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

[Lechmere]

Robert – I forgot to add…
I don’t think it’s very surprising that Paul didn’t highlight the fact that he had been (or may have been) accused of murder.
He wasn’t Tumblety with numerous Gross Indecency charges to hide up!

Scott
I don’t think Paul would ever have thought that Lechmere was trying to implicate him in the Chapman murder.

Wickerman

Forgive me for assuming that Paul was in bed in the middle of the night.
Perhaps he was not.
Perhaps he was sitting in his favourite arm chair reading a good book.
It doesn’t really matter.
I think the expression ‘fetched up in the middle of the night’ carries with it rather more than a polite knock at a time when it was assumed the gentle householder might be in doors.

As for your second point, read the salient part of Paul’s interview
‘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’.

Paul did not lose the next day’s work because he went to the inquest. He went to the inquest on two totally separate days!

[Robert]

Lechmere, I think the police could have been forgiven for feeling a bit miffed at Paul, and not timing their questioning to suit his work arrangements. Here was a man who took two opportunities to snipe at the police, first in an interview of August 31st, reported in Lloyd's of Sept 2nd, and then in an interview of Sept 1st in which he actually comments on Day One of the inquest, again reported in Lloyd's of Sept 2nd - all this without even coming forward to give the police his story or making himself available to give inquest evidence.

[Lechmere]

Robert
I quite agree that part of the police motivation for treating him badly would have been because he had slagged them off - they are know for that, dare I say. But I can't see that as the whole picture.
That's probably why they so readily thought him capable of murder also.
I think that's why they made him attend the inquest as a bit of extra punishment when they found that he was innocent.

[Wickerman]

As for your second point, read the salient part of Paul’s interview
‘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’.

Paul did not lose the next day’s work because he went to the inquest. He went to the inquest on two totally separate days!

Its unfortunate that we have no clearer detail, for instance which 'two days' are we supposed to think he attended the inquest, when we know he only appeared once.
So perhaps there is some confusion here.

Paul appeared at the Inquest on Mon. Sept 17th, courtesy of the Police no doubt. He must also have been summoned earlier (according to Hunter?), possibly on the Mon. Sept. 3rd, along with Cross.
Therefore Paul was summoned twice, in total.

Because he missed a days work when he appeared on the 17th, then he must have been hauled in by police on the Sunday, kept overnight at her majesty's pleasure, and escorted to the Inquest by police on the Monday morning.
Therefore, he missed one days work (17th), and had been summoned twice (3rd/17th).

It would be nice if you could find an alternate newspaper article with a little more detail.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Robert Paul [Pawle] dramatically changing his story between Friday 31st August and Monday 17th September could have had something to do with his nocturnal visit from London's Finest.

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

Wickerman: Its unfortunate that we have no clearer detail, for instance which 'two days' are we supposed to think he attended the inquest, when we know he only appeared once.
So perhaps there is some confusion here.

Paul appeared at the Inquest on Mon. Sept 17th, courtesy of the Police no doubt. He must also have been summoned earlier (according to Hunter?), possibly on the Mon. Sept. 3rd, along with Cross.
Therefore Paul was summoned twice, in total.

Because he missed a days work when he appeared on the 17th, then he must have been hauled in by police on the Sunday, kept overnight at her majesty's pleasure, and escorted to the Inquest by police on the Monday morning.
Therefore, he missed one days work (17th), and had been summoned twice (3rd/17th).

Jon, Paul´s name would not have been in the police´s possesion from the outset. Lechmere did not know who he was.
He appeared under his name in a paper interview on the 2:nd, an interview that arguably made Lechmere go to the police.

So, on the 2:nd of September , the police potentially had the name Robert Paul. But they did not believe in what he claimed in the interview, as shown by the press conference spoken of earlier. It was Lechmere´s appearance at the cop shop that made them realize that Paul told a true story.

Now, in order for them to summons Paul to the 3:rd of September inquest day, are you suggesting that they raided his house on the night leading up to that date? Surely not.

Instead they appealed for him to come forward - as per Dew, who tells us that the police appealed repeatedly for him to come forward. That means they did so for a number of days, meaning that the 3:rd of september drifted by with no Paul in sight.

What Paul says in his interview is "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."

He was THEN summoned. And how could he be summoned to give evidence on the 3:rd if this day had already passed? For "the next day" to work in your scenario, that next day would be the 3:rd. And how would the police know where Paul lived on the night of the 2:nd? Why would they fetch him up in the middle of the night? And - not least - if they DID do this, why don´t we have him testifying on the 3:rd...?

No, he must have been fetched up at a day later in the schedule. And if he lost one days work the next day because of that, due to a requested inquest attendance, then that would have happened on the night of September 16:th, whereupon he lost the next day´s job.

However, which would be the two further inquest days if that was the case? It does not pan out.

Therefore, we can easily conclude that, just as Paul says, the day after he was fetched up in the middle of the night, was no inquest day. It was a day during which he would have been interrogated. After that, he was summoned to the two remaining inquest days, out of which he appeared on the first, but was requested to attend the other day too, should the need arise to put any further questions to him. But only Eade was requested to reappear on that day, whereupon the coroner summed the case up.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

There seems to be a desperation to reinterpret Paul's words in the strangest ways.
It is totally impossible for Paul to have been summonsed for 3rd September.
At some date after 3rd he was raided in the middle of the night and questioned the next day, so he missed a day's work. All we can say is that logically he was not raided on a Saturday night.
I would also propose that it would have been after 8th as I don't think the police would have shown the urgency to find him before that date.
Then he was summonsed. Once.
Then he had to attend on 2 days.
The first must have been 17th September. A Monday.
The second can only have been 22nd September - the final day which was a Saturday but also a workday.

Logically he must have been raided on an evening between 9th to 14th September.

[Fisherman]

And once again, if the police were so interested in what he had to say, and so convinced that his information needed to be presented on the 3:rd, that they judged it necessary to suss his address out and then raid him "in the middle of the night" on the 2:nd - then why on earth did he NOT take the stand that day...? It was the day that Mizen and Lechmere witnessed, so his testimony would have belonged to that part of the inquest.
The suggestion is totally preposterous.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

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

[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.

[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

[Lechmere]

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

[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

[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]

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