All roads lead to Lechmere.

[rjpalmer]

Does anyone know where the railway yard was?

I think perhaps he would have been a railway policeman, rather than a Met constable, and so probably was stationed inside the gate rather than outside. And may also have had to patrol the yard at regular intervals.

Yes, he was a railway policeman with the Great Eastern Railway. Contemporary reports place the gate roughly 50 or 60 yards west of the murder site (Crossmere and Paul would have walked right past it). If you go to Ed Stowe's channel on YouTube, he'll walk you past the current site and there's also a map showing the location.

Just go to the 3:44 mark and watch the next two minutes or so.


(8) Jack the Ripper: The Evidence for Guilt. Part Two - YouTube

On his map, Ed has the constable down as PC 81 GER (Great Eastern Railway) but I have no idea if Ed or anyone else has identified him. I don't recall ever seeing the man's name.

[Joshua Rogan]

Does anyone know where the railway yard was?

I think perhaps he would have been a railway policeman, rather than a Met constable, and so probably was stationed inside the gate rather than outside. And may also have had to patrol the yard at regular intervals.

[rjpalmer]

Sorry but would they ignore that particular constable but notify Mizen?

No, I agree. It doesn't make a lot of sense.

Yet, I'm glad that Stow reminded us of this constable because it raises an interesting question. If Paul and Crossmere didn't report seeing him, and he doesn't mention seeing them, where was he at aprox. 3:40-3:45, if he wasn't in his box by the gate? Another report states that this constable had been at the gate 'all night.'

Wouldn't this be a worthwhile question to ask in an actual police investigation? He was not at his post within a few or within several minutes of a woman's murder, 50 or 60 yards up the street, why wasn't he? Did he have a sudden need to wander off so he could relieve his bladder, or wash his hands?

I merely pose the question. He's an unknown.

[Harry D]

What does anyone make of Edward Stow's claim in his latest video that Charles Crossmere and Robert Paul "callously" left the victim in Buck's Row, with the implication that they actually made little or no effort to alert a policeman?

By way of evidence, Stow points out that there was a constable on duty outside the gate to the Great Eastern Railway yard, and that Lechmere and Paul blew past this man without alerting him.

Sorry but would they ignore that particular constable but notify Mizen?

[rjpalmer]

What does anyone make of Edward Stow's claim in his latest video that Charles Crossmere and Robert Paul "callously" left the victim in Buck's Row, with the implication that they actually made little or no effort to alert a policeman?

By way of evidence, Stow points out that there was a constable on duty outside the gate to the Great Eastern Railway yard, and that Lechmere and Paul blew past this man without alerting him.

On the surface, this would seem to be damning, but under closer examination it seems to be doubtful.




As one can see from the above, the guard was closely questioned by Inspector Spratling. He said he had not heard anything, but we can take it on faith that this also means that he hadn't seen anything of importance, either.

Are we to believe that two men had hurried past this constable within minutes of the murder in this darkened and little frequented street (according to Stow) but said nothing to Spratling about having seen them? Or is it likely that this can be explained because he was not at his box when Crossmere and Paul walked past?

It is also unfortunate that we don't know the name of this guard who was within 50 or 60 yards of Nichol's murder, as there are any number of multiple murderers who sought employment as night watchmen, and Bernard Brown even wrote an entire essay on the theory that Jack the Ripper was a railway policeman. Along with Mulshaw, Paul, the horse slaughterers, and Lechmere, there are any number of people of interest in this murder, as well as the ever popular "person or persons unknown."

R P

[Varqm]

Edward Stow makes a very curious statement starting at the 15:16 mark in his latest video, “Jack the Ripper: The Evidence. Part 1.”

"Now, there are various other witnesses that gave times as well, but the only two witnesses we have to synchronize the times for are Paul and Lechmere because they are the two who interacted with each other here (Ed is standing near the crime scene). The others are actually police witnesses."

This is very strangely argued. Why on earth are the other witnesses irrelevant if we are trying to analyze what happened?

Let’s look at the deposition of Police-constable John Thain, 96 J (Morning Advertiser, September 4^th). -- I was on duty in Brady-street on the morning of the murder and passed the end of Buck's-row every thirty minutes. Nothing attracted my attention until 3.45 a.m., when I was signaled by another constable in Buck's-row. I went to him and found him standing by the body of a woman.

So, according to Thain, the body was discovered shortly before 3:45 a.m.---before Robert Paul, quizzed at the inquest over two weeks later, claims he even left for work!

From the deposition of PC Jonas Mizen (Daily News, September 4):“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." This carman, of course, was Charles Lechmere, “in company with” Robert Paul.

So, according to Mizen, Lechmere and Paul had already left the crime scene and were near the corner of Baker’s Row at around 3.45 a.m.—again, at the very time Robert Paul states he left for work.

Next up we have PC John Neil, who is states he found the body at 3.45 (“Police constable Neil, 79 J, who found the body, reports the time as 3.45”—Daily News, 3 September)

Yet viewers of the video are asked to look only at Paul and Lechmere’s estimated times in complete isolation.

In brief, if the audience ignores three-fifths of the relevant witnesses, there is suddenly a missing seven minutes in Lechmere’s account.

How can anyone justify this as a fair-minded approach for a historian to take?

