Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Monty]

Apologies to you David,

I was wrong, and you were correct.

[Stewart P Evans]

Folio Numbering

Further to my preceding post it appears that the Public Record Office's folio numbering may have contributed to the mix-up as the file cover last referred to dated 31.8.88 is folio 241 and the following folio pagination, i.e. folios 242-256, are Inspector Abberline's lengthy report of 19th September 1888, to which the cover does not refer. This file cover is shown as passed through the Superintendent on 31.8.88 'To/AC(CID/. To Col. Pearson for information. [part missing]'.

From all of the above I now read it as the file cover numbered folio 241 relates to Spratling's report of 31 August 1888, whilst the file cover numbered folio 238 relates to Helson's report of 7 September 1888. All very confusing and it certainly highlights the dangers inherent in the transcription of old files. These corrections will have to be addressed should the Ultimate be reprinted at any time. The dates on the actual reports, however, indicate the fact that the folio numbering is incorrect.

[Stewart P Evans]

And now...

And now I'm confused...

But, basically, the file cover in the Ultimate attributed to Spratling's report is correctly attributed, and Spratling's report should be followed by the file cover detailed on the first page of the chapter which relates to Helson's report.

Clear as mud.

[Monty]

And now I'm confused...

The joys of MEPO files Stewart..I swear its a ploy.

Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

Submission of reports

To return to the submission of these reports, this was always done upwards through the chain of command. Spratling reported to his divisional supervisor, then the divisional supervisor signed or initialled the report, onwards and upwards. The Assistant Commissioner (Crime) was the ultimate destination.

[Stewart P Evans]

Might have helped...

The joys of MEPO files Stewart..I swear its a ploy.
Monty

It might have helped if the PRO got their page numbering in the correct sequence.

[Monty]

It might have helped if the PRO got their page numbering in the correct sequence.

Indeed. I'm sorry to report that things haven't improved. I recently found mislabelling of two MEPO 7 books. Lucky I needed both anyway.

Monty

[Robert]

Thanks once again to Stewart for his monumental work on the Sourcebook.

[eighty-eighter]

As this thread is called "lets get Lechmere off the hook" so....

Two possible explanations that might explain Lechmere's comment about a pc waiting at the murder site for pc Mizen. The first is a reason for a lie the second is a totally off the wall explanation that could mean he actually told the truth:

1. His intentional lie: Lechmere simply feared being dragged back to the murder scene to become deeper embroiled with the police, either because he had something to hide (he carried a weapon) or he knew he would be docked wages at work for being late, and if he carried a knife he'd expect to be arrested as a suspect.

Next I've gone the other extreme from dull to daftly radical:

2. As Lechmere and Paul walked away down Bucks Row from the murder scene in search of assistance, just before turning out of the Row, Lechmere happened to glance back. Now we get into the realms of fantasy of course, but its just a theory; he sees a light beside the place where Nichols body lies. Now I think its been decided that no policeman would have reached the scene that quickly, so did the light belong to the killer? Presumably had Lechmere have seen a light he would at once associate it with a policeman at that time. Lets just suppose our Jacky had got himself a light, the same ones as used by the police, to aid his "artistic carvings".
Now taking this further (this might turn into a long strand of spaghetti that can't be swallowed!), both Cross/Lechmere and Paul testified that there was no blood by or on the body whatsoever, and indeed no evidence of a violent assault let alone murder. In fact Paul thought he felt breath and remarked that she was still warm. He wanted to sit her up in fact. Neither man wanted to turn back at that stage as it would have made them even later for work, they probably both secretly hoped that as there was a pc at the scene now they didn't meet one.
Now suppose the killer, our Jack, had been disturbed immediately after strangling Nichols before he could use his knife - in other words he'd heard the approach of Lechmere's boots on the cobbles from some distance, and had to rapidly abscond from the scene. Was he watching from a safe distance out of the shadows? Then when he saw the two men leave the scene pretty quickly without any obvious panic, he might have reasoned that they thought that she was only drunk and not dead, this of course being routine for the area. Jacky being the risk taker he was decided to return and finish the job so that he could really get his "jollies" for the night. Once he'd estimated it was safe to do so he lit-up to enable his handiwork, but what if he'd lit-up a fraction too early; wasn't Lechmere walking slightly behind Paul?
We know he slit her throat deeply from ear to ear, just to make certain she was dead presumably, then next he got to work in his favourite area down below, when would you believe it he heard footsteps again. "What's a killer got to do to be left alone"? He extinguishes his light and absconds again, this time for good. The policeman arrives on the scene and voila! there is fresh blood just seeping out of the wounds.
Of note is the fact that from this murder onwards Jack preferred to take his victims off the pavements and down passages, yards and the suchlike. Of course he's less likely to be disturbed, but also could it have been because he could "light up" without fear of prying eyes?
Now I'm not saying he dressed like a bobby, that would be totally "out there", but just add a light to his small repertoire of tools and you have not only illumination for his rooting around in the abdomens of his victims allowing for more specifically detailed cutting work (and would explain the light seen in Millers Court possibly in addition to the small fire), in what were very dark streets indeed, especially in those yards etc. off the beaten track, but also would be an explanation for Lechmere thinking a bobby was at the scene.

