Pickford & Co.

[John Wheat]

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.

So what? Doesn't stop me being correct.

[rjpalmer]

Its a very good bet that Lechmere came forward Sunday afternoon or evening.

Personally, it's not a bet that I'd make.

One of the arguments that Stow uses to demonstrate that the police (other than Mizen) remained entirely obviously to Paul and Cross's existence until Sunday night or Monday morning is Inspector Spratling's report of 31 August 1888.

This gives an account of the events of that morning in Buck's Row but doesn't mention either Cross or Paul.

This Stow interprets as evidence of Spratling's ignorance.

However, there's another way of looking at it.

1. Spratling does mention Mizen (whom he calls Smizen) and indicates that he's an H-Division PC, and thus not part of his own men: J-Division. So, Spratling is clearly aware that another division's beat constable has left his beat and was on his patch, which would require explanation. More on this in a second.

2. As an experienced officer, who must have had to write reports quite often, as well as appear in court, or at inquests, Spratling would have known the rules of evidence and thus would limit his report to first-hand knowledge instead of sprinkling it with hearsay. He hadn't actually seen Cross, nor Paul, so it would have been better to leave it to H-Division to pass along that specific information.

3. Finally, professional courtesy.

Since Mizen did leave his beat and hadn't questioned the two carmen further or take their names, there might have been some slight hint of impropriety or incompetence about the whole affair; even though Mizen's actions weren't necessarily against regulations, they still constituted another reason Spratling would have left it to H-Division to write their own report. I suspect that it is fairly common among police departments or divisions not to 'drop one another in it.'

That's how I see it.

[rjpalmer]

obliviously = oblivious.

I hate autocorrect.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Personally, it's not a bet that I'd make.

One of the arguments that Stow uses to demonstrate that the police (other than Mizen) remained entirely obviously to Paul and Cross's existence until Sunday night or Monday morning is Inspector Spratling's report of 31 August 1888.

This gives an account of the events of that morning in Buck's Row but doesn't mention either Cross or Paul.

This Stow interprets as evidence of Spratling's ignorance.

However, there's another way of looking at it.

1. Spratling does mention Mizen (whom he calls Smizen) and indicates that he's an H-Division PC, and thus not part of his own men: J-Division. So, Spratling is clearly aware that another division's beat constable has left his beat and was on his patch, which would require explanation. More on this in a second.

2. As an experienced officer, who must have had to write reports quite often, as well as appear in court, or at inquests, Spratling would have known the rules of evidence and thus would limit his report to first-hand knowledge instead of sprinkling it with hearsay. He hadn't actually seen Cross, nor Paul, so it would have been better to leave it to H-Division to pass along that specific information.

3. Finally, professional courtesy.

Since Mizen did leave his beat and hadn't questioned the two carmen further or take their names, there might have been some slight hint of impropriety or incompetence about the whole affair; even though Mizen's actions weren't necessarily against regulations, they still constituted another reason Spratling would have left it to H-Division to write their own report. I suspect that it is fairly common among police departments or divisions not to 'drop one another in it.'

That's how I see it.

Hi Roger,

Isn’t it just down to when Spratling wrote his report? Surely he’d have completed it before Robert Paul spoke to Lloyd’s, after returning from work, to spill the beans about his and Cross’s involvement? I can’t see how Stow can use this to imply anything? Cross could have gone to the police on Saturday after he finished work. Maybe he saw a copy of Lloyd’s during the day or someone told him that Paul had come forward. Cross could have intended all along to go to the police but didn’t want to lose time and money from work. Or perhaps he was hoping that Paul wouldn’t come forward meaning that he wouldn’t need to get involved and have to attend an inquest (again losing time from work) So Spratling writes his report before he learned about Paul and Cross.

[rjpalmer]

I can’t see how Stow can use this to imply anything? Cross could have gone to the police on Saturday after he finished work. Maybe he saw a copy of Lloyd’s during the day or someone told him that Paul had come forward. Cross could have intended all along to go to the police but didn’t want to lose time and money from work.

Hi Herlock.

I think you mean Sunday and not Saturday?

The Lloyd's piece didn't appear until Sunday morning, 2 September, so that's the earliest Cross could have seen it.

