Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[David Orsam]

Mike - I will comment below (in bold), having first taken the liberty of changing "O'Neill" to "Neil" and "inferring" to "implying" (you infer, I imply).

David's points:

1. Cross told Mizen he was wanted in Bucks's Row by a policeman. Yes
2. Neil came upon the body without prior knowledge of it. Yes
3. Mizen came upon Neil and assumed it was he who had sent for him. Yes
4. It was assumed by Neil that he had first discovered the body and this is what he told his superiors. Yes
5. This is what the early papers suggest Yes
6. The story changed after Paul's newspaper story Yes
7. No one saw anything strange about what Neil reported and what Paul said. No, this was not a point I made.

What David is implying:

1. Mizen said nothing to Neil, but just came in and supported him, not telling him that some men fetched him.

I am not implying this, it is the evidence. This is from the Evening Post of 1 September 1888: "Another constable [i.e. Mizen] passed along Baker’s-row, the next street and witness called to him to fetch the ambulance". That's all the evidence says passed between Neil and Mizen. There is no evidence that Mizen said anything at all to Neil. From the Morning Advertiser report of Mizen's evidence: "I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman." From his evidence, therefore, it seems that he did not even see the body of Nichols until he returned with the ambulance and helped to move the body.

2. No questions were asked by any higher officials because they knew no different than what Neil and Mizen told them. They didn't put the stories together because there was only Neil and Mizen's stories and they corroborated because nothing extra was said regarding Paul and Cross.

Sort of. I doubt Mizen spoke to any "higher officials". There was no need for Spratling to "corroborate" PC Neil's account.

3. The difference in stories only came out during the inquest.

No, I did not imply this unless by "came out" you mean in public.

4. After the inquest, there was no sorting out of the discrepancies.

I can't say because there is no clear evidence as to what happened about the discrepancy (singular) after the inquest. However, there is no evidence that it was "sorted out".

[David Orsam]

I have not missed any point. I know what your point is. I don't agree with it.

Fine, disagree with me but if you don't give coherent reasons for disagreeing it doesn't mean anything to me.

BTW, is there any particular reason why you say that "he would not have appreciated that he was mistaken over the weekend had it not been for the reports in the Sunday newspapers which set the investigating team off on new enquiries"?

Yes there is. Because he had completed his report as to the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the body and submitted it to the Assistant Commissioner at Scotland Yard.

[Chris]

So I absolutely maintain that "Once Inspector Spratling had sent his report to the Assistant Commissioner that was it for the police with regard to events surrounding the discovery of the body" - obviously unless any new facts emerged, which they did on the Sunday.

So if what you said in that post was dependent on no new facts emerging (it would have helped if you'd said that!), and we know that new facts did emerge, what was the relevance of it? What point were you trying to make? Why did you think it would "end this entire discussion".

[Chris]

However, the discussion continued to where we are today which has been in the context of Mizen telling the truth.

Not as far as my contributions to the discussion have been concerned.

[David Orsam]

Who said Spratling sent his report to the Assistant Commissioner?

I haven't seen the original but the Ultimate JTR Sourcebook states that Spratling's report was addressed as follows: "To/A.C. Constbl". The word "Constbl" must be a transcription error so that the correct addressee is "A.C. (CID)". A.C. stands for Assistant Commissioner.

[Chris]

In fairness Chris, you asked me to elaborate on this sentence which I did in a long post (#516) - but now you have come back to asking me about it, despite there now being no need for me to do so due to the elaboration!

If your "elaboration" had explained what I was asking about, I wouldn't have had to repeat my question! But if you really don't want to answer I'll be very happy to forget about it.

[Robert]

"Yes there is. Because he had completed his report as to the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the body and submitted it to the Assistant Commissioner at Scotland Yard."

How do you know that Crossmere did not go to the police Saturday night, or even Friday night?

[David Orsam]

How do you know that Crossmere did not go to the police Saturday night, or even Friday night?

My thinking has been fully set out in post #477 in this thread and there's no point in repeating myself.

[Robert]

From post #477 :

"Nor do we know when or how they located Cross, or when he came forward, nor do we know when they located Paul."

Therefore Cross could have come forward, or been located, any time between Friday night and Sunday night.


From post #538

"for the reasons I have already explained, he would not have appreciated that he was mistaken over the weekend had it not been for the reports in the Sunday newspapers which set the investigating team off on new enquiries."

If Cross came forward on the Friday or Saturday, the Sunday newspapers would have been irrelevant.

The accusation by Team Lechmere is that Cross only came forward after Paul's story was published. This looks rather bad for Cross, so I am trying to find out what basis there is for the accusation.

[Monty]

I haven't seen the original but the Ultimate JTR Sourcebook states that Spratling's report was addressed as follows: "To/A.C. Constbl". The word "Constbl" must be a transcription error so that the correct addressee is "A.C. (CID)". A.C. stands for Assistant Commissioner.

Its not a transcription error, to Assistant Chief Constable.

Monty

[Fisherman]

David Orsam!

I think you may be discussing the Lechmere case out here with the intent to actually win the discussion.

It would seem that you aspire to achieve that because you have the better and more logical arguments.

I also suspect that you think that these arguments should sway the ones you are debating with, on account of this superiority in logic and quality.

