified they found the body first) before it appeared the next day. If the Lloyd's reporter who recontacts Paul on Saturday and the EEN reporter are different people (most probably), they could have met at the inquest, and the EEN reporter goes with the Lloyd's reporter for that verification interview before filing his story by wire to appear in the EEN edition of the same day.

Somehow Paul is already known to the reporters, but apparently not to the police, suggesting Paul somehow had crossed paths with a reporter. Given the bravado of his Lloyd's statement, given on Friday night, I'm wondering if that encounter was at a pub and Paul's story is reflective of a bit of liquid courage. After the inquest statement of PC Neil, and no hint of Paul's involvement, that could have prompted them to at least seek a reconfirmation of his story under more sober reflection. All of this, of course, is just speculation, and I'm sure one could easily come up with other ways to connect Paul with reporters - there's nothing in the way of evidence to stop joining those dots anyway one wants to after all.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

Sorry about the blurry image. I've been staying at the beach for a couple of days to escape the heat wave and only had my phone, which I'm not very good with.

The clip was from the Edinburgh Evening News. The story also appeared in the Sheilds Daily Gazette and the Sunderland Daily Echo. Thier source is given as The Star, which means The Star must have been releasing the story in its late editions Friday, for it to reach the provinces by printing time in the local morning newspapers.