Stow's belief is that no one in the police knew of Paul or the other carman until Paul's statement appeared in the newspapers that Sunday. Stow also cites Helson's statement the previous day (Saturday) that makes no mention of two carmen, but only describes PC Neil as finding the body.

Thus, his conclusion is that Cross aka Lechmere had no attention of every coming forward until Paul 'ran to the newspapers' and spilled the beans. He had scurried off into the woodwork.

My argument is that the non-mentioning of the carmen by Spratling or Helson doesn't allow us to draw that conclusion, for a variety of reasons.

One of the best has already been put forward by Dr. Strange back on May 11th--the police had heard about them, but were conducting inquiries and/or interviews:

--

"A telling piece of information from Abberline at Saturday's inquest,

"This being the whole of the evidence to be taken that day, Inspector Abberline asked for an adjournment of some length, as certain things were coming to the knowledge of the police, and they wished for time to make inquiries."

So what was the only new evidence produced on the following Monday?

Not the slaughtermen as Baxter specifically asked for them to appear on the Monday,

"The coroner replied that he should like to hear on Monday the two butchers who had been referred to ..."

Not the husband as the jury specially asked for him,

"A juryman - Can we have the husband? Inspector Abberline - Yes, sir."

That just leaves Cross, Paul and Mizen as the "certain things (that) were coming to the knowledge of the police ... they wished for time to make inquiries."

--

Personally, I think it is entirely natural that Mizen would have mentioned the two carmen on Friday morning--to his sergeant or to his duty inspector at the very least--in order to explain why he had left his beat.

We have no idea when Cross or Paul went to the police. I don't know Ed's current thinking, but in an old post he states that Paul wasn't dragged out of bed by the police until after the Chapman murder.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock.

I think you mean Sunday and not Saturday?

The Lloyd's piece didn't appear until Sunday morning, 2 September, so that's the earliest Cross could have seen it.

Stow's belief is that no one in the police knew of Paul or the other carman until Paul's statement appeared in the newspapers that Sunday. Stow also cites Helson's statement the previous day (Saturday) that makes no mention of two carmen, but only describes PC Neil as finding the body.

Thus, his conclusion is that Cross aka Lechmere had no attention of every coming forward until Paul 'ran to the newspapers' and spilled the beans. He had scurried off into the woodwork.

My argument is that the non-mentioning of the carmen by Spratling or Helson doesn't allow us to draw that conclusion, for a variety of reasons.

One of the best has already been put forward by Dr. Strange back on May 11th--the police had heard about them, but were conducting inquiries and/or interviews:

--

"A telling piece of information from Abberline at Saturday's inquest,

"This being the whole of the evidence to be taken that day, Inspector Abberline asked for an adjournment of some length, as certain things were coming to the knowledge of the police, and they wished for time to make inquiries."

So what was the only new evidence produced on the following Monday?

Not the slaughtermen as Baxter specifically asked for them to appear on the Monday,

"The coroner replied that he should like to hear on Monday the two butchers who had been referred to ..."

Not the husband as the jury specially asked for him,

"A juryman - Can we have the husband? Inspector Abberline - Yes, sir."

That just leaves Cross, Paul and Mizen as the "certain things (that) were coming to the knowledge of the police ... they wished for time to make inquiries."

--

Personally, I think it is entirely natural that Mizen would have mentioned the two carmen on Friday morning--to his sergeant or to his duty inspector at the very least--in order to explain why he had left his beat.

We have no idea when Cross or Paul went to the police. I don't know Ed's current thinking, but in an old post he states that Paul wasn't dragged out of bed by the police until after the Chapman murder.

Hi Roger,

A stupid error from me made worse by the fact that we had discussed this not long ago. Yes, I hadn’t taken into consideration that it was Lloyd’s WEEKLY and not a daily newspaper. I’ve been trying to stop making ‘a quick posts’ on any toxic but I fell into the trap.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock.

I think you mean Sunday and not Saturday?

The Lloyd's piece didn't appear until Sunday morning, 2 September, so that's the earliest Cross could have seen it.

Stow's belief is that no one in the police knew of Paul or the other carman until Paul's statement appeared in the newspapers that Sunday. Stow also cites Helson's statement the previous day (Saturday) that makes no mention of two carmen, but only describes PC Neil as finding the body.

Thus, his conclusion is that Cross aka Lechmere had no attention of every coming forward until Paul 'ran to the newspapers' and spilled the beans. He had scurried off into the woodwork.

