All roads lead to Lechmere.

[drstrange169]

Or the Greens, or Lilley or the watchman at Brown and Eagle, or P.C. Neil.

[Fiver]

If the railway P.C.'s post was in the archway, I could easily believe he didn't see them, but it does put a (hob)nail in the claim that the two mens boots sounded like hammers walking down the street.

Or Walter Purkiss and his wife, who even though they were awake, they didn't hear Lechmere, Paul, or PC Neil

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

It also poses the question of how reliable is the police testimony in this murder, especially the officer who said he passed by the murder spot a short time before the body was found and it wasnt there. which adds weight to Christers theory that Lechmere must have been the killer, but if the officer was less than liberal with the truth then that would eliminate Lechmere.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[drstrange169]

If the railway P.C.'s post was in the archway, I could easily believe he didn't see them, but it does put a (hob)nail in the claim that the two mens boots sounded like hammers walking down the street.

[rjpalmer]

I wouldn't consider it a terrible lapse on Ed's part. Considering the three green 'Xs' on his map, he may have meant to point out the location of the watchman in Schneider's cap factory and should have walked another 20 yards or so for the railway gate.

After all, when you're a diehard Lechmere theorist, you have 12-15 crime scenes to manage and memorize.

[MrBarnett]

The entrance into the yard would have been immediately to the east of where Dusty placed his ‘b’, through an archway. That’s why the Weighing Machines were where they were.

[rjpalmer]

I'm a bit confused.

In the video the presenter points to area I've marked as A, but the map he shows has the position in the area I've marked B.

Isn't he a little farther west than what you have marked? But yes, something is not quite right.

From what I'm seeing, the lavender bins he motions toward are just past the far western edge of the board school on the opposite side of the street, so these bins would have been about in the middle of Schneider's cap factory. (Red X). Presumably, the gate to the railway yard would have been a bit further on, past the western end of the factory, that you have marked 'B'?

[drstrange169]

I'm a bit confused.

In the video the presenter points to area I've marked as A, but the map he shows has the position in the area I've marked B.

[rjpalmer]

I should have mentioned that Neil Bell also identifies him as PC 81 of the Great Eastern Railway in Capturing Jack the Ripper (2014)

[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.