A new critique of the Cross/Lechmere theory from Stewart Evans

[Lechmere]

I'm sorry Wickman but what i see there is an inability to face facts.
On Sunday night Helson flatly denied that anyone but Neil had found the body.
At the first day of the inquest Neil was presented as the first finder.
I am well aware of procedures.
My explanation is based on what was Said at the time.
Your version is based on your imagination.

[Scott Nelson]

But what about Cross intentionally trying to set up Paul? Doesn't that require a bit of imagination?

[Lechmere]

Ha! Scott
Yes indeed.
But it based around looking at the sequence of events and fitting it into what we know happened.
Like it or not that is what virtually all aspects of 'Ripperology' involves - whether it is suspect based or interpreting and trying to make sense out of anything to do with this case.

Suggesting that the police were aware of Lechmere and Paul's version of events as early as Friday 31st and for some obscure reason chose to keep quiet about it till the Monday, and in the intervening period deliberately misled the press - and the press when they were finally let in on the joke failed to raise a murmur of complaint. Now that takes one hell of a lot of imagination.

The sequence of events that I have spelt out, from 31st to 17th when Paul appeared, which some are determined in the face of all logic to resist, is manifestly correct. His sequence is not intrinsically linked to the Lechmere suspect theory.
However, based on that sequence of events I can overlay the theory (using my over active imagination) that Lechmere (on the assumption that he had killed Nichols of course) chose to murder his next victim (who turned out to be Chapman) in that location because of its proximity to Paul’s workplace.
As some sort of sick joke, or to incriminate Paul, who knows.

I can link Lechmere to that crime by this method, providing motivation and an explanation for why that murder occurred so soon after he Nichols murder and why in that general location. Now I would say that is pretty good going in a field where it is rare to tie any suspects to any murder scene, let alone two.
And I can perform a similar imaginative exercise with the other murders.

[Wickerman]

On Sunday night Helson flatly denied that anyone but Neil had found the body.

I don't see any flat denial.

At the first day of the inquest Neil was presented as the first finder.

He was the first official & 'reliable' source to find the body.

[Wickerman]

Suggesting that the police were aware of Lechmere and Paul's version of events as early as Friday 31st and for some obscure reason chose to keep quiet about it till the Monday, and in the intervening period deliberately misled the press - and the press when they were finally let in on the joke failed to raise a murmur of complaint. Now that takes one hell of a lot of imagination.

Deliberately mislead the press?
Where have you been Ed.?, it is common knowledge that the press repeatedly complained that the police would not share case related information with them - a well documented complaint.

Just to clarify, you appear to be the one insisting that the police knew nothing about the claims of Robert Paul until after the opening of the Inquest on Saturday. Whereas, I do not see any reason to think this, especially as Paul is supposed to have felt the need to speak to a reporter on Friday night about his role.

I suspect, it was the publication of PC Neil's story in the press Friday evening that prompted Paul to come forward to make his claim.

There is nothing in the press that I can see which indicates the police did not know about Cross & Paul before the start of the Inquest.

[Lechmere]

Not telling the press is something – telling them something different from the truth is quite another.
You don’t see it as you don’t want to see it.
What about Inspector Spratling’s internal report of 31st August – why doesn’t that mention Cross and Paul?

It is customary at inquests to tell the story as known.
You claim that the police knew about Cross and Paul on Friday.
Why didn’t Lechmere appear on Saturday to start the story of the discovery of Nichols at the right moment in the narrative?

Why did Helson go to the trouble of re-iterating on Sunday night that it was Neil ‘who found the body’ and that he was not ‘called to the body by two men’?
Why did Helson add that the policemen at either end of the street ‘had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention’.
Was he just shooting the breeze?
Was he playing a silly game with the press – tantalising them before revealing Cross the next day?

The police clearly told the press plenty of details as the newspapers were full of revelations about the case up to and after 3rd September. But not a mention of Paul and Cross or even their non-named activities. They are absent. Missing. Not in the record at all.

Were they simply not known about at that stage - as is blindingly obvious?

Or were they a secret? The only secret the police were able to keep at that stage of the enquiry.

I suspect it was an overwhelming desire for 5 minutes of fame (and maybe a few shillings) that promoted Paul to come forward.

[Jenni Shelden]

The two men didnt call Neil to the body, he came across it independently.

[Lechmere]

Jenni
True but are you suggesting that Helson was being deliberately obtuse in saying that PC Neil hadn’t been called by two men, while knowing that Mizen had been?

Wickerman
Also play back what Lloyds said on Sunday 2nd September…

Despite the policeman's assertion that he was the first to discover the body, Mr. Paul last night repeated the statement made to our representative on Friday evening that he and another man found the corpse long before the police. He says the policeman he spoke to was not belonging to that beat. Every word he had said was true.

This makes it plain that Paul was contradicting the police claim that PC Neil discovered the body.
Paul made this statement on the Saturday night – 1st September.
Paul did not indicate that he had made a statement to the police beyond the conversation with Mizen (that almost certainly was just between Lechmere and Mizen anyway).

