Pickford & Co.

[The Baron]

Well for me they did not have the advances in technology like CCTV, DNA, blood typing and finger prints like we do so no doubt they would have been spot on in the actual methods they did have.
I still say Paul was more shady than Cross for sure...

Yes, that shows they have their doubts and they looked at both of them.

How can anyone imagine that this basic police procedure was not applied when there is nothing more important to do than to investigate the crime scene and the persons involved.



The Baron

[John Wheat]

I've said this before and I'll probably say it again but Lechmere is not guilty of The Ripper murders or The Torso Murders. Why do we discuss this clearly innocent man ad infinitum?

[Geddy2112]

I've said this before and I'll probably say it again but Lechmere is not guilty of The Ripper murders or The Torso Murders. Why do we discuss this clearly innocent man ad infinitum?

To make sure that Team Lechmere do not win haha. I've already seen six posts this morning by Ed (elsewhere of course) that are, how shall I say it.. economical with the truth.

[John Wheat]

To make sure that Team Lechmere do not win haha. I've already seen six posts this morning by Ed (elsewhere of course) that are, how shall I say it.. economical with the truth.

Fair point Geddy2112

At the end of the day there are only a small minority on this site that believe Lechmere guilty of any murders.

Cheers John

[Fiver]

So Walter was saying Cross was a stand up, good bloke and Robert Paul a shady b'stard?

After his wife died, Robert Paul had a few kids with another woman, then eventually married her.

[Paddy Goose]

Good afternoon Geddy,

To make sure that Team Lechmere do not win haha.

But they've already won here, big time. This is Lechbook now. You can't turn a pickle back into a cucumber.

I've already seen six posts this morning by Ed (elsewhere of course) that are, how shall I say it.. economical with the truth.

But can't you debate him there? Wherever there is?

Which gives me an idea. Since neither Ed nor Christer is here, why don't we all take a

Lechmere Holiday

[Geddy2112]

Good afternoon Geddy,


But they've already won here, big time. This is Lechbook now. You can't turn a pickle back into a cucumber.

But can't you debate him there? Wherever there is?

Which gives me an idea. Since neither Ed nor Christer is here

Hi, no they have not won, that is the incorrect attitude to take. If you give up they have won.

You can't debate with Ed or Christer anyway. With Christer you get dodging, insults, twisting of language to suit and basically it's a kin to banging your head up against the wall. With Ed you will get less twisting of the language but a similar outcome.

It's funny that though a lot of people seem to use the 'debate' word in regards to 'discussions' about the Ripper. I do not come here to debate, I come here to learn and it's a much safer learning environment without Christer and Ed as they want to debate and force a narrative. If someone wishes to fight I'll fight back or debate as you put it but like I said debating with people who ignore the truth and are so arrogant they can't accept the truth or an alternative narrative are not worth debating with. See previous point about the wall. The point I made yesterday about Ed posting about six times and being economical with the truth is a classic example. They are not bothered by the truth, they have their man and they want to fleece the YouTube clicks for as much as they can. The truth now is irrelevant to them. Why do you think they have not uncovered anything new regards Lechmere's guilt in over a decade?

How many times over the last coupe of months has Christer posted this lot...

KC Scobie said... (been debunked)
A body still breathing and bleeding... (debunked)
Found next to a freshly killed woman... (debunked)
Time gap... (debunked)
Mizen... (debunked)
Two medical professors... (debunked)
Gary Ridgeway... (grrrrr)

It's impossible to debate with the man, he is too arrogant to admit he is wrong. Although 'one little victory' is both Ed and Christer refuse to answer me anymore which roughly translates to 'Geddy is right.' Unless it's because I'm an annoying little s*&t - who knows

Christer will be back here in a couple of months, however both of them very much do still read these forums, you can tell as the hot topic usually ends up in a HoL video the following week... isn't that right Ed?

However if you prefer not to read Lechbook you can of course do the old 'internet cliché' and scroll on by...