Without wishing to govern your choice of route in the argument, David, I would like to point out to you that you have already won the debate! You have acknowledged the facts, you have concluded from them and you have reached the only truly logical solutions.

That is the only victory that can be had out here. Luckily, it is similarly the only victory worth fighting for.

Believing that the other side will concede defeat is however a forlorn case. It is not an option and it never was.

Have a look, for example, how Robert now asks you how you know that Lechmere did not go to the police on Friday or Saturday!
Of course, we know very well that on Sunday evening, the police and Neil denied that two men were involved in the affair, and we know that this was due to the Paul interview surfacing.
The only logical conclusion is that Paul did not have the corroboration needed in Lechmere at this stage - otherwise, he would have been believed. We know that this happened when the police were faced with the testimony of BOTH carmen whereas one (Paul) was not enough to do the trick.

But such is the way things are argued from the opposing side, and anybody over there is supported by the rest of that fraction since they seemingly strive for the same goal - discrediting the Lechmere theory. Suggestions that Lechmere had no ties to Berner Street (after living very near it for thirty years) is the same kind of material - just as completely ridiculous, but when you point it out, the opposition gather around the ones who produce lines of thought like these like a hoard of muscoxens around a calf.

I am not telling you to stop making sense. Many will see that you do make a lot of sense, although they may not feel prepared to step into the fire to help you.
Not that you need any help; you are extremely clear and precise in your arguments, although it is led on that you are not - that belongs to the picture too.

I am glad to see that you profess not to think that Lechmere was the killer! It adds a lot weight to your arguments, since it is less easy to call you a raving madman because of that. It wrings a weapon out of the hands of those who argue against you. Observe, though, that you have already been ranked "a Lechmerian" (oh, the shame!) despite having positioned yourself as anything but it. That too is part of the game - it makes you fair game in another fashion.

I noticed that you say that you will question arguments that lack coherence, and you have answered up to that promise throughout, with honesty, a cool head and a lot of courtesy, in spite of always having been met with the same grace.

You have my admiration for that!

... but you are pointing to a potential solution to the Ripper case, and that is not looked kindly upon out here today - and it won´t be tomorrow either. So my advice - if I may be so bold - is that you take heart in having beaten the away team fair and square, and just let the lack of acknowledgement pass by.

Keep up the good work - and disregard the bad!

All the best,
Fisherman
off again

PS. As for me agreeing that the case against Lechmere goes away if he did not lie to Mizen, I don´t fully agree - but it would be a tough loss for the theory. To me, it is the clincher, more or less. But even without it, we will have a man found by a freshly killed woman, who lied about his name, who tallies geographically and timewise, we will have the anomaly with him and Paul not hearing each other, the pulled down dress etcetera - he is by far the best suspect anyway!

[Robert]

Thanks for that, Fish! BTW I was sorry to hear about the hiatus, and I hope the operation goes well.

[The Good Michael]

Mike - I will comment below (in bold), having first taken the liberty of changing "O'Neill" to "Neil" and "inferring" to "implying" (you infer, I imply).

I can't believe I said, "O'Neill. Thanks. Also, I was referring to what you inferred from the materials as a reader; your educated guess. I assumed your were inferring these things from what you've read.



Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi David,

Why do you choose to believe three policemen with very suspicious stories for the morning in question rather than Charles Cross/Lechmere/Crossmere?

Regards,

Simon

I thought I was the only one wondering where Neil was all morning.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stewart P Evans]

Transcription Error

I haven't seen the original but the Ultimate JTR Sourcebook states that Spratling's report was addressed as follows: "To/A.C. Constbl". The word "Constbl" must be a transcription error so that the correct addressee is "A.C. (CID)". A.C. stands for Assistant Commissioner.

There is indeed a transcription error and the report was submitted to the Assistant Commissioner CID, who was Alexander Carmichael Bruce standing in for Anderson at this time. Bruce has initialled the entry 'ACB' in his virtually illegible hand.

However, and it's a big however, the report was submitted to Bruce by the divisional superintendent. Shown on the previous page of the Ultimate details of the file cover are fully detailed starting 'J Division To the ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER etc..' with the submission date of 7.9.88. And here is shown 'To/AC(CID)/ACB' The ensuing text starting 'A report dated 31 August 1888, by Inspector John Spratling, is the first official summary of the murder of Mary Ann Nichols...' which is correct. The folio number of the file cover is 238 and the first page of the Spratling report is folio 239 (immediately following).

As a mere divisional uniformed inspector there is no way that Spratling would be submitting a report directly to the ACC. His report would be submitted to his immediate divisional supervising officer, in this case the Superintendent. Also included in this file cover was Helson's (J Division Local Inspector) report of 7 September 1888.

When involved in the immense task of transcribing the official files it was necessary to first sort them chronologically which meant mixing the MEPO (Police) files with the HO (Home Office) files, especially as these were mainly overall reports with much other material from a divisional level missing. As may well be imagined this involved quite a bit of cutting and pasting on the computer and it is to this that I must attribute the apparent error of the entry before Spratling's report, starting 'The cover [f 241] reads: C.O. Reference...' to '...To Col P[] for information [missing]' which should precede Spratling's report and the one shown on the previous page is the one which should precede Helson's report.

Anyway, well spotted David and I have more to say on this.