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

[Wickerman]

Ed. your concern about what Helson is believed to have shared in this 'interview' can be limited to that in bold, below.

Inspector Helson, at an interview yesterday evening, said that the report that blood stains were found leading from Brady street to Buck's row was not true. The place was examined by Sergeant Enright and himself on Friday morning, and neither bloodstains nor wheel marks were found to indicate that the body had been deposited where found, the murder being committed elsewhere. Both himself and Inspector Abberline, indeed, had come to the conclusion that it was committed on the spot. That conclusion was fortified by the post mortem examination made by Dr. Llewellyn. At first the small quantity of blood found on the spot suggested that the woman was murdered in a neighbouring house. Dr. Llewellyn, however, is understood to have satisfied himself that the great quantity of blood which must have followed the gashes in the abdomen flowed into the abdominal cavity, but he maintains his opinion that the first wounds were those in the throat, and they would have effectually prevented any screaming. The blood from those wounds Inspector Helson considers was held by the dress and the ulster, and it is evident, from that view of the matter, that the woman was lying on her back when her throat was cut.
Daily News, 3rd Sept.

So all Insp. Helson has confirmed is that there is no truth to the rumor that the evidence suggests she was killed elsewhere.
And, that the lack of blood around the body is explained by her clothes absorbing much of the blood.
So in total, all he has said is that in the opinion of the police Nichols was killed where found. Hardly a great revelation.

[Lechmere]

Robert
I always try to stick to the records.
Paul was fetched up in the middle of the night from his house not his workplace.
I have no idea whether the police asked Lechmere about Paul's workplace - he would not know presumably the exact location anyway - only that it was in or near Corbett's Court.

I find it hard to believe that the police would bother that much with Paul just on the basis of his status as a witness with respect to Nichols as he did not add anything of importance to that inquest.

[Wickerman]

Why did Inspector Helson say that the policemen at either end of the row had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention?

Helson did not say this.

Why did Helson bother to mention that PC Neil hadn’t been called to the scene by two men?

Helson never said this, it was PC Neil. And, an obvious confusion between PC Mizen & PC Neil, by the reporter.

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.

I don't know 'when' Paul spoke to police, nor even 'if' he spoke to police. What I am pointing out is that the pieces of information you provide do not suggest that the police were not aware of his claims.

For all we know he may have read about PC Neil's discovery in the Friday night press, then complained to a reporter about him finding the body, while he was on his way to Commercial St. station to make them aware of the fact.

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).

Some doctors had no reservations about talking with the press, but most avoided the publicity, as evident as the murders unfolded.

[Robert]

Lechmere, according to your theory, Cross knew where Paul worked and tried to implicate him by killing Chapman on the 8th. Now, you say that the police didn't know where Paul lived until after the 3rd Sept inquest session. My question is, would not the police have asked Cross if he knew where Paul worked? If Cross told them, then the police would have found Paul around 4th Sept. In which case, would not the smear attempt of 8th Sept look too unlikely? Would the police expect a man whom they had just questioned, to go out and commit a murder so close to where he worked? The smear attempt works better if the police only found Paul after Sept 8th. But in that case, they either didn't ask Cross if he knew where Paul worked, or Cross lied to the police - which would have been risky, given that Paul had (according to you) actually told Cross where he worked.

[Wickerman]

...
I always make it a habit to avoid baseless conjecture.

Interesting that you conclude the following post with the above line.

I'll hi-lite what is your conjecture.

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.

And just to reiterate, Paul did not claim to have been questioned all day long, what we read is:

Mr. Paul says that after he made his statement to our representative, which appeared in Lloyd's, he was fetched up in the middle of the night by the police, and was obliged to lose a day's work the next day, for which he got nothing.

It has been offered to you twice, that Robert Paul lost work due to him having to appear at the Inquest on the 17th.
Unless, you think he did get paid for this day, or
Unless you think he did not mind losing a days pay for this day, then it must be obvious that his forced(?) appearance was precisely the cause of his complaint.

Or let me put it simpler.
Are you suggesting Paul lost a days pay due to being questioned, but did not lose a days pay when he appeared at the Inquest?

Your 'being questioned' is your conjecture, yet we know witnesses lost pay when attending an Inquest - yet you want us to believe he made no complaint about this fact?

[Lechmere]

He worked at Corbett's Court as a carman, delivering to Covent Garden.
However I doubt he thought about the consequences of giving his story when he did.
He probably assumed Mizen would have reported their presence, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
I don't know that an average person would realise that if they were involved in witnessing a murder that they would be called to the inquest.

[Robert]

I am wondering how much Paul really wanted to stay out of the inquest. On the one hand, in a Lloyd's item for Sept 2nd he said that he worked at Covent Garden. On the other hand, Covent Garden was a big place so maybe he felt that the police would never trace him by asking questions there.

[Lechmere]

No
As here doesn't seem to have been anything in the press I would presume they went around the pubs and stopped people in the streets - that sort of thing.

Of course if Paul had handed himself in on 31st as Wickerman thinks there would have been no need for appeals as they would have had his address.
they could have called at any time - so again no need to fetch him in the middle of the night either.
And they would have already questioned him if Wickerman is right so no need to question him all the next day.

[curious]

Hello, all.

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

Thx,

curious

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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.