The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Rob Clack]

Why, so it is! You must excuse me, Chris - I never thought that anybody would try to make the point that Paul could have noticed Lechmere under the bright lights of the brewery that was situated directly where Foster Street led out onto Bath Street - and then omitted to say that to the coroner since he thought the general direction the man travelled disallowed him to regard the man as somebody he had "met"!

But by all means, letīs entertain this rather groundbreaking suggestion of yours! Here is why must have happened if you are correct:

Robert Paul steps out of his lodgings in 30 Foster Street. He turns right and starts walking down towards Bath Street. And what happens? Yes, Sir - thereīs Lechmere passing under the lamps of the brewery!

Paul now speeds the few yards down Foster Street - he is in a hurry, being late for work (he says at the inquest that he was hurrying down Buckīs Row - that means he walked briskly). But regardless of this, Lechmere has him totally beaten - he speeds away like a bolt of lightning ahead of Paul and is lost in the darkness of Brady Street.
When Paul saw Lechmere in Bath Street, the good Mr Clack makes the point that it would have been a maximal distance between the men of 39 yards. Lechmere now has opened up a much larger gap (in front of the hurrying Paul), and then, as he thinks he sees a tarpaulin on the other side, he steps on the brake and comes to a sudden halt. He gazes at the shape but cannot make out what it is, so he steps into the middle of the street and conveniently stops there. At that stage, Paul has - panting - managed to eat up the lost ground and is once more just 40 yards behind Lechmere.

Along this race, he has not seen Lechmere after taking a look at him in Bath Street, and he has not heard him either.

Thatīs quite a story!

So letīs turn to the sources again, and add two of them to your chosen gem:

Before he reached Buck's-row he had seen no one running away. (Daily Telegraph)

... and Lechmere must have run to speed away from Paul!

He saw no one running away, nor did he notice anything whatever of a suspicious nature. (East London Observer)

I think we are on safe ground saying that Robert Paul did not notice a living soul before he met Lechmere (if itīs okay with you to say "met" when one man was standing still...?)

There - I amended my mistake and commented on the right guy. Interestingly, the same thing happened. And it would seem the Ringling Brothers, Barnum and Bailey performed elsewhere that night.

And now I really wonīt bother you anymore if I can avoid it.

The best,
Fisherman

Are you throwing a wobbly?

As I said earlier, if Paul was in a hurry then it is logical to assume he was walking at a faster pace then Lechmere.
So it is then logical to assume Lechmere was further than 40 yards away from Paul when Paul left home. So Lechmere had already passed the junction of Foster and Bath Street. He may just have missed him when he crossed Bath Street into Brady Street so it perfectly reasonable and likely to assume the first time Paul would have seen Lechmere would have been in Bucks Row anyway.

Rob

[Monty]

Exactly, nothing suspicious at all about Paul not seeing Lechmere.

Especially as there were no lamps between Brady Street and Great Eastern Square. ;-)

Monty

[Rob Clack]

Yes. And even if Paul could see 80 yards ahead once he was out of Foster Street, and if we assume Cross/Lechmere was 80 yards ahead at that point, and if they were both walking at the same brisk pace (say 3.5 mph), then Cross/Lechmere would need to stop for only 25 seconds for Paul to come within 40 yards of him.

Exactly, nothing suspicious at all about Paul not seeing Lechmere.

[MrBarnett]

I take it you have been converted to the Lechmere camp? Good for you.

The graphic ia wrong. It never happened. Paul would have seen Lechmere get up and move back.
And if I remember correctly (at work so can't check at the moment) it was a recreation of the events as they were recorded. And was played back on numerous occasions and Lechmere was at the same spot on each of them, even though we know he wasn't.

Rob

Hi Rob ,

No, I haven't been converted. I looked upon the documentary as a depiction of Ed and Christer's theory, and in that context a graphic of JTR kneeling at Nichols' body did not strike me as a dastardly deception.

Obviously the narrative was going to be a combination of documented fact and conjecture, how could it be otherwise?

That said, there were lots of niggles that irritated me. But they didn't detract from my enjoyment of the film as entertainment, and it was also useful to see the boys' theory laid out in a coherent way.

MrB

[Chris]

Fisherman

In English, you "meet" people if they are coming towards you. You don't meet them if they are walking in the same direction ahead of you, or even at right angles ahead of you.

But if Cross/Lechmere was 80 yards or more ahead of Paul, I don't think he would have seen him at all.

[Fisherman]

Again that is Cross's testimony. How is it relevant?

Why, so it is! You must excuse me, Chris - I never thought that anybody would try to make the point that Paul could have noticed Lechmere under the bright lights of the brewery that was situated directly where Foster Street led out onto Bath Street - and then omitted to say that to the coroner since he thought the general direction the man travelled disallowed him to regard the man as somebody he had "met"!

