The Lechmere trail - so far

[Jon Guy]

They are very much more credible, not least since they quote Lechmere ad verbatim in two cases (The Echo and The Morning Advertiser). They are independent of each other, but for two overlapping ones, otherwise they are unalike each other and in corroboration about who suggested the propping up.

The result has been that it is universally accepted that Lechmere was the man who refused to help prop Nichols up.

Lloyds and the Telegraph have the same article. That means that there is no corroboration. It also applies that the sentence following the propping up business is the exact same in both Lloyds and the Telegraph - the one about how they heard a policeman arriving. That is factually wrong, as far as we can tell, implicating that these papers are perhaps not very reliable in this errand.

Okay, thanks for your opinion.

[Hercule Poirot]

Police follow-up

Hi Fish,
Given the contradictions you have pointed out between Paul, Cross and Mizen's testimony (either lying, misleading or misunderstanding) and they are serious, I keep asking myself why the police didn't do any follow-up after the inquest to get things strait. It was said, if I'm correct, that although he began after Nichol's death, Abberline was at the inquest and we know he was quite methodical in his work. Scotland Yard's missing pieces of documentary evidence would probably tell us more but it's gone! Then again, no follow-up has been mentioned by the press perhaps because nothing was actually done.

May I ask you for your opinion on this aspect?

Cheers,
Hercule

[Abby Normal]

I'd prefer to focus on the positive. As I said, that's a poor word. Let's just say that I find it quite unconvincing and leave it at that. I know you believe in it. I don't think it's productive to rehash it.

Hi Patrick
We have a policeman on oath on record saying that lech told him he was wanted by another PC in Bucks row. Lech denied this. so 50/50 he said he said. Usually the court and people in general (me included) would go with the police in something like this, but well give the benefit of the doubt and leave it at 50/50.

we believe lech and well its just a simple misunderstanding (which in my opinion its all it was).

However, if Mizen was not mistaken, and Lech really did tell him that- we need to consider why. One explanation would be that it would help get him past the policeman for whatever reason-maybe he didnt want to be late for work and/or he was guilty.

Honestly IMHO the Mizen scam is one of weaker aspects of the argument, but there is no denying that there is evry possibility that Mizen could have been correct in what Lech told him. Again a discrepency that needs explaining.

[Fisherman]

Thanks for posting the above examples, Christer
Yes, there are more examples of Cross being the prop refuser, but where do these papers stand in respect of veracity in comparison to Lloyds ?

They are very much more credible, not least since they quote Lechmere ad verbatim in two cases (The Echo and The Morning Advertiser). They are independent of each other, but for two overlapping ones, otherwise they are unalike each other and in corroboration about who suggested the propping up.

The result has been that it is universally accepted that Lechmere was the man who refused to help prop Nichols up.

Lloyds and the Telegraph have the same article. That means that there is no corroboration. It also applies that the sentence following the propping up business is the exact same in both Lloyds and the Telegraph - the one about how they heard a policeman arriving. That is factually wrong, as far as we can tell, implicating that these papers are perhaps not very reliable in this errand.

[Fisherman]

I'd prefer to focus on the positive. As I said, that's a poor word. Let's just say that I find it quite unconvincing and leave it at that. I know you believe in it. I don't think it's productive to rehash it.

I disagree - when you use a wording like "laughable", I think you owe it to the accused party to defend himself. You now downgrade the scorn to "quite unconvincing", which is a bit odd.

But I am happy to present why the suggestion is anything but laughable even if you are not willing to substantiate yourself.

The so called Mizen scam deals with three purported lies served by Charles Lechmere to PC Jonas Mizen a couple of minutes after the former had left the body of Polly Nichols lying in the street up in Bucks Row, travelling together with fellow carman Robert Paul with the aim to find a PC to report their find to.

Lie number one: Charles Lechmere said at the inquest that he thought that the woman was dead. It is reasonable to suggest that he was under an obligation to tell PC Mizen that the errand was in all probability a very grave one.
But no matter which source we look at, it is clear that Mizen only professes to have been told that a woman was lying flat on her back in Bucks Row. Mizen specifically says that the carman never said anything about any murder or suicide.
In conclusion, Lechmere either played down the seriousness, or Mizen misunderstood him. Alternatively, Mizen lied.
The scam theory suggests that Lechmere lied in order not to have Mizen realizing that he may have had a grave crime on his hands. Such an insight would probably have been combined with a lot more interest from Mizens side, quite possibly detaining the carmen.
As it was, he was told a story that pointed to a drunken woman having passed out.