Mizen had clearly kept schtumm about this up to this stage. Helson stated he:
‘had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention’

It is open to speculation as to why Mizen’s version of events hadn’t been looked into.

[Wickerman]

Ed. Please read along with me...

The police are not at liberty to share with the press anything told to them by a witness 'especially' before such testimony is given at the Inquest.

If you truly understand this then you already know why PC Neil & Insp. Helson maintained their position that PC Neil discovered the body.

This is not a case of "who saw it first?".
PC Neil discovered the body, from that point on the official investigation commenced. The fact that anyone else may have passed the body, looked out the window and saw the body, or came across it on their way to work, has no bearing on the fact that PC Neil discovered the body while on his beat.

[Lechmere]

Wickerman

Why didn’t Inspector Spratling’s internal report mention Paul or Cross?
Why did Inspector Helson say that the policemen at either end of the row had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention?
Why did Helson bother to mention that PC Neil hadn’t been called to the scene by two men?
Why on 1st September did Paul only mention the conversation with Mizen and not the fact that he (according to you) had already given a statement.

The police are not at liberty to share with the press anything told to them by a witness 'especially' before such testimony is given at the Inquest.

Really?
Is that right?
Well please explain to me why, on the night of Sunday 2nd September, Inspector Helson said:

‘The woman who last saw her alive, and whose name is Nelly Holland, was a fellow-lodger with the deceased in Thrawl-street, and is positive as to the time being 2:30.’

Emily Holland testified at the inquest on Monday 3rd September.
He also said:

‘Moreover, there are three watchmen on duty at night close to the spot, and neither one heard a cry to cause alarm.’

Purkiss and Mulshaw testified on 17th September – they must have been two of the three.
Helson was a very naughty inspector.

William Nichols’ gave an account to the press after being shown his wife’s corpse at the mortuary by the police and before his appearance at the inquest.
PC Neil’s own account was released to the press prior to his testimony on 1st September.
Inspector Helson himself appeared on 3rd September but details of his personal involvement appeared in the papers on the evening of 31st August.
What was known about Polly Nichols personal details were released to the press prior to the opening of the inquest (eg see Evening News 1st September).
Dr Llewellyn – who supposedly should have known your rules – gave a statement to the press on 31st August, before he appeared at the inquest (eg again see Evening News 1st September).

[Wickerman]

I'll try to address as many of your 'why's' as possible, but the most important point for me is this misunderstanding about what you think Helson said.

Can I ask you to compare two press articles..

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/times/18880903.html?printer=true

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_news/18880903.html?printer=true

Compare the first paragraph of the Times, with the second paragraph of the Daily News, both dated Sept 3rd.
What you will see is that Helson is only mentioned in the beginning of the Daily News paragraph, yet both paragraphs contain those quotes about Nelly Holland and the three watchmen, which indicates that this 'clip' of news conforming to the latter half of the paragraph was purchased by both press outlets (Times/Daily News) and merged into their own particular offering.

In other words, those words you attribute to Helson are not spoken by Helson. They are provided by the reporter who presumably interviewed Holland and the three watchmen himself.

Likely an agency reporter compiled this piece.

[Wickerman]

This is the only piece which is common to both paragraphs..

It is, moreover, considered unlikely that the woman could have entered a house, have been murdered, and have been removed to Buck's row within a period of an hour and a quarter. The woman who last saw the deceased alive - and whose name is Nelly Holland - was a fellow lodger with the deceased in Thrawl street, and is positive as to the time being 2.30. Police constable Neil, 79 J, who found the body, reports the time as 3.45. Buck's row is a comparatively secluded place, having tenements on one side only. There is little doubt that the constable was watched out of the street on his previous round. He has been severely questioned as to his "working" of his "beat" on that night, and states that he was last on the spot where he found the body not more than half an hour previously - that is to say, at 3.15. The "beat" is a very short one, and, quickly walked over, would not occupy more than twelve minutes. He neither heard a cry not saw a soul. Moreover, there are three watchmen on duty at night close to the spot and neither one heard a cry to cause alarm. It is not true, says Constable Neil, who is a man of nearly 20 years' service, that he was called to the body by two men. He came upon it as he walked, and, flashing his lanthorn to examine it he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the street. These officers had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention, and the mystery is most complete. Nevertheless, the utmost efforts are being used, a number of plain clothes men being out making inquiries in the neighbourhood, and Sergeants Wright and Godley have interviewed many persons who might, it was thought, assist in giving a clue.

Whatever is written before this section is provided by the respective newspaper and is not part of the above purchased piece - which includes the comment by Helson.

[Wickerman]

Wickerman

Why didn’t Inspector Spratling’s internal report mention Paul or Cross?

This is not difficult to explain.
Reports were forwarded to Central Office as a matter of course, what we lack are any reports from H Division. Spratling mentions Mizen but Mizen is attached to H Div. and it is Mizen's responsibility to provide his own report to his own Inspector, who no doubt will do the same as Spratling is required to do and forward a report to C.O.

