The Grisly

[Lechmere]

There were significant differences between Paul's newspaper interview (given on the evening of the murder) and his inquest testimony given a several of weeks later.

[Cogidubnus]

Ok...I know you're dying for some poor sod to ask...and I don't know any better...

Dave

[Simon Wood]

Except for Dr Llewellyn and Robert Paul.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

Nobody changed their stories.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Curious,

As yet, I have absolutely no idea.

Regards,

Simon

[curious]

Hi Tom,

Two people dramatically changed their stories.

Dr. Llewellyn and Robert Paul.

Why would that be?

Regards,

Simon

I'd love to hear your ideas on why.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi DGB,

So you see Ripperology as consisting of two parties - 'holistics' who rattle on about irrelevancies, and 'solutionists' promoting 'hair-brained schemes'? Pray tell, which group do you fall in to? As far as I'm aware, everyone 'allows' everyone else to do as they like, but when you create a thread, or post to an existing one, you are soliciting responses, and it would be naive to expect all responses to be ones of praise and agreement.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Exactly what 'story' did Llewellyn have to tell? I was under the impression he came along after the fact and offered evidence and opinion, some of which was in error, so he changed his mind about it. Is Llewellyn the only doctor on record in a murder case who has done this? As for Robert Paul, on what salient point is it that you (Phil and Simon) believed he 'changed his story'?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

Llewellyn had never handled a case like this before, was horrible at profiling, and Robert Paul wanted absolutely nothing to do with this case, resented losing work to be at the inquest, and was pissed that a cop kept knocking up people after he told him what he'd found.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hello Tom,

Would that cause them to change their stories though?. I think not.

best wishes

Phil

[DGB]

Apologies again Tom, I didn't mean to offend.

Although, I didn't say you couldn't or wouldn't think outside the box, but rather that it is often the case in this field that those that do are criticised, particularly if the out-the-box thinking doesn't further a solution.

As you subtly pointed out, I'm new to posting, and I can say that others would be encouraged to de-lurk and join in - and indeed ripperology would be taken more seriously as an area of research (as we all wish it was) - if solutionists allowed holistics to witter on about things that don't matter; and holistics allowed solutionists their hair-brained schemes...

Hi DGB. Actually, you have caused offense by suggesting I can't or won't think outside the box. But I'll let you off this time because you say you don't know Simon. First of all, his intentions were not misinterpreted by me. I was pointing out that it is irresponsible to hold any writer, then or now, up for a hip hip hooray simply because he had the balls to call the police idiots and incompetent. EVERYONE back then called them that, so it's nothing special. Entire newspapers, such as the Star, were devoted to calling the police idiots. It's even worse when it turns out the police were correct, as in the case of Nichols, and the writer was wrong. The person who wrote this article is deserving of no recognition whatsoever, whereas many, many nameless ones are. The ones who fill the press reports section and our articles and books and get somewhat taken for granted.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

Possibly so.

But what made them change their stories?

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

Llewellyn had never handled a case like this before, was horrible at profiling, and Robert Paul wanted absolutely nothing to do with this case, resented losing work to be at the inquest, and was pissed that a cop kept knocking up people after he told him what he'd found.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

Two people dramatically changed their stories.

Dr. Llewellyn and Robert Paul.

Why would that be?

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

What is 'incoherent' about the police story? The evidence showed that she was killed where she was found. That's pretty coherent. Dr. Llewellyn was a lame duck, but he wasn't a cop.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

" . . . it turns out the police were correct, as in the case of Nichols"?

So why couldn't they come up with a coherent story?

Discuss.

Regards,

Simon