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

[Lechmere]

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

[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

[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]

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.

Hereīs the whole snippet, from Lloydīs 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

[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

[Jon Guy]

Hereīs the whole snippet, from Lloydīs 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]

... 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 Mizenīs and Lechmereīs 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

[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 donīt 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 Paulīs behalf!
I, for one, am not that flexible...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

it IS nice, however, that you donīt fly into accusations about how I refuse to ponder other perspectives than my own. That has been the order of the day many times. So thanks for that

Fisherman

[Robert]

On a different note, I'm not quite sure why it should have taken the police so long to trace Paul. The electoral rolls for Bethnal Green would have been a good starting point, and I wouldn't have thought it would take a terrifically long time to go through them. In 1888, Paul is on page 28 of the South West Division.

[Jon Guy]

The coroner did not adjourn the inquest after Mizenīs and Lechmereīs 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?

Perhaps, the coroner was a gent, and allowed the two ladies to get their appearnces out of the way, and made Paul attend another day because he spoke to the press and didn`t take himself voluntarily to the Police.
After all, in the timeline of events Monk and Holland were before Paul, as they were nearly the last people to see her alive.

[Jon Guy]

I donīt 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 Paulīs behalf!
I, for one, am not that flexible...

I don`t know, Christer. Baxter seemed to be quick to ask the Police about whether people like the Bucks Row observer and Ede`s man were ever traced.

[Jon Guy]

it IS nice, however, that you donīt fly into accusations about how I refuse to ponder other perspectives than my own. That has been the order of the day many times. So thanks for that

.. and likewise, thank you too, sir !!

[Lechmere]

I doubt the coroner thought getting Paul to the inquest was much of a priority - in Mizen and Lechmere's accounts he is very much second fiddle in an uncontested aspect of the story.

[Fisherman]

On a different note, I'm not quite sure why it should have taken the police so long to trace Paul. The electoral rolls for Bethnal Green would have been a good starting point, and I wouldn't have thought it would take a terrifically long time to go through them. In 1888, Paul is on page 28 of the South West Division.

It IS odd in a sense, yes. But Dew is adamant that the police appealed for him to come forward. Maybe he was not at his home address as they initially looked for him?
If they had his address as per the registers, there would be no need for the appeals, would there?

The best,
Fisherman