Lie number two: PC Mizen was adamant that he was told by Lechmere that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row. Lechmere denied having said such a thing.
The same options apply: Either Lechmere lied, Mizen misunderstood or Mizen lied.
What we can see is that Mizens actions are in complete agreement with having been told that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row.
If he had not been told this, then he would have been certain that the carmen had been the real finders of the body.
Nevertheless, his colleague Neil laid claim to have been the finder, and stated that he had not been led to the site by two men. There was such a rumour, owing to Pauls paper interview.
If Mizen had thought that the carmen had been the finders, then he would have been able to inform his superiors that Neil was wrong. It is apparent that no such information ever reached Mizens superiors, since Neil was allowed to tell the papers and the inquest alike that he found the body.
The Mizen scam theory predisposes that Lechmere lied in order to convince Mizen that his collegue had already met the carmen and decided that they were innocent passers-by - meaning that they were already checked and cleared by that colleague (who never existed).

Lie number three: Lechmere claimed that both he and Paul spoke to PC Mizen, whereas Mizen clearly stated that it was Lechmere who spoke to him. He even had to be reminded by the coroner that there was another carman in place in Bakers Row, before he remembered and acknowledged Paul.
Once again, Lechmere could have lied about it. It also applies that Mizen could have lied about it. But he could hardly have forgotten that both men spoke to him, instead claiming that Lechmere was the messenger.
It has in the other two cases of lies been suggested that Mizen stood to gain from lying in order to cover his own back, but that is not true. Mizen did not do anything that was in conflict with protocol.
And when it comes to this lie, it is hard to see that Mizen would stand to gain anything from not acknowledging that both men spoke to him.
The Mizen scam theory works from the assumption that Lechmere kept Paul out of earshot as he lied to Mizen, so that Paul could not corroborate Mizen afterwards.

So there is not just the one lie involved - there are three suggested lies, and they all are in line with a consistent behaviour of wanting to get past the police on Lechmere´s behalf.

To add to this, we know that Lechmere served the inquest a name that was not the name he always otherwise used in contacts with the authorities. It can therefore be suggested that we are looking at a number of isolated details/lies that are all in line with each other and logical parts of an overall deception.

There are very clear indictations that the carman was economic with the truth.
We also know that Jonas Mizen was a man with an impeccable service record and a religious conviction. We know that he went on to spend his life after leaving the police force, taking over and tending the family farm with great success and with no recorded problems at all.

It is anybody´s prerogative to choose actively to believe that the carman was not lying, although a very clear consistency can be pointed to if he lied.

I fail to see, however, that the suggestion that the carman lied his way past the police on the murder morning would be in any way laughable. It is a logical chain of events, it all serves the same purpose, he can be shown to have presented the inquest with a name he otherwise did not use with the authorities, quite possibly implicating him as dishonest.

If we are to believe that Mizen misheard what Lechmere told him, then that does not explain why he and Lechmere claim different things about who spoke to the PC on the murder night. Couple this insight with the fact that we normally do not mishear things like these (the absolute bulk of spoken messages is heard and interpreted correctly) and the implications are that the carman was the liar.

If we are to reason that Mizen lied to save his skin, then we need to produce a skin that needed saving first - he was not in conflict with protocol. It also applies that we know that Jonas Mizen was graded quite highly as a serving officer.

Once again, it seems that the only interpretation that is not in conflict with what we know, is that Charles Lechmere lied to Jonas Mizen.

It can be argued that we know of no suspicious behavior on behalf of Lechmere in his everyday life. That is true - but we do not have him overall graded as we have Mizen. All we have on Lechmere is his behaviour on the murder morning and at the ensuing inquest - and there are many things that seem to point to a suspicious behaviour in there.

Once again I ask, Patrick: What is laughable about this? Where are the logical flaws? Where are the inconsistencies? Where does the theory not hang together? Why is it a so much better suggestion that Lechmere did NOT lie, that it actually becomes laughable to suggest that he did?