My argument is that the non-mentioning of the carmen by Spratling or Helson doesn't allow us to draw that conclusion, for a variety of reasons.

One of the best has already been put forward by Dr. Strange back on May 11th--the police had heard about them, but were conducting inquiries and/or interviews:

--

"A telling piece of information from Abberline at Saturday's inquest,

"This being the whole of the evidence to be taken that day, Inspector Abberline asked for an adjournment of some length, as certain things were coming to the knowledge of the police, and they wished for time to make inquiries."

So what was the only new evidence produced on the following Monday?

Not the slaughtermen as Baxter specifically asked for them to appear on the Monday,

"The coroner replied that he should like to hear on Monday the two butchers who had been referred to ..."

Not the husband as the jury specially asked for him,

"A juryman - Can we have the husband? Inspector Abberline - Yes, sir."

That just leaves Cross, Paul and Mizen as the "certain things (that) were coming to the knowledge of the police ... they wished for time to make inquiries."

--

Personally, I think it is entirely natural that Mizen would have mentioned the two carmen on Friday morning--to his sergeant or to his duty inspector at the very least--in order to explain why he had left his beat.

We have no idea when Cross or Paul went to the police. I don't know Ed's current thinking, but in an old post he states that Paul wasn't dragged out of bed by the police until after the Chapman murder.

I agree. Dusty’s suggestion makes perfect sense but I would also add that even if Cross had no intention of coming forward this still doesn’t allow anyone to imply that his behaviour was suspicious. There’s nothing strange about someone preferring not to get involved, especially if it meant losing time from work. And standing up at a public inquest can be an ordeal for many people. My sister-in-law was petrified recently just at the thought have having to do jury duty and no one would call her a shy person.

[Geddy2112]

Awesome post/points again RJ.

Thus, his conclusion is that Cross aka Lechmere had no attention of every coming forward until Paul 'ran to the newspapers' and spilled the beans. He had scurried off into the woodwork.

Stow also uses this 'dobbing' in to the papers as the reason he killed in Hanbury Street as revenge over Robert Paul. He states in his HoL video that Lechmere deliberately went with Paul so he could find out where he worked and thus was able to kill there the following week as revenge and in the hope of fingering Paul with the Bucks Row murder as well.

The two obvious problems with this claim are that at the time of walking Paul to work Lechmere did not know he had been dobbed in so no need to find out where he worked for that reason and of course he did not know he was under suspicion for murdering Polly. More fabrication on Stow's part.

[rjpalmer]

The two obvious problems with this claim are that at the time of walking Paul to work Lechmere did not know he had been dobbed in so no need to find out where he worked for that reason and of course he did not know he was under suspicion for murdering Polly. More fabrication on Stow's part.

Hi Geddy,

this is going to be a bit convoluted so please bear with me.

I suppose that the Stow/Holmgren argument would be that Lechmere was a psychopathic mastermind of the Netflix variety and having nearly been caught in the act by Robert Paul, he quickly realized that he must somehow 'deal' with him if the need arose.

But instead of simply not alerting Paul to the woman on the pavement to begin with, or walking behind Paul and slitting his throat, or sprinting away, Lechmere instead conceived a clever plan to learn Paul's identity and place of work so he could frame him if necessary--that is, if Paul was rash enough to 'run to the newspapers.'

However, there's a bit of a contradiction here, isn't there?

"Newbie" has already thrown a spanner into the machinery of Ed's theory by insisting that Lechmere's arrival in Buck's Row ahead of Paul--a fact that Lechmere himself readily admitted to at the inquest on Monday--has conclusively 'alibied' Paul. And Ed himself has argued that the idea of Paul 'running around the block' after killing Polly is a ridiculous one.

So how does the theory of Lechmere framing Paul hold together? If Paul came forward, Lechmere could hardly go back and insist that Paul had been there ahead of him---so unless Stow also admits that Lechmere's brilliant plan to frame Paul acknowledges that the police would have been willing to think that Paul had 'gone around the block' (or return to the scene of the crime by some other means) doesn't the whole theory fall apart?

In other words, on one hand Stow argues that the idea that Paul is the murderer is a lame one.

On the other hand, Stow argues that that is precisely what the clever Lechmere wanted us to believe--or the police to believe.

