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

[Fisherman]

Okay, fair enough, but isn`t it odd that the Coroner never asked the Police on the 3rd if they had located Paul, like he asked the Police whether they had located the man who walked up Bucks row when the Doctor was there, or man Ede had seen.

I don´t think so. The coroner may well have known that this was the case from the outset. The search for Paul would have commenced immediately as Lechmere contributed his part, and the coroner may well have known that he had not been located. And what you already know, you need not ask.

So this is easily explained. It takes a lot more of straining to believe in a 1:st of September bedhauling on Paul´s behalf!
I, for one, am not that flexible...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

... he didn`t take the stand as the Coroner adjourned the inquest, and appeared on the 17th.

The coroner did not adjourn the inquest after Mizen´s and Lechmere´s appearance, Jon; William Nicholls, Emily Holland and the Monk woman were put on the stand before he adjourned it.

What makes you think that Paul would not have been fit into the actual development, as were Mizen and Lechmere? Why would the coroner want to keep Paul apart from those two testimonies, instead of fitting it in on the relevant spot?

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Here´s the whole snippet, from Lloyd´s Weekly of the 30:th of September.

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. He was then summoned to give evidence at the inquest on two different days, and he had to pay a man 5s. each day to do his work, or he would have lost his place. At the close of the inquest he got two shillings, being a shilling for each day. John Richardson lost four days' work, and he was paid for three days one shilling each day. Cadosh came up from Enfield, and was paid 3s. for his three days' attendance. The coroner for some time demurred to allowing him his railway fares, but eventually did so, but his loss was 1l. 8s. 9d. John Davis, who discovered the body, lost two days, and was paid 2s., Mrs Long lost two days, and she was paid 2s. Other witnesses told the same story of what they naturally consider very unjust treatment.

We can see from this that witnesses were often obliged to be available for the inquest more than one day, although they often only witnessed a single day.
Of course, what we can learn from this clipping, is not that Paul was hauled from home in the middle of the night on the 1:st. We know full well that the police did not accept Pauls story until after Lechmere had appeared, so there would be no hauling before that. It also deserves to be mentioned that the days that can be described as being "after he (Paul) made his statement" are as follows:

The 1:st, the 2:nd, the 3:rd, the 4:th, the 5:th, the 6:th, the 7:th, the 8:th, the 9:th, the 10:th, the 11:th, the 12:th, the 13:th, the 14:th, the 15:th, the 16:th, the 17:th, the 18:th, the 19:th, the 20:th, the 21:st, the 22:nd, the 23:rd, the 24:th, the 25:th, the 26:th, the 27:th, the 28:th, and the 29:th, after which the article the quotation came from was published.

Paul will be pointing to his feeling that the hauling from his home would have been led on by the article, and any of the dates from the moment Lechmere spoke up, would be viable, that is to say that we are speaking of the 2:nd to the 30:th.

However, Dew makes it very clear that the process of finding Paul was a slow one, and that useless appeals were repeatedly made for him to come forward. Therefore, we must accept that we need to put the date later in the process.

Of course, the dates inbetween the 15:th and the 29:th may seem odd suggestions, since Paul witnessed on the 16:th, but hey - since really odd suggestions are the order of the day ...

The best,
Fisherman

Okay, fair enough, but isn`t it odd that the Coroner never asked the Police on the 3rd if they had located Paul, like he asked the Police whether they had located the man who walked up Bucks row when the Doctor was there, or man Ede had seen.

[Fisherman]

... and how do we fit in this bit, from the Daily News of the 3:rd, if the police as early as on the 1:st knew and had accepted that the body had been found by the two carmen:

"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."

At that stage, Nichols was looked upon by the Met as having been found by Neil. And at that stage, no appeals had been made for Paul to come forward. And at that stage, Lechmere had not confirmed Pauls story, making him an essential witness. And Paul had not been fetched up in the middle of the night.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ah, I think this may have been what Jon S was suggesting yesterday.

"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,

He spoke to Lloyds on the evening of Fri 31st - so he was picked up by Police ate Fri / early Sat.

"and was obliged to lose a day's work the next day,"
That will be the 1st Sept

"for which he got nothing. He was then summoned to give evidence at the inquest on two different days"

The 3rd, but he didn`t take the stand as the Coroner adjourned the inquest, and appeared on the 17th.

The final day, 23rd was just Eade clarifying on his man James, and the Coroner`s summing up.

Looks like the Lloyds rep asked the police about this witness, Paul, directly after interviewing him.

Here´s the whole snippet, from Lloyd´s Weekly of the 30:th of September.

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. He was then summoned to give evidence at the inquest on two different days, and he had to pay a man 5s. each day to do his work, or he would have lost his place. At the close of the inquest he got two shillings, being a shilling for each day. John Richardson lost four days' work, and he was paid for three days one shilling each day. Cadosh came up from Enfield, and was paid 3s. for his three days' attendance. The coroner for some time demurred to allowing him his railway fares, but eventually did so, but his loss was 1l. 8s. 9d. John Davis, who discovered the body, lost two days, and was paid 2s., Mrs Long lost two days, and she was paid 2s. Other witnesses told the same story of what they naturally consider very unjust treatment.