[Robert]

Hi eighty-eighter

Well, this makes Jack a very unlucky murderer indeed. I picture a kind of Victor Meldrew character :

(Cross approaches) "Who the bloody hell is this?"
(Neil approaches) "Who the bloody hell is this?"
(Cadoche comes into his yard) "Who the bloody hell is this?"
(Diemschutz arrives) "Who the bloody hell is this?"
(Watkins's footsteps heard) "Who the bloody hell is this?"
(Kelly murder) "Peace and quiet! I don't belieeeeve it!"

No offence, eighty-eighter - just a bit of fun.

[eighty-eighter]

Hi eighty-eighter

Well, this makes Jack a very unlucky murderer indeed. I picture a kind of Victor Meldrew character :

(Cross approaches) "Who the bloody hell is this?"
(Neil approaches) "Who the bloody hell is this?"
(Cadoche comes into his yard) "Who the bloody hell is this?"
(Diemschutz arrives) "Who the bloody hell is this?"
(Watkins's footsteps heard) "Who the bloody hell is this?"
(Kelly murder) "Peace and quiet! I don't belieeeeve it!"

No offence, eighty-eighter - just a bit of fun.

lol yeah he had to take a room in the end just to get some peace and quiet.

[Chris]

Yes, I think it would be very common that the coroner would have something before him--if not police statements, then statements that the coroner's officers obtained from their preliminary inquiries. They'd speak with relevant people and then report to the coroner and he would decide whether or not to hold an inquest.

As most inquests weren't these very big murder inquests we're more concerned with here, with very many witnesses and where I should think the coroner would greatly rely upon police work, but rather smaller affairs of just a few witnesses, it's the work of the officers that's very commonly found in Macdonald's records (Macdonald's are the records I've gone through). These statements vary in how extensive they are, but it's often that they're in the depositions themselves. It's not always possible to say what was written when, but there are plenty enough clear examples that I can say that often the officers prepared the page for Macdonald, putting out more or less a few lines for each witness and then leaving spacing for Macdonald to add information as he chose while he questioned the witness.

Thanks very much for these comments.

Perhaps I have a rather jaundiced view of police attitudes to evidence through having looked at mid-20th-century miscarriages of justice. In that later period I don't think there would have been any question of an impartial person being allowed to see police statements taken in the course of a criminal investigation. The information in them was very much reserved for the prosecution's eyes only.

[David Orsam]

many thanks

I am extremely grateful to Stewart P. Evans for taking the time to clarify matters in such helpful detail. In my own research into the Camden Town murder of 1907 I was aware that Local Inspector Neil (no relation to John) of CID (Y Division) submitted his handwritten reports for approval to his superintendent (usually Supt Vedy) who would counter-sign them and then forward them on to the AC. I assumed that Inspector Spratling's report of 31 Aug was presented to Superintendent Keating (whose name appears at the foot of the report) and then forwarded to the AC in the same way (I wasn't suggesting that Spratling sent the report directly to the AC himself). I think - as I read it - that Stewart has confirmed this procedure and my thanks to him for troubling to do so given the obviously complicated arrangement of the MEPO file.

I am now off to read Monty's book which has arrived from Amazon and to fully educate myself in the workings of the police in 1888; at first glance it looks like it is packed with facts, which I love.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi David. Have your Islington and Camden murder books been reviewed in Ripperologist? If not, I'll volunteer for the job.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

We can all take an educated guess where PC Neil had been that morning, in spite of the Crossmere TV Doc avoiding the fact that PC Neil's beat included Winthrop Street.

I trust you're well and enjoying all the perks of a best-selling author.

Regards,

Simon