What Spratling does do is include what PC Neil reported, and then offers his own experiences upon his arrival at the mortuary. Then continues by listing his own enquiries concerning Mrs Green and the night watchmen, then finally that the railway premises & wharves have been searched.
All this is the responsibility of J Division.
The stories given by Cross & Paul did not concern J Division, or any policeman from J Division.

This report you have mentioned just may be an indication that Cross & Paul spoke to H Division, if they did come forward. Regardless, the omission of Cross & Paul from a J Division report is not difficult to explain.

[Lechmere]

Wickerman
Whether you think Helson did or didn’t include these statements when he spoke to the press on Sunday, clearly someone in the police did. Clearly whoever made these statements did not now of Paul and Cross’s existence.

Times
The woman who last saw her alive, and whose name is Nelly Holland, was a fellow-lodger with the deceased in Thrawl-street, and is positive as to the time being 2:30. Police-constable Neil, 97 J, who found the body, reports the time as 3:45. Buck's-row is a secluded place, from having tenements on one side only. The constable has been severely questioned as to his "working" of his "beat" on that night, and states that he was last on the spot where he found the body not more than half an hour previously - that is to say, at 3:15. The beat is a very short one, and quickly walked over would not occupy more than 12 minutes. He neither heard a cry nor saw any one. Moreover, there are three watchmen on duty at night close to the spot, and neither one heard a cry to cause alarm. It is not true, says Constable Neil, who is a man of nearly 20 years' service, that he was called to the body by two men. He came upon it as he walked, and flashing his lantern to examine it, he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the street. These officers had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention, and the mystery is most complete.

Daily News
The woman who last saw the deceased alive - and whose name is Nelly Holland - was a fellow lodger with the deceased in Thrawl street, and is positive as to the time being 2.30. Police constable Neil, 79 J, who found the body, reports the time as 3.45. Buck's row is a comparatively secluded place, having tenements on one side only. There is little doubt that the constable was watched out of the street on his previous round. He has been severely questioned as to his "working" of his "beat" on that night, and states that he was last on the spot where he found the body not more than half an hour previously - that is to say, at 3.15. The "beat" is a very short one, and, quickly walked over, would not occupy more than twelve minutes. He neither heard a cry not saw a soul. Moreover, there are three watchmen on duty at night close to the spot and neither one heard a cry to cause alarm. It is not true, says Constable Neil, who is a man of nearly 20 years' service, that he was called to the body by two men. He came upon it as he walked, and, flashing his lanthorn to examine it he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the street. These officers had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention, and the mystery is most complete.

I see you think this extract is based on separate interviews with Holland (I so very brief) the three watchmen (why are all unnamed) and presumably PC Neil. The obvious explanation is that the information all came from one source and if read in context it is obvious it came from Helson. If you insist it was not Helson then it was clearly someone ‘in the know’ in the police.
But apparently according to you not sufficiently ‘in the know’ to be aware of Lechmere and Paul.

We have Spratling being by your account unaware of Lechmere (Cross) and Paul on 31st August – although you seek to provide excuses for this.
We have Paul going to the press and saying he had only spoken with Mizen on 1st September.
We have the above accounts on 2nd September written in a context that strongly suggests they were said by Helson together with his other remarks on that Sunday night.
We have it repeated on numerous occasions that Neil found the body without the slightest hint from an official source that anyone else did, and we have countless pre inquest leaks of information (eg Holland, the night watchmen and Llewellyn, Neil and Helson) that was later given in evidence at the inquest.
We have Paul being raided in the middle of the night at a later date and questioned all day long.
We have Lloyds heading up the main body of Paul’s account ‘Remarkable Statement’ – clearly because it ran counter to the received wisdom of the train of events, namely that PC Neil had discovered the body.

This in total makes it overwhelmingly and abundantly clear that the evidence of Lechmere and Paul (besides the Lloyds account which like many newspaper stories was not officially believed initially) was unknown until not long before Lechmere’s appearance at the inquest on the 3rd.

For the police to have known all along about Lechmere and Paul, we must believe that the police for some unfathomable reason chose not to have either appear at the opening day of the inquest, when logically in the narrative of how the body was discovered they should have. Note that when Abberline and Swanson later produced their summaries of the case, both started their narrative with the discovery of the body by Lechmere (Cross) and Paul.

For the police to have known about them, we must also believe that the Police deliberately misled the press about the circumstances of the case for no obvious reason. All the other details of the case up to that point were in wide circulation and the evidence of other unheard witnesses was flying around all over the place. Yet you think the police held back just the details about Lechmere and Paul.

The trouble with your hypothesis Wickerman is that you can produce not one shred of evidence to back it up. It is baseless conjecture.
I always make it a habit to avoid baseless conjecture.

[curious]

Hello, all.

Does anyone have any idea what methods were used to send appeals to Paul?

Thx,

curious