It would be prudent of you to come clear on this point and not leave it hanging in the air.

[Jon Guy]

Aha – well, thanks, Jon. I normally say that this case takes a lot of reading and weighing before you can understand it. I am listing ten different sources here under, so that you can see them and judge for yourself. Let´s begin with the seven that tell us that Paul was the man who suggested the propping up, and Lechmere was the man who denied to do it
The anomaly is total, of course: if you call another man to assist in helping a woman lying in the street, then why would you not even prop her up afterwards...?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The witness said, "Come and look over here. There's a woman." They both went across to the body, and the witness took hold of the hands while the other man stopped over her head to look at her. The hands were cold and limp, and the witness said, "I believe she's dead." Then he touched her face, which felt warm. The other man placed his hand on her heart, saying, "I think she's breathing, but it's very little if she is." He suggested that they should "shift her," meaning in the witness's opinion that they should seat her upright. The witness replied, "I am not going to touch her."*
Daily News

The witness said, "Come and look over here. There's a woman". They both went across to the body, and the witness took hold of the hands while the other man stooped over her head to look at her. The hands were cold and limp, and the witness said, "I believe she's dead." Then he touched her face, which felt warm. The other man placed his hand on her heart, saying, "I think she's breathing, but it's very little if she is." He suggested that they should "shift her", meaning in the witness's opinion that they should seat her upright. The witness replied, "I am not going to touch her."
East London Observer

When he came, I said to him, "Come and look over here. There's a woman." We then both went over to the body. He stooped one side of her, and I stooped the other, and took hold of her hand, which was cold. Her face was warm. I said to the man, "I believe the woman is dead." The other man at the same time, put his hand on her breast over her heart and remarked, "I think she is breathing, but very little, if she is." He then said, "Sit her up," I replied, "I'm not going to touch her. You had better go on, and if you see a policeman tell him."
The Echo

*The other man put his head on her heart saying, "I think she's breathing, but it is very little if she is." The man suggested that they should "shift her," meaning to set her upright. Witness answered, "I am not going to touch her."
Illustrated Police News

We then both went over to the body. I bent over her head and touched her hand, which was cold. I said, "She is dead." The other man, after he had felt her heart, said, "Yes, she is." He then suggested that we should shift her, but I said, "No, let us go and tell a policeman."
Morning Advertiser

*They both went to the body and stooped beside it. Witness took the woman's hand, and finding it cold said, "I believe she's dead." The other man put his hand on the breast outside the clothes - over her heart - and said, "I think she's breathing, but very little." He suggested they should shift her - set her up against the wall - but witness said, "I'm not going to touch her. Let's go on till we see a policeman and tell him."
The Star

*Witness, having felt one of the deceased woman's hands and finding it cold, said "I believe she is dead." The other man, having put his hand over her heart, said "I think she is breathing." He wanted witness to assist in shifting her, but he would not do so.*
The Times

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now for the two that have it the other way around. Note that they have the exact same wording and therefore also the exact same source.

The other man, placing his hand on her heart, said, "I think she is breathing, but very little if she is." Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her.**Just then they heard a policeman coming.
Lloyds Weekly

The other man, placing his hand on her heart, said "I think she is breathing, but very little if she is." Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her. *Just then they heard a policeman coming.
Daily Telegraph

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And here is the final bid, The East London Advertiser. Note how they leave Lechmere out totally. Such was the degree of interest he was awarded – Dew forgot his name in his memoirs, and the police on the whole seemingly never checked him out in spite of him having been found close by the victim all alone.


