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

[Lechmere]

Maybe they didn't have access to it in those days when privacy from governmental interference was guarded against.
Or maybe it was another **** up.
Either way it doesn't change what the contemporary records state.

[jmenges]

Hi Fisherman,

You have said in the past that "Dew's recollections leave a good deal to ask for" and, at least in his recollections of the Kelly murder there is "no doubt" that his version is "slightly embellished". You also have said that to accept Dew's memoirs as reliable comes down to a "gut feeling" and it is "quite correct that Dew's story (re: Kelly again) can be legitimately questioned".

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5185&page=3

Yet, in this thread you have cited Dew numerous times. Have your feelings regarding his reliability changed? Or are your doubts only confined to the MJK murder?

As you know, the accuracy of Dew's memoir has been called into question many times in the past so I'm curious as to your opinion of it today.

Thanks

JM

[Stewart P Evans]

For Information

For information, here are the two relevant pages from Dew's book -

No better illustration of East-End conditions at the time...

[Wickerman]

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

Hi Christer.

I think that you and Ed. are following a false premise.

Reading what Cross told the Inquest, how do you suppose the police found Mr Cross?

He was not in attendance of the body when Neil showed up, and I don't suppose he gave his address or place of work to Mizen, so how did the police find him?

[Lechmere]

Wickerman
Lechmere must have turned himself in at a police station on Sunday night.
The logical reasoning behind this has been gone into many times - I can repeat it if necessary.

Mr Menges.
For what it's worth my feelings about Dew's memoirs is that they offer an invaluable insight into the feel and tone of the investigation. He wrote them 50 years after the events so naturally details will be awry.
You show me a latter day account by a policeman involved in the case that hasn’t got errors within it.

Dew gets details of the Nichols murder muddled up.
This is not surprising as he was with H Division, not J Division which led the Nichols investigation.
So far as Dew’s treatment of Paul (who is unnamed) is concerned this again is muddled.
That doesn’t mean that Dew is useless as a source on Paul.
I take out of it a remembrance that Paul was searched for and there was something of a question mark over him. No more than that.

[Lechmere]

Someone asked if there were any other reports that alluded to Paul and his involvement.
So far as I am aware there are not, besides a truncated reprint of his first Lloyds interview.

However this report in the Echo of 20th September has often intrigued me:

The Whitechapel murders are as inexplicable as ever, and at present the utmost energy on the part of the police has failed to secure sufficient evidence to justify an arrest in a quarter where suspicion lurked shortly after the commission of the fatal outrage at George-yard-buildings. Inspector Reid, Detective-sergeant Enright, Sergeant Goadby, and other officers then worked upon a slight clue given them by "Pearly Poll." It was not thought much of at the time; but from what was gleaned from her, coupled with statements given by Elizabeth Allen and Eliza Cooper, of 35, Dorset-street, Spitalfields, certain of the authorities have had cause to suspect a man actually living not far from Buck's-row. At present, however, there is only suspicion against him.

This morning, Rosetta Anderson, a woman residing in Pearl-street, Spitalfields, made a statement to the effect that last evening a "curious and mysterious man," as Mrs. Anderson herself describes him, placed himself on her doorstep, looked around him, and behaved in such an eccentric manner that she thought he was a maniac. He intently watched every woman as she passed, but, observing that he was himself an object of suspicion, he suddenly darted out of sight up a court near. Mrs. Anderson believes that this man was the murderer. His appearance, in almost every respect, answered to the description of the foreigner seen talking with the deceased woman in Hanbury-street, on the morning of her death. The police are investigating the matter. Strange to say, his appearance tallies somewhat with that of the man already alluded to.

Paul lived very near Buck’s Row and an alley way at the end of Corbett’s Court led out into Little Pearl Street.

[Wickerman]

Wickerman
Lechmere must have turned himself in at a police station on Sunday night.
The logical reasoning behind this has been gone into many times - I can repeat it if necessary.

In other words, you don't know.
And yet, you seem to think they were not able to locate Paul the very same way as they located Cross?

You have read the pre-inquest statements given to the police before the Eddowes & Kelly Inquests, right?
So you know that the police, somehow, located Charles Cross and took a pre-inquest statement from him, as was normal procedure.
So, you also know that the police knew about this 'other man' (Paul) whom he met before Cross spoke about him at the Inquest.

Which makes me wonder why you (& Christer?) both claim the police knew nothing about the existence of Paul until Cross mentioned him at the Inquest!

This is the false premise.

[Lechmere]

I do know Wickerman.

