The Grisly

[lynn cates]

not only . . . but also _ _ _

Hello Simon, Lechmere, Dave. Dr. Llewellyn also thought initially that the throat cut came AFTER the abdominal cuts. Baxter gave him a back handed slap at the inquest summation for this.

He also initially pronounced the assailant left-handed.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Lynn, Lechmere, Simon

Yes I get the doctor changing his mind about the place of murder, and can trace it in the newspaper reports...wish I could do the same for Paul though...I've been looking at the newspaper reports here on Casebook and keep coming across slightly differing reports of his belated Inquest testimony, but haven't yet found anything from him earlier...a pointer from any kind soul please?

Cheers

Dave

[Lechmere]

I actually think that Llewellyn was right about the abdominal injuries being made first.
Paul’s initial interview is a mixture of his conforming with that evening’s first newspaper reports (which shows his weak character), his evident anti-police bias, and his bigging up of his own role (which shows him as a braggart).
His inquest testimony was minimalist and again largely conformed with what had been said in the newspaper reportage of the earlier inquest testimonies, which according to Cross and Mizen gave him a minor supporting role.
He then gave another self serving and anti-police newspaper interview.

[lynn cates]

Q & A

Hello Lechmere. Then permit me to ask Baxter's question. What was the point in the violent throat cuts?

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi Dave,

Compare Robert Paul's inquest testimony with his story in Lloyds Weekly News, Sunday 2nd September 1888.

In places they are substantially different. And between his two stories he received a nocturnal visit from the rozzers.

Regards,

Simon

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Simon

Thanks for the steer...I'd been assuming the dailies would've been more up to the minute...yes interesting...but I suspect it just means he wanted his 15 minutes and slightly bigged up his story. Makes you wonder what other testimony might be slightly distorted for similar reasons!

Cheers

Dave

[Henry Flower]

Dave I'd agree. And in general I fear that whether or not we think 'outside the box' is now objectively irrelevant - except for the pleasure it gives us - given that the murders were probably committed inside the box, and the box is now irretrievably lost.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Henry,

The box isn't lost. The box is empty.

We're all familiar with the story of how PC Neil found the body, signalled his fellow policemen, sent one off for an ambulance and the other for Dr. Llewellyn.

East London Observer, 1st September 1888—

"Constable Neale [sic] at once called for assistance, and with the help of some scavengers who were cleaning the roads at the time, managed to carry the body to the mortuary, which is situated in the Pavilion Yard close by. Mr. Edmunds, the keeper of the mortuary, was in attendance, and assisted by the officer and the scavengers, undressed the poor creature and placed her in one of the black coffins lying about the mortuary.’

"Accompanied by Mr. Edmunds, the keeper, our reporter visited the temporary resting place of the victim on Friday morning. The first evidence seen of the tragedy on arriving in the yard was a bundle of what were little more than rags, of which the woman had been divested, and which were lying on the flagstones just outside the mortuary. They consisted of a dull red cloak already mentioned, together with a dark bodice and brown skirt, a check flannel petticoat which bore the mark of the Lambeth Workhouse, a pair of dark stockings, and an old pair of dilapidated-looking spring-side boots, together with the little and sadly battered black straw bonnet, minus either ribbons or trimmings.

"Contrary to anticipation, beyond the flannel petticoat, and with the exception of a few bloodstains on the cloak, the other clothing was scarcely marked. The petticoat, however, was completely saturated with blood, and altogether presented a sickening spectacle."

It's a fantastic story; one it is hard to believe a reporter either misinterpreted or invented, and which has dramatic and puzzling implications. Suddenly there were no PCs Thain and Mizen flashing answering lanterns, no PC Mizen fetching the ambulance, no Dr Llewellyn conducting a kerb-side examination, no slaughtermen standing by the body in Buck’s Row, no Inspector Spratling lifting up Polly Nichols’s clothes at the mortuary to discover she had been disembowelled, and no apparent evidence of Polly’s ulster and long dress having absorbed the blood so conspicuously absent from outside Mr Brown’s stable gates.

Regards,

Simon

[Cogidubnus]

But it remains one weekly paper's take though Simon...none of the others (even police-bashers like the Star and Pall Mall Gazette) seem to report in quite these terms...

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Cleaning up the act...

Thinking about it though, if the police collectively sanitised their story at the inquest, shouldn't they have coached PC Mizen a little more thoroughly? His rather odd version of events has always puzzled me, and I know I'm not the only one...it even attracted the coroners attention.

All the best

Dave

[Simon Wood]

Hi Dave,

Not only Mizen.

Taking a snapshot of 3.45 am, according to sworn testimony, we find: Robert Paul walking up Buck’s Row on his way to work; Charles Cross standing by Polly’s body; PC Neil discovering Polly’s body; PC Thain being signalled by PC Neil; and PC Mizen encountering Cross and Paul 300 yards away at the corner of Bakers Row and Old Montague Street.

Something is clearly wrong with this scenario.

Regards,

Simon

[Bridewell]

Timings

Hi Dave,

Not only Mizen.

Taking a snapshot of 3.45 am, according to sworn testimony, we find: Robert Paul walking up Buck’s Row on his way to work; Charles Cross standing by Polly’s body; PC Neil discovering Polly’s body; PC Thain being signalled by PC Neil; and PC Mizen encountering Cross and Paul 300 yards away at the corner of Bakers Row and Old Montague Street.

Something is clearly wrong with this scenario.

Regards,

Simon

Unless we accept that many people didn't have watches; that the cheaper watches around at the time were not all that accurate; and that all timings are, therefore, approximate (perhaps!).

Regards, Bridewell

[Henry Flower]

Bridewell that explanation isn't nearly sensational enough. I think Ripperologists now need to focus their energies on discovering who were the two mystery men on Bakers Row posing as Cross and Paul.

Or vice-versa.

[Bridewell]

Watches

Bridewell that explanation isn't nearly sensational enough. I think Ripperologists now need to focus their energies on discovering who were the two mystery men on Bakers Row posing as Cross and Paul.

Or vice-versa.

Hi Henry,

Well the parties involved didn't have synchronised watches (if they had watches at all). A policeman might (should) think to check his watch if something significant occurs, but I doubt if the same can be said for Cross or Paul. I don't personally see anything untoward in the slight time discrepancies.

Regards, Bridewell

[Henry Flower]

Bridewell, neither do I.

I was being flippant. I agree with you entirely. That said, I do admire Simon's work.

I think you're all lovely.

Henry