[Fiver]

Stow also uses this 'dobbing' in to the papers as the reason he killed in Hanbury Street as revenge over Robert Paul. He states in his HoL video that Lechmere deliberately went with Paul so he could find out where he worked and thus was able to kill there the following week as revenge and in the hope of fingering Paul with the Bucks Row murder as well.

The two obvious problems with this claim are that at the time of walking Paul to work Lechmere did not know he had been dobbed in so no need to find out where he worked for that reason and of course he did not know he was under suspicion for murdering Polly. More fabrication on Stow's part.

There are more problems with Stow's idea.

Paul was not the only man who had seen Lechmere, there was also PC Mizen. Even if Paul had never told a soul, Lechmere could expect Mizen to tell the other police.

And neither Paul nor Mizen knew who Lechmere was, where he lived, or where he worked. They couldn't dob Lechmere even if they wanted to.

[Geddy2112]

"Newbie" has already thrown a spanner into the machinery of Ed's theory by insisting that Lechmere's arrival in Buck's Row ahead of Paul--a fact that Lechmere himself readily admitted to at the inquest on Monday--has conclusively 'alibied' Paul. And Ed himself has argued that the idea of Paul 'running around the block' after killing Polly is a ridiculous one.

So how does the theory of Lechmere framing Paul hold together? If Paul came forward, Lechmere could hardly go back and insist that Paul had been there ahead of him---so unless Stow also admits that Lechmere's brilliant plan to frame Paul acknowledges that the police would have been willing to think that Paul had 'gone around the block' (or return to the scene of the crime by some other means) doesn't the whole theory fall apart?

In other words, on one hand Stow argues that the idea that Paul is the murderer is a lame one.

On the other hand, Stow argues that that is precisely what the clever Lechmere wanted us to believe--or the police to believe.

Basically that is it in a nutshell. But with most of the Lechmere theory they like to have it just one way and use that evidence one way, when the other side of the coin is presented the word salad comes out in a poor attempt at diversion, if that fails the petty insults come out.

We have Christer claiming it is nearly impossible (odds wise) that there would be two evisceration serial killers at large at the same time in the same city. Ok fair enough. However when these same 'odds' are applied to the following...

A serial killer killing in a street they travelled six days a week on their way to work as they were going to work.
A person finding a body in a street turning out to be a serial killer.
A serial killer stopping the first passer by they could instead of fleeing.
A serial killer accompanying said passer-by to find the nearest Policeman with the weapon on them.

...that is extremely possible in all cases even though there has never been an instance of this happening in criminal history.

[Newbie]

Hi Geddy,

this is going to be a bit convoluted so please bear with me.

I suppose that the Stow/Holmgren argument would be that Lechmere was a psychopathic mastermind of the Netflix variety and having nearly been caught in the act by Robert Paul, he quickly realized that he must somehow 'deal' with him if the need arose.

But instead of simply not alerting Paul to the woman on the pavement to begin with, or walking behind Paul and slitting his throat, or sprinting away, Lechmere instead conceived a clever plan to learn Paul's identity and place of work so he could frame him if necessary--that is, if Paul was rash enough to 'run to the newspapers.'

However, there's a bit of a contradiction here, isn't there?

"Newbie" has already thrown a spanner into the machinery of Ed's theory by insisting that Lechmere's arrival in Buck's Row ahead of Paul--a fact that Lechmere himself readily admitted to at the inquest on Monday--has conclusively 'alibied' Paul. And Ed himself has argued that the idea of Paul 'running around the block' after killing Polly is a ridiculous one.

So how does the theory of Lechmere framing Paul hold together? If Paul came forward, Lechmere could hardly go back and insist that Paul had been there ahead of him---so unless Stow also admits that Lechmere's brilliant plan to frame Paul acknowledges that the police would have been willing to think that Paul had 'gone around the block' (or return to the scene of the crime by some other means) doesn't the whole theory fall apart?

In other words, on one hand Stow argues that the idea that Paul is the murderer is a lame one.

On the other hand, Stow argues that that is precisely what the clever Lechmere wanted us to believe--or the police to believe.

I endorse this whole heartedly and am glad I could be of help RJ!

[Geddy2112]

I endorse this whole heartedly and am glad I could be of help RJ!

So now you are anti-Lechmere?