I think unfortunately you are getting into a hopeless muddle.
I rather think that one problem with these discussions is that the Nichols case is not usually discussed and many are not that familiar with the finer details.

Neither I nor Fisherman would ‘claim the police knew nothing about the existence of Paul until Cross mentioned him at the Inquest’.

This is a perverse thing for you to suggest.

The police knew about the existence of Paul before they knew about the existence of Lechmere (as Cross anyway) - because Paul was published in Lloyds on the Sunday!

Let me spell it out clearly – these are the facts:
31st August – Friday – Polly Nichols murdered
1st September – Saturday – Inquest opened, PC Neil presented as discoverer of body
2nd September – Sunday – Afternoon – Lloyds Weekly Newspaper publish Paul’s story
2nd September – Sunday – Evening – Police press conference reiterates that PC Neil discovered body and that he had not been called to the scene by two men
3rd September – Monday – Lechmere appears at the inquest and in essence confirms Paul’s story

Lechmere must have voluntarily presented himself as the Paul story did not mention his name, address or workplace. The police initially denied the Paul story – as late as Sunday evening – and Lechmere appeared at the inquest the next morning.
The only thing that could conceivably have changed the police’s mind was the appearance of Lechmere giving his side of the story.
I am fairly sure that he must have turned up at a police station after reading Paul’s story and voluntarily given his statement.
The only other alternative to this is that he turned up unannounced at the inquest in the morning.
Those are the only possibilities.
There is no way the police independently located him.

[Wickerman]

The police knew about the existence of Paul before they knew about the existence of Lechmere (as Cross anyway) - because Paul was published in Lloyds on the Sunday!

So you are suggesting the police obtained their information from the press?

Let me spell it out clearly – these are the facts:
31st August – Friday – Polly Nichols murdered

Before the end of this same day, the police had spoken with Cross and all the other witnesses, their pre-inquest statements were taken and forwarded to the Coroner. On this same day the Coroner compiles his list of witnesses and each summons created, and presumably delivered in advance of the Inquest scheduled for the next day.
So, the police already knew about the 'other man' (Robert Paul) on Friday 31st Aug.

Lechmere must have voluntarily presented himself....

I'm sure he did, and I feel equally sure that this is what Paul did too.
Neither witness had any cause to give personal information to Mizen, so the police had no way of discovering who these two men were. Therefore, both men must have come forward voluntarily.

There is no way the police independently located him.

Exactly (both Cross & Paul).

[Lechmere]

Wickerman
I am staggered that you don't get this.
It is impossible for the police to have taken Lechmere or Paul's statement on 31st, as on 1st and as late as the evening of 2nd they were presenting PC Neil as the first and sole discoverer of Nichols.
They disbelieved Paul's newspaper story at first as well.
Paul claims he was forced to go to the police- not voluntarily.
Not all inquest witness appearances proceeded as smoothly as you assume.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Lechmere,

Could you please elaborate on the Sunday evening police press conference.

It's a new one on me.

Many thanks.

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

You have said in the past that "Dew's recollections leave a good deal to ask for" and, at least in his recollections of the Kelly murder there is "no doubt" that his version is "slightly embellished". You also have said that to accept Dew's memoirs as reliable comes down to a "gut feeling" and it is "quite correct that Dew's story (re: Kelly again) can be legitimately questioned".

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5185&page=3

Yet, in this thread you have cited Dew numerous times. Have your feelings regarding his reliability changed? Or are your doubts only confined to the MJK murder?

As you know, the accuracy of Dew's memoir has been called into question many times in the past so I'm curious as to your opinion of it today.

Thanks

JM

The memoirs contain faults, everybody knows that. But the general consensus seems to be that they are a remarkable feat anyway, not least in the context of how long after the murders they were written. I tend to accept both things.
At the end of the day, I think one has to weigh each detail on it´s own and ask oneself whether it is more likely to be correct or not. And when it comes to the appeals Dew says were made for Paul, I am having all sorts of trouble to understand why he would make such a thing up.
The visit in the middle of the night to Pauls home, in order to get him into the police´s hands also seemingly verifies that he had not come of his own accord and that the police had grown tired waiting for him. So Dew makes a point here that seems to be a very good one.

In the past, I have also spoken up for Stride probably not being a Ripper victim.
That has changed too.

But another argument I have always made is that I do not engage in lifelong marriages to any ideas in Ripper country. Whatever new information that surfaces, it should always be weighed in and the overall picture should - if necessary - change accordingly to that new information.

I still say that, so there´s a little something for you where I have not - and will not - change.