On its resumption on Monday, Inspector Spratling deposed that at about 4 o'clock on Friday morning he received information as to the finding of the body of the deceased. Before he reached the spot the body had been removed to the mortuary. The witness examined the under garments and discovered severe injuries to the abdomen. He at once sent for Dr. Llewellyn. He did not notice any blood marks between the groin and the knees, and there was no evidence of the skirt having been washed. He had examined Buck's-row and the neighbourhood, but he had not found any bloodstains nor a knife or weapon of any description. He had inquired of a night-gateman at the yard of the Great Eastern Railway; but he had not heard any unusual noises on the night in question. - H. T. Tompkins said he was at work in the slaughter-house in Winthorp-street [sic] about 9 o'clock on he previous night, and left off work at about 4 o'clock on Friday morning. He did not go straight home as was his usual custom, but went to Buck's-row as a police-constable passed the slaughter-house, and stated that there had been a murder there. They went out of the slaughter-house at 20 minutes past 12, and returned to work about 1 o'clock. No one left the yard between 1 and 4 o'clock. He believed that the murder was perpetrated at about 4 o'clock in the morning. They were very quiet in the slaughter-house from about 2 o'clock. The gates of the yard were open all night, and anyone could obtain admittance to the slaughter-house; but he saw no one pass except the policeman about 4:15 a.m. - Inspector Helson, of the J Division, said the deceased had a long ulster, with large buttons, five of which were fastened. The bodice of the dress was buttoned, with the exception of two or three buttons at the neck. The stays were fastened up, and were fairly tight. The only part of the garments saturated with blood was the dress at the back of the neck, the hair at the back of the head was clotted with blood. There was no evidence of a recent washing of the parts of the body where wounds had been inflicted in order to remove the blood. There were no cuts in the clothing; but he believed the murder was committed while the deceased was wearing her clothes. With the exception of one spot in Brady-street, there were no bloodstains in the vicinity. - Police-constable Mizen gave corroborative evidence, and the inquest was adjourned for a fortnight.
East London Advertiser

Thanks for posting the above examples, Christer
Yes, there are more examples of Cross being the prop refuser, but where do these papers stand in respect of veracity in comparison to Lloyds ?

[Patrick S]

So let´s discuss the Mizen scam, then, Patrick - and we shall see how laughable it is!

Please begin by stating exactly WHY you think it is laughable.

I'd prefer to focus on the positive. As I said, that's a poor word. Let's just say that I find it quite unconvincing and leave it at that. I know you believe in it. I don't think it's productive to rehash it.

[Fisherman]

As I've said, the "Mizen Scam" is - for me - laughable. I'm simply being honest.

So let´s discuss the Mizen scam, then, Patrick - and we shall see how laughable it is!

Please begin by stating exactly WHY you think it is laughable.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer

This from Lloyds Weekly Sept 9th:

"Witness suggested that they should give her a prop but his companion refused"

I`ve seen reports suggest it was Paul who wanted to prop her up, but Lloyds is usually on the money, so I was asking you without knowing the definitive answer.

p.s.
No, not me.

Aha – well, thanks, Jon. I normally say that this case takes a lot of reading and weighing before you can understand it. I am listing ten different sources here under, so that you can see them and judge for yourself. Let´s begin with the seven that tell us that Paul was the man who suggested the propping up, and Lechmere was the man who denied to do it
The anomaly is total, of course: if you call another man to assist in helping a woman lying in the street, then why would you not even prop her up afterwards...?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The witness said, "Come and look over here. There's a woman." They both went across to the body, and the witness took hold of the hands while the other man stopped over her head to look at her. The hands were cold and limp, and the witness said, "I believe she's dead." Then he touched her face, which felt warm. The other man placed his hand on her heart, saying, "I think she's breathing, but it's very little if she is." He suggested that they should "shift her," meaning in the witness's opinion that they should seat her upright. The witness replied, "I am not going to touch her."*
Daily News

The witness said, "Come and look over here. There's a woman". They both went across to the body, and the witness took hold of the hands while the other man stooped over her head to look at her. The hands were cold and limp, and the witness said, "I believe she's dead." Then he touched her face, which felt warm. The other man placed his hand on her heart, saying, "I think she's breathing, but it's very little if she is." He suggested that they should "shift her", meaning in the witness's opinion that they should seat her upright. The witness replied, "I am not going to touch her."
East London Observer

When he came, I said to him, "Come and look over here. There's a woman." We then both went over to the body. He stooped one side of her, and I stooped the other, and took hold of her hand, which was cold. Her face was warm. I said to the man, "I believe the woman is dead." The other man at the same time, put his hand on her breast over her heart and remarked, "I think she is breathing, but very little, if she is." He then said, "Sit her up," I replied, "I'm not going to touch her. You had better go on, and if you see a policeman tell him."
The Echo

*The other man put his head on her heart saying, "I think she's breathing, but it is very little if she is." The man suggested that they should "shift her," meaning to set her upright. Witness answered, "I am not going to touch her."
Illustrated Police News