[Newbie]

Thanks for proving my point. We have no idea when Cross came forward or under what circumstances. It's just guesswork and our own personal interpretations despite the large gaps in our understanding and nearly a complete lack of information.

Much of the above is merely Ed and Christer's speculations about what occurred. The inferences that they have drawn.

It may not have happened that way at all and having recently restudied it after a brief run-in with Ed, I doubt that it did.

Properly considered, there are several mysteries about Robert Paul's appearance before the inquest.

The representative for Lloyd's Weekly News reported some interesting details about what the inquest witnesses were paid, how many days they attended, and how much work they lost.

This is the only source we have for this information, and it reports that Robert Paul attended two days and lost three days of work.

Yet, because Paul only gave evidence on one day, we don't know what other day he was in attendance, but not called. Ed wants Paul to have attended on the final day of the inquest, because it makes his theory work, but there is no evidence that this is what happened, and little or no reason for Paul to have attended unless Wynne Baxter had a habit of wasting money by paying what by now were minor witnesses to attend just to hear his summation.

This leaves open the possibility that Paul was actually at the second day of the inquest but, for whatever reason, was not called to give evidence. Perhaps the police initially gave his name to the coroner and issued a summons, but having growing doubts about his testimony, discreetly asked Baxter not to call him. We don't know.

That Paul missed three days of work suggests he had spent one day down at the station, being grilled by the police. Seeing that he left the scene of what turned out to be a murder, I find this highly plausible.

We don't know when the police yarded Paul out of bed, but it could just as easily have been late on Friday night, August 31. It is only an assumption that it happened after the police read his interview in Lloyd's. Nor do I believe Ed Stow's theory that a reporter for Lloyd's was able to trace Robert Paul within hours and yet it took the police several more days to find him and drag him out of bed. Stow is leaning too heavily on Walter Dew, who didn't work in J-Division, didn't remember Paul's name, and was writing fully 50 years after-the-fact.

In reality, the Victorian police were very skilled at tracing people.

No; we are all indulging in guesswork, but I'm personally convinced something else was going on. I suspect the police initially looked at Paul, and perhaps Cross, more as suspects than as witnesses. Paul, in particularly may have found himself on the hot seat, which is why there was a delay in giving evidence.

Hello rjpalmer,

thankyou for the information.
I could never find the 2nd Lloyd's interview with Paul and I'd like to see it.
Practically nothing on Paul ... any census information?

Typically, Paul is the type of person police would tend to doubt: mugs for the camera, but doesn't come forward to authorities.
In other words, unreliable and some one they wouldn't prioritize that early in the investigation. People invent stuff to reporters all the time.

Agree: Victorian authorities could move rapidly to find people,
but rousting Paul Friday? That's a fantastically quick turn around time for a story that was yet to be published.
Why would Lloyd's Weekly reveal their big scoop to anyone on Friday?
And why would authorities go to such a great effort at that time, before the autumn of terror?
And what would they actually want with Paul: question him because he has a big mouth?

My understanding is that the coroner reads witness testimony and then makes up a list of who he wants to see.
And Baxter indicates that he would be very interested in the immediate witness, to one who discovers a body (see below).
Yet, we see Lech, but not Paul? Paul's testimony didn't get to him: he wasn't on the list would be my bet.

Was Mary Monk's testimony more important, when Polly Nichol's father already identified her body.
I don't think so.

Sure, Paul could possibly have attended the 2nd day of the inquest, but I doubt it. Most likely, Lechmere came to them Sunday afternoon, confirmed Paul's story and then they didn't have time to get a summons out to Paul directly on such short notice ..... and then return to inform the court that the action was successfully completed.

After the gruesome murder of Annie Chapman, I doubt Baxter would worry about the trivial expense of adding one more witness to day 4.
Some unanswered question concerning his testimony that got clarified before the hearing, so he didn't need Paul after all. Happens all the time.

That's probably most likely. Sometimes, the best explanation is the simplest.

But I agree, there is no certainty ......