In the end, when the Ripper has been caught and can be presented to the people, most - or all - of us out here will have to say "look at that; it seems I was wrong on that score". And those of us - if any - who had our money on the right guy, will have to concede that we got some of the details wrong. Summing up, that means that flexibility of the mind should always take precedence over ego inflation and a disability to accept that you may be wrong. Trust me: we all are, to a smaller or lesser degree.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer.

I think that you and Ed. are following a false premise.

Reading what Cross told the Inquest, how do you suppose the police found Mr Cross?

He was not in attendance of the body when Neil showed up, and I don't suppose he gave his address or place of work to Mizen, so how did the police find him?

At their own doorstep, on the afternoon/evening of the 2:nd of September.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Simon
The ‘press conference’ took place late on Sunday 2nd September 1888 and was reported in many newpapers on 3rd September. It seems to have been conducted by Inspector Helson. It shows that late on Sunday the police clearly believed that PC Neil was the first finder of Nichols and that he was not called to the scene by two men.
It must be remembered that Paul’s interview in which he said he and another man first discovered Nichols and they had brought his to the attention of a policeman had appeared in Lloyds Weekly Newspaper earlier that Sunday.
From Monday onwards the whole story of how Nichols was discovered changes and it was accepted that two men found her and they then told a policeman, who turned out to be PC Mizen.
The first extant internal police report dated 31st August by Inspector Spratling also credited PC Neil with being the first finder (MEPO 3/140, ff.44-8).
No doubt part of the reason for the mix up was that Mizen was from H Division while Neil was from J and they had no opportunity to compare notes. Also as soon as Mizen arrived at Buck’s Row he was sent to get the ambulance.
Anyway the details of the statement, press conference or whatever it was can be found here for example:

The Times

Up to a late hour last evening the police had obtained no clue to the perpetrator of the latest of the three murders which have so recently taken place in Whitechapel, and there is, it must be acknowledged, after their exhaustive investigation of the facts, no ground for blaming the officers in charge should they fail in unravelling the mystery surrounding the crime. The murder, in the early hours of Friday morning last, of the woman now known as Mary Ann Nicholls, has so many points of similarity with the murder of two other women in the same neighbourhood - one Martha Turner, as recently as August 7, and the other less than 12 months previously - that the police admit their belief that the three crimes are the work of one individual. All three women were of the class called "unfortunates," each so very poor, that robbery could have formed no motive for the crime, and each was murdered in such a similar fashion, that doubt as to the crime being the work of one and the same villain almost vanishes, particularly when it is remembered that all three murders were committed within a distance of 300 yards from each other. These facts have led the police to almost abandon the idea of a gang being abroad to wreak vengeance on women of this class for not supplying them with money. Detective-Inspectors Abberline, of the Criminal Investigation Department, and Detective-Inspector Helson, J Division, are both of opinion that only one person, and that a man, had a hand in the latest murder. It is understood that the investigation into the George-yard mystery is proceeding hand-in-hand with that of Buck's-row. It is considered unlikely that the woman could have entered a house, been murdered, and removed to Buck's-row within a period of one hour and a quarter. 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. The utmost efforts are being used, a number of plainclothes men being out making inquiries in the neighbourhood, and Sergeants Enright and Godley have interviewed many persons who might, it was thought, assist in giving a clue.

Daily News

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. 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. The inquest is to be resumed today, but must rather hamper the action of the police, whose whole time is required to trace any information whilst the scent, if any, is still fresh. The deceased, it is understood, will be buried tomorrow.

[Wickerman]

Wickerman
I am staggered that you don't get this.
It is impossible for the police to have taken Lechmere or Paul's statement on 31st, as on 1st and as late as the evening of 2nd they were presenting PC Neil as the first and sole discoverer of Nichols.
They disbelieved Paul's newspaper story at first as well.
Paul claims he was forced to go to the police- not voluntarily.
Not all inquest witness appearances proceeded as smoothly as you assume.

It isn't that I don't get this Ed. its more like I don't accept your explanations.

For instance, the suggestion that PC Neil came across the body is true, but this is not to be interpreted that he was the first to discover the body, as you seem to think.
The police are not at liberty to inform the press about the information they have received from unsworn witnesses (Cross/Paul), in fact we do know the police often cautioned witnesses to say nothing to the press, at least until the Inquest was concluded. So the fact Helson makes no mention of these witnesses to a reporter does not mean they were not aware of their claims.

Also, it appears the interest of the reporter on questioning Insp. Helson was to establish whether Nichols had been murdered elsewhere. Helson was merely putting this erroneous conjecture to rest.

I think you are trying to build a case, in part, on a flawed interpretation of police procedure.