Cross Theory II

[Lechmere]

Mr Lucky
I think Mizen told the truth ay the inquest when he said that Lechmere and Paul both turned up together.
I think Paul told the truth at the inquest when he said the same thing.
I think Lechmere told the truth about that aspect as well. But I don't think Lechmere told the truth about everything - suffice it to say!

[Mr Lucky]

Lechmere,

Yes, we have gone over this before, Robert Paul versus Cross - whose version should we trust

I believe Paul and you believe Cross, and to be fair - just like the rest of ripperology

But the fundamental problem with your theory is with that central premise of yours, that Cross is the one telling the truth, and it's everyone else who are lying. Which is fine if you believe in Cross's innocence like the rest of Ripperology, but surely not, if you think he's the killer... According to you the murderer had turned up at the police station on Sunday night, solely to put them straight about what Paul had said in Lloyd's regarding the two men splitting up!

Doesn't the pure lack of realism surrounding that key idea of yours, that the killer had got away with it by turning up at the police station and telling the truth, alarm you in any way?

Doesn't it make you think that you've got things backwards in some way ?

[Lechmere]

Cog
I spelt that simple truth out about 100 posts earlier in this thread!

In his Lloyds interview Paul maximised his own role – I would suggest out of vanity. Even so, he doesn’t explicitly say he left the other man (who turned out to be Lechmere) behind.
He merely talks about himself. He certainly doesn’t make it explicit that he left Lechmere behind, does he...
‘I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw.’

In his inquest statement Mizen makes it clear that the two Carmen reached him together.
Lechmere did likewise.
The coroner would have had their written statements in front of him the consult as they gave their evidence.
Similarly when Paul came to give his evidence the coroner would have had Paul’s written statement in front of him.
None of them were ‘immediate’ witnesses, dragged off the street to testify (although it could be argued Lechmere was), with no prior written statement.

Part of the coroner’s role was to encourage the witness to give a full account of what had transpired so the jury could make an informed decision. If a witness missed bits out that were in his written statement then the coroner may ask supplementary questions to get the information into the ears of the jury.
That was the purpose of the open hearing – for the jury to decide.

Are we to believe that there was a blatant discrepancy in Paul’s written statement compared to that of Mizen and Lechmere – that Paul stated that he had left Lechmere alone with the body – which Paul in his evidence described as possibly still breathing?
And the coroner didn’t notice?

Which reports specifically say that either Lechmere or Paul stayed with the body – as opposed to so and so going to find a policeman?
How many reports state that they went together?
When dealing with newspaper reports that deal with a specific event and where mistakes can be made by individual journalists it is best to look at all the reports in the round. The overwhelming consensus is that Lechmere and Paul went together.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Pete

I'm sure Stewart won't mind me attempting to ellucidate.

What he's telling you is that when you see in a press account of an inquest the words:

"By the Coroner"

You should read them as saying:

"When questioned by the Coroner the witness then said:"

Similarly with "By the Foreman" or "By a juror"...it was an understood convention at the time, which would now not be used.

Hope this helps

Dave

[Mr Lucky]

What if Robert Paul's original LWN story was true?

Where would that leave matters?

Hi Simon,

Logically - what Cross told the inquest on the third, that they both left together, would be false. Just like his name.

(don't worry - I'm still the only one who thinks Cross killed Nichols, after he sent Paul to find a policeman.)

[Mr Lucky]

I know what interjection means. But you still seem to be misreading this.

All the witnesses would have made written statements before giving evidence.

Under usual circumstances that may well be the case. "All" is clearly wrong, Baxter is a Judge, he can let whomever he wants give evidence, whether they have given the police a witness statement or not, is totally irrelevant.

These statements would have been taken by the police and would have contained the main evidence that witness had to give. When the witness gave his verbal evidence in court anything he may have omitted to say, or forgotten to say, would be brought to his attention by the coroner. Likewise any queries which arose from his evidence in chief might result in a question by the coroner or a juryman. In this case the fact that he went on with Cross and saw Mizen would have been in his written statement as it was germane to what two other witnesses said.

If the evidence given by the witness had to corroborate with anything at all, it was with that which was already on record, it does not have to corroborate with the police witness statements, and indeed as I have just pointed out, the witness may not have given a police statement

[Mr Lucky]

The coroner queried Paul's evidence to which Paul replied, or agreed, that he and the other man had walked on together until they met a policeman.

Yes well, that's what I was claiming earlier based on the news reports

The press reported Paul said "I sent the other man for a policeman"
Press reported (Interjection) By the Coroner (inter alia);-
Press reported "they both left together"

Which provoked this;-

Failure to understand this basic convention of reporting by the press has led, as we see, to false argument.

What exactly is my false argument?

All the inter alia meant was that I was not quoting the full passage, there were other things

Unfortunately 'Inter alia' has a specific legal meaning which is why I thought you were using it. I have never heard it used in any other context (not quoting a full passage). It's informal use in internet postings is a new one on me too , I'm afraid to say.

[Hunter]

It would leave us with two other witnesses telling lies about the meeting between the three.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Hunter,

What if Robert Paul's original LWN story was true?

Where would that leave matters?

Regards,

Simon

[Hunter]

That's what it looks like, and after Cross and Mizen testified otherwise he had to fess up to the truth. Why Robert Paul told the Lloyd's reporter what he did? I don't know. Maybe he egged it up for himself to the reporter -- the good Samaritan doing what's right while the other gets on to his work. Or maybe he was cautious to get the other carman too publicly involved about notifying a policeman considering the gang activity in the area.

Paul seemed to have second thoughts himself after his second Lloyd's interview -- retaliation by the murderer or murderers. Dew even alludes to this.

If Paul had changed his story to something that was uncorroborated, that would be suspicious, but he didn't.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Hunter,

I don't know why anyone might want to coerce Robert Paul into changing his story.

But, unless you're suggesting he completely invented his original story of leaving Cross/Lechmere with the body and went on alone to encounter PC Mizen, it is something we should attempt to discover.

Regards,

Simon

[Hunter]

So you're accusing the police of coercing a witness to change his testimony? For what reason would they do that, Simon? And what evidence do you have that they did?

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Robert Paul [Lloyds Weekly News, Sunday 2nd September 1888], from an interview on the afternoon/evening of Friday 31st August—

"I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man [Cross/Lechmere] I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead . . ."

By the time of his inquest testimony someone had obviously read Robert Paul his fortune.

Regards,

Simon

[Stewart P Evans]

Dew

With all this discussion of what Dew said I thought readers would like to judge for themselves. Here are the two relevant pages from his book -

No better illustration of East-End conditions at the time...

[Stewart P Evans]

Statements

...
An interjection simply means an interruption, whether in the form of a question or statement is totally irrelevant . And any 'inter alia' during Paul's Testimony could only be Cross's earlier Testimony, or at least the relevant part. There isn't anything else it could possibly refer to. So I don't understand the point being made
Robert Paul had said "I sent the other man for a policeman", the Coroner then interjected (inter alia) and then this became 'They left together' and as this fitted with Cross’s version given on the 3rd, it was allowed to stand, it's really as simple as that.

I know what interjection means. But you still seem to be misreading this.

All the witnesses would have made written statements before giving evidence. These statements would have been taken by the police and would have contained the main evidence that witness had to give. When the witness gave his verbal evidence in court anything he may have omitted to say, or forgotten to say, would be brought to his attention by the coroner. Likewise any queries which arose from his evidence in chief might result in a question by the coroner or a juryman. In this case the fact that he went on with Cross and saw Mizen would have been in his written statement as it was germane to what two other witnesses said.