Two final things:

First, at the Annie Chapman inquest:

Examination (of John Davies) resumed: There was a little recess on the left. From the steps to the fence is about 3 ft. There are three stone steps, unprotected, leading from the door to the yard, which is at a lower level than that of the passage. Directly I opened the door I saw a woman lying down in the lefthand recess, between the stone steps and the fence. She was on her back, with her head towards the house and her legs towards the wood shed. The clothes were up to her groins. I did not go into the yard, but left the house by the front door, and called the attention of two men to the circumstances. They work at Mr. Bailey's, a packing-case maker, of Hanbury-street. I do not know their names, but I know them by sight.
The Coroner: Have the names of these men been ascertained?
Inspector Chandler: I have made inquiries, but I cannot find the men.
The Coroner: They must be found.
Davies: They work at Bailey's; but I could not find them on Saturday, as I had my work to do.
The Coroner: Your work is of no consequence compared with this inquiry.
Davies: I am giving all the information I can.
The Coroner (to witness): You must find these men out, either with the assistance of the police or of my officer.

Once Wynne Baxter learns that there were two immediate witnesses close to the event of the discovery of the body, there was certainly the suggestion of immediacy in bringing them before authorities .... no? And they could move very quickly to locate people.


Second, I ran into a conversation from 2012, in notes on Charles Cross/Lechmere about summons, and the particular date in which Lechmere might have accosted authorities:

Monty (from 2012)


The address (Lechmere’s Doveton 22 address) would have had to have been known for the correct completion of the summons.


It has to either hold an address, an address the witness is known to frequent (trading address) or state 'no fixed abode'.


Also the summons has to be sealed at court. As the court does not sit on a Sunday the sealing would have to have been on the Saturday. This due to the fact Cross appeared Monday. Ergo, his address was known on Saturday.

The serving could have been via post or served in person.

He would not have been 'fitted in' as that is not how Coroners inquests work. The Coroner reads the witness statements and chooses who he feels should attend. That is when he produces a list. Any important witnesses appearing after the setting of a list can be heard after an adjournment, which could take a period of time.


I have served 4 summons in my time and prepare a fair few for sealing, last one being last Wednesday. Its part of my job.


Lechmere (in response)


Your discourse on the issue of summonses is very interesting but I doubt you were in service in 1888.


You will of course be aware that Liz Stride was murdered in the early hours of Sunday morning, 30th September.

When did her inquest commence?

Don't bother looking it up - Monday 1st October.

Witnesses such as Lewis Diemschutz and Morris Eagle appeared.


Monty (in response)


The summons were sealed in advance. Its obvious.

Sunday sitting, which is something I didn't think of admittedly.


Lechmere (in response)


Ah - so now we have the possibility that the Coroner was sitting 'in court' on the Sunday.

This doesn't mean sitting in an actual court. There wasn't a coroners court which is why it was held in the Whitechapel Working Lads' Institute.

So Baxter - or even someone authorized on his behalf - could have issued a summons on the Sunday, as originally stated.



Monty (in response)


No, summons can only be sealed at court, however yes, it can open on a Sunday for exceptional circumstances.

Whitechapel County Court I suspect.



Sunday certainly seems like the most likely date: Lechmere isn't working on that day and the court is in session.
Why would it be any other date? There is also the LLoyds story on Paul breaking that morning - of course.

[Newbie]

Good afternoon Geddy,



But they've already won here, big time. This is Lechbook now. You can't turn a pickle back into a cucumber.



But can't you debate him there? Wherever there is?

Which gives me an idea. Since neither Ed nor Christer is here, why don't we all take a

Lechmere Holiday

Hi Paddy Goose.

Are Lechmere rants seeping into George Hutchinson & John Druitt threads? If so, that's bad!

Find refuge in William Bury threads would be my advise.

From my end, I post and I then have 8 people come at me with sharpened knives from all different angles.

Maybe I should just hang out with Hutch.