Yes can't ignore the 3 PC's.Fisherman said/justified 3 :45 am was wrong because if Neil asked Thain to get Dr. Llewellyn, a 3-5 minute walk to 152 Whitechapel Road, how come Dr Llewellyn said he was called at around 4 am,how come Thain arrived at 4 am in Llewellyn 's residence.In another version of the inquest it was 3:55 am I think,when Llewellyn was called by Thain.
Well either Thain was asked by Neil later rather than sooner or there was something wrong with Llewellyn's clock.Can't ignore 3 PC's.

[Hair Bear]

Lechmere’s mother’s first husband was still alive when she married him.

I should hope so, doesn't look good marrying a corpse. (joke)

[Fiver]

How can anyone justify this as a fair-minded approach for a historian to take?

They can't justify it. It's deliberately ignoring inconvenient facts that don't fit the theory. That's "history" the way David Irving writes it.

[John Wheat]

agree Herlock
too much shoehorning. hes a valid suspect without all the shoehorning. and overegging too much of that too! : )

I don't agree there is nothing that makes Lechmere a valid suspect.

[Abby Normal]

They can’t of course Roger but it’s considered justifiable in the world of those trying to shoehorn a case for Lechmere.

agree Herlock
too much shoehorning. hes a valid suspect without all the shoehorning. and overegging too much of that too! : )

[Herlock Sholmes]

Edward Stow makes a very curious statement starting at the 15:16 mark in his latest video, “Jack the Ripper: The Evidence. Part 1.”

"Now, there are various other witnesses that gave times as well, but the only two witnesses we have to synchronize the times for are Paul and Lechmere because they are the two who interacted with each other here (Ed is standing near the crime scene). The others are actually police witnesses."

This is very strangely argued. Why on earth are the other witnesses irrelevant if we are trying to analyze what happened?

Let’s look at the deposition of Police-constable John Thain, 96 J (Morning Advertiser, September 4^th). -- I was on duty in Brady-street on the morning of the murder and passed the end of Buck's-row every thirty minutes. Nothing attracted my attention until 3.45 a.m., when I was signaled by another constable in Buck's-row. I went to him and found him standing by the body of a woman.

So, according to Thain, the body was discovered shortly before 3:45 a.m.---before Robert Paul, quizzed at the inquest over two weeks later, claims he even left for work!

From the deposition of PC Jonas Mizen (Daily News, September 4):“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." This carman, of course, was Charles Lechmere, “in company with” Robert Paul.

So, according to Mizen, Lechmere and Paul had already left the crime scene and were near the corner of Baker’s Row at around 3.45 a.m.—again, at the very time Robert Paul states he left for work.

Next up we have PC John Neil, who is states he found the body at 3.45 (“Police constable Neil, 79 J, who found the body, reports the time as 3.45”—Daily News, 3 September)

Yet viewers of the video are asked to look only at Paul and Lechmere’s estimated times in complete isolation.

In brief, if the audience ignores three-fifths of the relevant witnesses, there is suddenly a missing seven minutes in Lechmere’s account.

How can anyone justify this as a fair-minded approach for a historian to take?

They can’t of course Roger but it’s considered justifiable in the world of those trying to shoehorn a case for Lechmere.

[rjpalmer]

Edward Stow makes a very curious statement starting at the 15:16 mark in his latest video, “Jack the Ripper: The Evidence. Part 1.”

"Now, there are various other witnesses that gave times as well, but the only two witnesses we have to synchronize the times for are Paul and Lechmere because they are the two who interacted with each other here (Ed is standing near the crime scene). The others are actually police witnesses."

This is very strangely argued. Why on earth are the other witnesses irrelevant if we are trying to analyze what happened?

Let’s look at the deposition of Police-constable John Thain, 96 J (Morning Advertiser, September 4^th). -- I was on duty in Brady-street on the morning of the murder and passed the end of Buck's-row every thirty minutes. Nothing attracted my attention until 3.45 a.m., when I was signaled by another constable in Buck's-row. I went to him and found him standing by the body of a woman.

So, according to Thain, the body was discovered shortly before 3:45 a.m.---before Robert Paul, quizzed at the inquest over two weeks later, claims he even left for work!

From the deposition of PC Jonas Mizen (Daily News, September 4):“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." This carman, of course, was Charles Lechmere, “in company with” Robert Paul.

So, according to Mizen, Lechmere and Paul had already left the crime scene and were near the corner of Baker’s Row at around 3.45 a.m.—again, at the very time Robert Paul states he left for work.

Next up we have PC John Neil, who is states he found the body at 3.45 (“Police constable Neil, 79 J, who found the body, reports the time as 3.45”—Daily News, 3 September)

Yet viewers of the video are asked to look only at Paul and Lechmere’s estimated times in complete isolation.

In brief, if the audience ignores three-fifths of the relevant witnesses, there is suddenly a missing seven minutes in Lechmere’s account.

How can anyone justify this as a fair-minded approach for a historian to take?

[jmenges]

Sigh…

Can we draw the line at accusing each other of murder?

Thanks,

JM

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

AbbyNormal did explain this. You must have missed it.

He killed someone, heard footsteps 130 yards away and froze.

This happened in the early part of 2021.

Utter nonsense Fleetwood. He was innocently on his way to work at the time. But...did he try to deceive us with the name Abby Normal, a name he never used in any other context?

[Fleetwood Mac]

If you have already answered this, my apologies, but what personal "similar" experience have you had where you just killed someone, then heard footsteps 130 yards away, and couldn't help but freeze?

AbbyNormal did explain this. You must have missed it.

He killed someone, heard footsteps 130 yards away and froze.

This happened in the early part of 2021.