We then both went over to the body. I bent over her head and touched her hand, which was cold. I said, "She is dead." The other man, after he had felt her heart, said, "Yes, she is." He then suggested that we should shift her, but I said, "No, let us go and tell a policeman."
Morning Advertiser

*They both went to the body and stooped beside it. Witness took the woman's hand, and finding it cold said, "I believe she's dead." The other man put his hand on the breast outside the clothes - over her heart - and said, "I think she's breathing, but very little." He suggested they should shift her - set her up against the wall - but witness said, "I'm not going to touch her. Let's go on till we see a policeman and tell him."
The Star

*Witness, having felt one of the deceased woman's hands and finding it cold, said "I believe she is dead." The other man, having put his hand over her heart, said "I think she is breathing." He wanted witness to assist in shifting her, but he would not do so.*
The Times

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now for the two that have it the other way around. Note that they have the exact same wording and therefore also the exact same source.

The other man, placing his hand on her heart, said, "I think she is breathing, but very little if she is." Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her.**Just then they heard a policeman coming.
Lloyds Weekly

The other man, placing his hand on her heart, said "I think she is breathing, but very little if she is." Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her. *Just then they heard a policeman coming.
Daily Telegraph

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And here is the final bid, The East London Advertiser. Note how they leave Lechmere out totally. Such was the degree of interest he was awarded – Dew forgot his name in his memoirs, and the police on the whole seemingly never checked him out in spite of him having been found close by the victim all alone.


On its resumption on Monday, Inspector Spratling deposed that at about 4 o'clock on Friday morning he received information as to the finding of the body of the deceased. Before he reached the spot the body had been removed to the mortuary. The witness examined the under garments and discovered severe injuries to the abdomen. He at once sent for Dr. Llewellyn. He did not notice any blood marks between the groin and the knees, and there was no evidence of the skirt having been washed. He had examined Buck's-row and the neighbourhood, but he had not found any bloodstains nor a knife or weapon of any description. He had inquired of a night-gateman at the yard of the Great Eastern Railway; but he had not heard any unusual noises on the night in question. - H. T. Tompkins said he was at work in the slaughter-house in Winthorp-street [sic] about 9 o'clock on he previous night, and left off work at about 4 o'clock on Friday morning. He did not go straight home as was his usual custom, but went to Buck's-row as a police-constable passed the slaughter-house, and stated that there had been a murder there. They went out of the slaughter-house at 20 minutes past 12, and returned to work about 1 o'clock. No one left the yard between 1 and 4 o'clock. He believed that the murder was perpetrated at about 4 o'clock in the morning. They were very quiet in the slaughter-house from about 2 o'clock. The gates of the yard were open all night, and anyone could obtain admittance to the slaughter-house; but he saw no one pass except the policeman about 4:15 a.m. - Inspector Helson, of the J Division, said the deceased had a long ulster, with large buttons, five of which were fastened. The bodice of the dress was buttoned, with the exception of two or three buttons at the neck. The stays were fastened up, and were fairly tight. The only part of the garments saturated with blood was the dress at the back of the neck, the hair at the back of the head was clotted with blood. There was no evidence of a recent washing of the parts of the body where wounds had been inflicted in order to remove the blood. There were no cuts in the clothing; but he believed the murder was committed while the deceased was wearing her clothes. With the exception of one spot in Brady-street, there were no bloodstains in the vicinity. - Police-constable Mizen gave corroborative evidence, and the inquest was adjourned for a fortnight.
East London Advertiser

[Patrick S]

Christer,

You're condescending attidude, sarcasm, and insults directed toward anyone not waving pom-poms for Lechmere isn't doing you or your conclusion any favors.

Frankly, in reading many of your posts, I'm embarrassed for you. I think you'd have better a better time of it if you developed a somewhat thicker skin. I know that my saying this is an exercise in futility. Alas, I remain interested in the research and the discussion.

Going forward, I'll no longer reference 'your theory'. I think it's quite obvious that it's now 'your conclusion'. Based on what you've written here there can be no doubt that you believe that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper. First off, no one should have any issues with this. It's your conclusion, after all. There are other who truly believe in Sickert, Carrol, Mann, Van Gough, et al. Thus, your conclusion is by comparison and in substance, not - on it's face - ridiculous. I think it's worthy of disussion, further research, and respect.