Abby Normal just posted something there

[Newbie]

I've said this before and I'll probably say it again but Lechmere is not guilty of The Ripper murders or The Torso Murders. Why do we discuss this clearly innocent man ad infinitum?

Why are you here John, if you are so convinced?

That's what blows my mind ..... if I had the absolute conviction you do, I wouldn't bother if other people prefer to be deluded.

And yet, this is your contribution to Lechmere threads for the last 5 years: robo declarations of Lechmere's 'clear' innocence.

I think I write to organize my own thoughts about Lech, and if people don't care for it ..... i'll be okay.

[John Wheat]

Why are you here John, if you are so convinced?

That's what blows my mind ..... if I had the absolute conviction you do, I wouldn't bother if other people prefer to be deluded.

And yet, this is your contribution to Lechmere threads for the last 5 years: robo declarations of Lechmere's 'clear' innocence.

I think I write to organize my own thoughts about Lech, and if people don't care for it ..... i'll be okay.

I get bored easily and there's nothing wrong with stating the truth.

[The Baron]

I get bored easily and there's nothing wrong with stating the truth.

Agree with you John, the truth always has to be shown against fabrications, or else will will live in a very unusual universe.

Lechmerianism is just a fantasy.


The Baron

[Newbie]

I get bored easily and there's nothing wrong with stating the truth.

No, absolutely not.

But your only contribution here is nothing more than 'stating the truth' in one sentence proclamations.

How interesting can that be? I'd rather evaluate the lint in my belly buttoned when ennui sets in.

[Newbie]

A lot of people assume that this is what happened, and I've speculated along those lines myself, but the representative for Lloyd's only wrote that he spoke to Paul "on his return home."

This could mean that the journalist button-holed every pedestrian walking through Buck's Row that night and found Paul--or, more plausibly perhaps--it means that he had discovered Paul's home address on Foster Street and was waiting on his doorstep: "On his return home."

If the latter, it throws a spanner into Ed Stow's theory that Paul was difficult to trace.

As I see it, Paul worked in the market. On Friday, there would have been talk of the murder, just as there would be on the morning of the Chapman murder, which sent John Richardson racing back to his mother's house.

Paul could have talked openly about what he had witnessed that morning, it became a topic of conversation, allowing both the Lloyd's man and the police to have traced Paul later that night. Ditto Charles Cross.

From whom did he get Paul's address? There were no direct witnesses to Paul's involvement, save Mizen ...... who didn't know the man, nor his address. Paul talked it up at the market or at work? At work, at least they might know his address. A fellow worker then went straight to the police that afternoon and furnished them with Paul's name, with or without his address, and the police sprung into action immediately? Spring into action regarding a second hand account of a witness to the witness?

I don't think so.

Did they go straight to the offices of Lloyd's Weekly?

I think the button-holed every pedestrian theory is a very safe one .... as well as not button holeing Lech - not completely insignificant.

[rjpalmer]

I think the button-holed every pedestrian theory is a very safe one

Well, to each his own; if you're happy with it by all means bask in its unconfirmed glory.

When I ran that idea past Ed Stow a month ago, he dismissed the idea as strange (I quote):

"Paul gave three press interviews. I very much doubt the Lloyd's reporter buttonholed every passer by that evening on Buck's Row - and on the Saturday and after his inquest appearance. Can you think of any other witnesses who gave three interviews?" --Ed Stow.

Ed's own theory is that Paul "ran to the press."

But all three times Paul was questioned by a reporter ('interviews' is an exaggeration; twice Paul was only very briefly paraphrased) it was by the same reporter: the representative for Lloyd's Weekly News.

That sounds like the Lloyd's reporter knew where to find him.

"On his return home..."

So how did the Lloyd's reporter find Robert Paul?

The same way all reporters track people down. Their own investigation. Word of mouth. A friendly source inside the police. You're only assuming that Paul didn't make his identity known on Friday, because he wasn't at the Inquest on the 3rd.

Round and round we go.

Have a good weekend.