Cross Theory II

[Mr Lucky]

Robert Mann was the next witness to give evidence after Paul, interestingly his evidence fails to corroborate what Inspector Helston had already deposed, and ‘after some further examination’, Baxter then remarked that his evidence was unreliable (and therefore would not be allowed to stand) as this report from The Daily News 18 Sept 1888 explains;-

Robert Manns (an old man in workhouse uniform) said he was keeper of the Whitechapel mortuary. He received the body in the morning and left it in the mortuary. After having breakfast he returned and, with the assistance of a man named Hatfield, he undressed the body.
The Coroner - Oh, yes, and the inspector was present while this was done, was he not?
Witness - No; we two were alone.
The Coroner (in astonishment) - Surely you make a mistake. Think again.
The witness adhered to his statement, and after some further examination, the coroner remarked that Manns' evidence was quite unreliable. He was subject to fits, and apparently his memory was impaired. (It will be remembered that on a previous occasion that Inspector Helston deposed to being present while the body was being stripped).

[Phil H]

Sigh. How does one communicate with those who don't want to understand, or are incapable of understanding?

[Stewart P Evans]

Press Reports

...
Ok, Here's some more facts regarding a specific part of Robert Paul's Testimony, the part when the two men leave Nichols;-
Some of the press of Paul's testimony have Paul walking with Cross to find a policeman;-
Other reports make it quite clear that they both left together;-
Though it appears from other press sources, that this was actually an interjection by the Coroner;-
However there are some reports written in the first person, as if recording literally what Paul said, stating quite clearly;-
So what's going on ? How do you fit the 'facts' in with the 'logic' or at least the constraints imposed on what he can say by the oath he had taken, How do "I sent the other man for a policeman" and "they both left together", fit coherently together in one witness statement and still be "the whole truth".
The likeliest plausible explanation is that Paul had actually said "I sent the other man for a policeman" but then the Coroner interjected with the two men left together and met a policeman section, which is exceptionally fortunate as without that interjection Paul's evidence would have failed to corroborate what Cross had said earlier on the 3rd September, and it would need to do so, in order to help facilitate a successful conviction for the murderer of Nichols, at such a time as his apprehension.
...
So, to put this in sequence, Robert Paul on the day of the murder, at first tells us he left Cross alone with the woman (this is before anyone noticed the woman had any injuries or there was blood at the scene), he then whilst giving testimony, tries the 'I sent the other man for a policeman' line only to be told by Baxter, that in fact, the two men left together
...

I am entering into this 'debate' here just to clarify a point, I don't intend to get involved.

What must be pretty obvious in all this is that many debates are based on press reports which are often inaccurate, mistaken, incomplete or contradictory. This only proves that to argue the toss based solely on press reports is a bit risky. However, in this case I detect a misunderstanding of how the press reported the evidence given at inquests.

Here we see under discussion the phrase 'By the coroner.-' which is taken to mean that what follows is a stated interjection by the coroner. It is not. What follows, in this case (inter alia) 'Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman...' is actually the reply given by Paul to a question asked by the coroner.

Failure to understand this basic convention of reporting by the press has led, as we see, to false argument. This point is a fact and one about which I don't intend to argue. The debater here has clearly misunderstood the material he is working with.

[Mr Lucky]

Here we see under discussion the phrase 'By the coroner.-' which is taken to mean that what follows is a stated interjection by the coroner. It is not. What follows, in this case (inter alia) 'Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman...' is actually the reply given by Paul to a question asked by the coroner.

Failure to understand this basic convention of reporting by the press has led, as we see, to false argument. This point is a fact and one about which I don't intend to argue. The debater here has clearly misunderstood the material he is working with.

I have spent a couple of days pondering this, as you actually appear to be agreeing with me.

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.

[Stewart P Evans]

Replied

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

[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.

[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...

[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

[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 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]

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,

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

Where would that leave matters?

Regards,

Simon

[Hunter]

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

[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.

[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