I think where many of us may differ is the degree to which we suspect Lechere, or anyone of that matter. Based on the fact that these crimes were committed 125+ years ago, much of the police record has been lost, a lack of sophisticated investigative techniques available to the police in 1888, the primitive state of medical research at the time, and the fact that the police seem to have been almost completely flummoxed by the killer (or killers), I - for one - am willing to concede only that I believe that it's possible (IN MY OPINION) to prove to ANY degree that an individual was Jack the Ripper (or the killer of one or more of the victims). Therefore, I have a different metric, as I think many on this board might.

Speaking for myself, just because I do not concede that there's a greater than 50% probability (for me a 5% probabilty is pretty high) that Lechmere killed Nichols in Buck's Row does not mean that I mean to insult you or your conclusion, even though I'll concede that I have been insulting to you. That said, I do think that there are elements of your conclusion that are absurd. As I've said, the "Mizen Scam" is - for me - laughable. I'm simply being honest. If that's offensive to you, my apologies. I'll choose more politic words going forward. Alas, you do not temper your responses. Why should others when responding to you?

I'm intrigued by the list showing the many times he gave the name Lechmere vs. the Cross.

I'm intrigued by proximity of the killing to his path to work, his mother's home, etc.

I can't wait to learn more about those areas of your research.

[Pcdunn]

1. There are no working records left (or found) telling us that he worked in Broad Street. It is the only depot that tallies with his evidence, and in the Times of September 4 1888, it is said that "George Cross, a carman, stated that he left home on Friday morning at 20 minutes past 3, and he arrived at his work, at Broad-street, at 4 o'clock."

2. This has been established by Edward Stow, who no longer posts here. Maria Louisas first husband, Charles´ father, was still alive when she remarried. Bigamy was very common in these times, and the working classes could typically not afford a divorce. A search of the relevant parish information will turn up the divorces, and if there is no such record, then we are looking at bigamy.
But as I said, it is Edward Stow who made the work!

Thank you for the reply, Fisherman. I think you and Edward did the best you could with the limited documentary evidence available. One thing re marriages and divorces, those marriages known as "common-law" were more casual affairs, and could be entered into, and separated from, more easily than church or legal marriages.

One thing I do give you both credit for is deciding not to rely on a descendant's vague "recollections" of Charles being a "nasty sort" as they came after he (the descendant) was aware of why you were investigating Charles. That is a very good decision.

[Abby Normal]

He had his reasons, but I will not go into them. It is for him to decide whether he wants to name them or not, Abby.

He posts regularly on JTR Forums, so you can follow him there if yu wish to.

thnks Fish!

[Fisherman]

All
after reading the last couple of pages, I think everyone needs to calm down. Lechmere IMHO is well worth discussing/debating/researching more and would hate to see the discussion end because everyone is getting pissed off with each other!

Fish

Why did lech (the poster) stop posting here?

For anyone who didn't know Ed stow, the poster Lechmere, has a major hand in the Lechmere/Cross research and is related.

Sad to see him go if that's the case.

He had his reasons, but I will not go into them. It is for him to decide whether he wants to name them or not, Abby.

He posts regularly on JTR Forums, so you can follow him there if yu wish to.

[Abby Normal]

All
after reading the last couple of pages, I think everyone needs to calm down. Lechmere IMHO is well worth discussing/debating/researching more and would hate to see the discussion end because everyone is getting pissed off with each other!

Fish

Why did lech (the poster) stop posting here?

For anyone who didn't know Ed stow, the poster Lechmere, has a major hand in the Lechmere/Cross research and is related.

Sad to see him go if that's the case.

[Jon Guy]

PS. Did you know the answer to your question before you asked, or did you really think that Lechmere was the one who suggested the propping up? I would appreciate a straight answer, if you feel up to it, Jon.

Hi Christer

This from Lloyds Weekly Sept 9th:

"Witness suggested that they should give her a prop but his companion refused"

I`ve seen reports suggest it was Paul who wanted to prop her up, but Lloyds is usually on the money, so I was asking you without knowing the definitive answer.

p.s.
No, not me.