Evidence of innocence

[JeffHamm]

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.

Hi Dusty,

While The Star reported on the murder on Oct 31, they don't mention two men finding the body but attribute PC Neil with the discovery (and he did independently discover the body). I believe the Star had a large circulation in the East End, and this could be how Paul knows the police are claiming to have found the body that Friday night (either from reading it directly, or by word of mouth as this story gets out). He appears to know the police are given credit for her discovery on Friday night because he was interviewed that same night by Lloyd's, pointing to an interview following The Star's publication being likely, though local gossip could of course precede the evening paper. This doesn't tell us how he and the Lloyd's reporter come into contact with each other, though, but it could in part explain his attitude towards the police in that interview, which has been noted before to be somewhat hostile.

I could see a reporter canvasing the area for potential stories about the murder and overhearing Paul claiming the police didn't find her but that he did, or some such, and that's how the two got together.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

Hello Jeff

All four evening London papers ran with Neil finding the body. The source seems to be the Central News agency. It's all guesswork, but Paul should have finished work around the time the first afternoon editions were hitting the stands, so he could well have seen or been told about Neil. Paul's first contact with Lloyds must have been soon after. Somehow the Star reporter got wind of it and circulated his version.

[JeffHamm]

Hello Jeff

All four evening London papers ran with Neil finding the body. The source seems to be the Central News agency. It's all guesswork, but Paul should have finished work around the time the first afternoon editions were hitting the stands, so he could well have seen or been told about Neil. Paul's first contact with Lloyds must have been soon after. Somehow the Star reporter got wind of it and circulated his version.

Ah, good to know. I was just under the impression The Star had a wider circulation amongst the working class of the East End, so while any of the evening papers appear to be a potential source (for Paul to hear; barring gossip of course), that the Star might be the more probable. It doesn't really matter how he heard of it, though, but it appears he did, and somehow ends up speaking with Lloyds that night.

- Jeff

[Mark J D]

Edinburgh Evening News, Saturday 1st ...

Precisely. They weren't reading that at Broad Street.

Thanks.

M.

[rjpalmer]

The idea that Lechmere wore an apron to the inquest on Sept 3rd to alleviate suspicion against him seems rather... quaint.

Whether Lechmere's apron was leather or not, the mental association would have occurred to a guilty man. Half the East End was screaming about the murderer wearing an apron.

[FrankO]

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 ….

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for the complete transcription. I double-checked, found no mistakes and copy/pasted it into my notes.

Cheers,
Frank

[MrBarnett]

The idea that Lechmere wore an apron to the inquest on Sept 3rd to alleviate suspicion against him seems rather... quaint.

Whether Lechmere's apron was leather or not, the mental association would have occurred to a guilty man. Half the East End was screaming about the murderer wearing an apron.

‘Half the East End was screaming’?

A number of women had suspicions about a man specifically with a leather apron and that was printed in some newspapers a couple of days before Lechmere attend the inquest, and you somehow imagine that as a result a few hundred thousand people looked with suspicion on all men who wore any kind of apron?

Now that really is ‘quaint’, RJ.

Leather aprons were worn by those who used knives or other sharp tools in their occupation. Carmen wore sacking aprons to prevent soiling of their clothes.

Isn’t there a contradiction between your claim that half the East End were screaming about aprons and your only saying that the unwisdom of wearing would have occurred to a guilty man? Why not to an innocent man if the sight of an apron was such an emotive issue?

[drstrange169]

>>Thanks for the complete transcription. I double-checked, found no mistakes and copy/pasted it into my notes.<<

If anybody wants a copy of the relevent page from the three papers, p.m. me your email address. They are too big to post here.

Weirdly, these papers were almost certainly printed on paper that came from Broad Street goods yard as it was the main distributer of newsprint paper to the provinces.

Maybe Lechmere carried the paper on his cart;-)

The main point, of course, is that this story started in London via a reporter from the widely read Star newspaper.

[rjpalmer]

Leather aprons were worn by those who used knives or other sharp tools in their occupation. Carmen wore sacking aprons to prevent soiling of their clothes.

These three carmen evidently didn't get the memo.

[MrBarnett]

These three carmen evidently didn't get the memo.

Well that’s my point completely demolished. A French delivery driver in 1871, an ‘innocent-looking’ getaway driver and a fizzy pop man.

So, folks, it seems leather aprons were not worn by those who used knives in their work and the half of the East End who were in a panic about ‘Leather Apron’ (the Mad Snob) would have looked with suspicion on anyone wearing a sacking apron.

[MrBarnett]

Other reports on the Projected Prize Fight speak of the driver of the van as ‘an innocent-looking individual of the carman type, who was wearing a large leather apron.’

Why it was thought noteworthy that a carman should be wearing a leather apron, I don’t know, but clearly the way the man was dressed in his work clothes made him ‘innocent-looking’.

CAL no doubt appeared an ‘innocent-looking individual of the carman type’ when he stood in the witness box wearing his coarse sacking apron.

R. J. Palmer, the gift that keeps on giving.

[JeffHamm]

Well that’s my point completely demolished. A French delivery driver in 1871, an ‘innocent-looking’ getaway driver and a fizzy pop man.

So, folks, it seems leather aprons were not worn by those who used knives in their work and the half of the East End who were in a panic about ‘Leather Apron’ (the Mad Snob) would have looked with suspicion on anyone wearing a sacking apron.

The other half wouldn't wear leather aprons because there might be someone somewhere who might only recognize them if they wore such a garment and they possibly might want to hide their identity from those people so they would wear a cloth apron instead.

- Jeff

[MrBarnett]

The other half wouldn't wear leather aprons because there might be someone somewhere who might only recognize them if they wore such a garment and they possibly might want to hide their identity from those people so they would wear a cloth apron instead.

- Jeff

Sorry, Jeff, I’m not sure I understand your point. It’s probably me being dense.

[JeffHamm]

Sorry, Jeff, I’m not sure I understand your point. It’s probably me being dense.

No worries. I'm not even sure if it's supposed to make sense.

- Jeff

[Great Aunt]

Come back, Fisherman. We miss you.