We can see from this that witnesses were often obliged to be available for the inquest more than one day, although they often only witnessed a single day.
Of course, what we can learn from this clipping, is not that Paul was hauled from home in the middle of the night on the 1:st. We know full well that the police did not accept Pauls story until after Lechmere had appeared, so there would be no hauling before that. It also deserves to be mentioned that the days that can be described as being "after he (Paul) made his statement" are as follows:

The 1:st, the 2:nd, the 3:rd, the 4:th, the 5:th, the 6:th, the 7:th, the 8:th, the 9:th, the 10:th, the 11:th, the 12:th, the 13:th, the 14:th, the 15:th, the 16:th, the 17:th, the 18:th, the 19:th, the 20:th, the 21:st, the 22:nd, the 23:rd, the 24:th, the 25:th, the 26:th, the 27:th, the 28:th, and the 29:th, after which the article the quotation came from was published.

Paul will be pointing to his feeling that the hauling from his home would have been led on by the article, and any of the dates from the moment Lechmere spoke up, would be viable, that is to say that we are speaking of the 2:nd to the 30:th.

However, Dew makes it very clear that the process of finding Paul was a slow one, and that useless appeals were repeatedly made for him to come forward. Therefore, we must accept that we need to put the date later in the process.

Of course, the dates inbetween the 15:th and the 29:th may seem odd suggestions, since Paul witnessed on the 16:th, but hey - since really odd suggestions are the order of the day ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Nope. Paul was not known to the police on the 1st, as you may have noticed ...

If he HAD been with the police on the 1:st, that would have meant that they picked him up on the night of the 31:st, before they even knew he existed. I mean, I know that some put a lot of faith in the Victorian police, but ...

Ah, I think this may have been what Jon S was suggesting yesterday.

"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,

He spoke to Lloyds on the evening of Fri 31st - so he was picked up by Police ate Fri / early Sat.

"and was obliged to lose a day's work the next day,"
That will be the 1st Sept

"for which he got nothing. He was then summoned to give evidence at the inquest on two different days"

The 3rd, but he didn`t take the stand as the Coroner adjourned the inquest, and appeared on the 17th.

The final day, 23rd was just Eade clarifying on his man James, and the Coroner`s summing up.

Looks like the Lloyds rep asked the police about this witness, Paul, directly after interviewing him.

[Fisherman]

I'm not sure whether or not deliberately misunderstanding Paul's quite simple statement is becoming some sort of ripperological in-joke.

No? I am.

Fisherman

[Lechmere]

I'm not sure whether or not deliberately misunderstanding Paul's quite simple statement is becoming some sort of ripperological in-joke.

[Fisherman]

Ah, sorry. So Paul was with the Police on the 1st, and attended the inquest on 3rd and 17th.

Nope. Paul was not known to the police on the 1st, as you may have noticed ...

If he HAD been with the police on the 1:st, that would have meant that they picked him up on the night of the 31:st, before they even knew he existed. I mean, I know that some put a lot of faith in the Victorian police, but ...

Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Just like Edward points out, the time for additional inquiries was added after the 3:rd of September proceedings. Nigh on a fortnight was offered, up til the 16:th, by which time Paul had been detected, picked up in the middle of the night, interrogated the following day, and then summoned to attend the two last days of the inquest - exactly as he himself says.

Ah, sorry. So Paul was with the Police on the 1st, and attended the inquest on 3rd and 17th.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer

Perhaps Baxter only wanted to open the Inquest and he wanted to give the Police more time, and after all this was the day after the murder and there may have been other inquests to deal with that day.

Just like Edward points out, the time for additional inquiries was added after the 3:rd of September proceedings. Nigh on a fortnight was offered, up til the 16:th, by which time Paul had been detected, picked up in the middle of the night, interrogated the following day, and then summoned to attend the two last days of the inquest - exactly as he himself says.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

The inquest started on the Saturday and continued on the Monday and was then adjourned for more enquiries.

[miss marple]

Carmen

Jenni was asking about Pickfords. It was and is a very large haulage company founded in the 17th century.
Pickford's had several addresses in London in the 19th century. White Swan Yard, Whitechapel nr Railway Station.
1&2 Rood Lane Chambers Railway Station Rd Broad St
Castle Inn Wood St Cheapside
Haydon Sq Minories Railway Station Poplar
83 Willow Walk Old Kent Rd
62 Berwick St
2 South Wharf Praed St Paddington
Railway Station Camden Town
Bricklayers Arms Swan Yd Blackman St Borough
156 Brompton rd
6 Wood St Westminster
Vine S t Regent St
Queen St Cheapside
Camden Goods Station Oval Rd [ thats most of them]
Charles Booth describes carman. They worked on average 96 to a hundred hours a week. They earned 18 shillings a week. 29 Per cent earned 25 to 35 shillings a week. Some of their day was spend standing around waiting for deliveries, that includes finding time to eat, no set breaks. They were not paid overtime, but might be given a shilling extra if called out at 3 in the morning rather than 6am. 58 per cent lived in overcrowded housing. They suffered from rhematism and bronchitis.Men had to clean and water their horses, except in the larger companies. Sunday was the day for cleaning horses. Horse keepers were employed to feed the horses.

Regards Miss Marple

[Jon Guy]

Hi Christer

Perhaps Baxter only wanted to open the Inquest and he wanted to give the Police more time, and after all this was the day after the murder and there may have been other inquests to deal with that day.

[Lechmere]

As if the police were able to find him that quickly!