But by all means, letīs entertain this rather groundbreaking suggestion of yours! Here is why must have happened if you are correct:

Robert Paul steps out of his lodgings in 30 Foster Street. He turns right and starts walking down towards Bath Street. And what happens? Yes, Sir - thereīs Lechmere passing under the lamps of the brewery!

Paul now speeds the few yards down Foster Street - he is in a hurry, being late for work (he says at the inquest that he was hurrying down Buckīs Row - that means he walked briskly). But regardless of this, Lechmere has him totally beaten - he speeds away like a bolt of lightning ahead of Paul and is lost in the darkness of Brady Street.
When Paul saw Lechmere in Bath Street, the good Mr Clack makes the point that it would have been a maximal distance between the men of 39 yards. Lechmere now has opened up a much larger gap (in front of the hurrying Paul), and then, as he thinks he sees a tarpaulin on the other side, he steps on the brake and comes to a sudden halt. He gazes at the shape but cannot make out what it is, so he steps into the middle of the street and conveniently stops there. At that stage, Paul has - panting - managed to eat up the lost ground and is once more just 40 yards behind Lechmere.

Along this race, he has not seen Lechmere after taking a look at him in Bath Street, and he has not heard him either.

Thatīs quite a story!

So letīs turn to the sources again, and add two of them to your chosen gem:

Before he reached Buck's-row he had seen no one running away. (Daily Telegraph)

... and Lechmere must have run to speed away from Paul!

He saw no one running away, nor did he notice anything whatever of a suspicious nature. (East London Observer)

I think we are on safe ground saying that Robert Paul did not notice a living soul before he met Lechmere (if itīs okay with you to say "met" when one man was standing still...?)

There - I amended my mistake and commented on the right guy. Interestingly, the same thing happened. And it would seem the Ringling Brothers, Barnum and Bailey performed elsewhere that night.

And now I really wonīt bother you anymore if I can avoid it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

... and that is the quality of the criticism directed at the documentary. If you donīt meet anybody, then you just tell the inquest that, and give them the picture that the streets were empty. Voila!
And if the Ringling Brothers, Barnum and Bailey circus was distributed in equal parts before and after you, then there would be no need to tell the coroner THAT - for you didnīt "meet" them, did you?

The criticism directed at the documentary, in this case, is that it claimed Paul had said he'd seen no one else, when he doesn't appear to have said that. If there is a source to back up the claim, one sentence of it would be more valuable than several pages of sarcasm.

Regarding the difference between "meeting" and "seeing". At the risk of stating the obvious, the witnesses at the inquests were responding to questions put to them, and it is rather obvious why Paul would have been asked if he had seen anyone coming away from the scene of the crime just before the body was discovered.

If Cross/Lechmere was not suspected, no one would have been interested in whether Paul had seen anyone going towards the scene at that time.

[Chris]

Incidentally, the Daily News report from the events lends itself admirably to a deeper understanding of all of this:

The Coroner - Did you see Police constable Neil in Buck's row?

The Witness - No, sir. I saw no one after leaving home, except the man that overtook me, the constable in Baker's row, and the deceased.

Again that is Cross's testimony. How is it relevant?

[Chris]

It doesn't. There is also the alternative. If Paul was in a hurry as claimed then it is reasonable to assume he was walking faster than Lechmere. So it is also reasonable to assume Lechmere was furthest away from Paul when Paul left home, say 50 to 60 yards in front of him ap its possible he wouldn't have caught up with him till Bucks Row or a little further along anyway. I don't see anything at all suspicious here.

Yes. And even if Paul could see 80 yards ahead once he was out of Foster Street, and if we assume Cross/Lechmere was 80 yards ahead at that point, and if they were both walking at the same brisk pace (say 3.5 mph), then Cross/Lechmere would need to stop for only 25 seconds for Paul to come within 40 yards of him.

[Fisherman]

The Times version, posted by Stewart Evans earlier in this thread, has "He had not met any one before he reached Buck’s-row, and did not see any one running away."

I don't see that that excludes his having seen a man walking in the same direction ahead of him.

... and that is the quality of the criticism directed at the documentary. If you donīt meet anybody, then you just tell the inquest that, and give them the picture that the streets were empty. Voila!
And if the Ringling Brothers, Barnum and Bailey circus was distributed in equal parts before and after you, then there would be no need to tell the coroner THAT - for you didnīt "meet" them, did you?

If you ever grow tired of Ripperology, Chris, why not try and practise law?

Incidentally, the Daily News report from the events lends itself admirably to a deeper understanding of all of this:

The Coroner - Did you see Police constable Neil in Buck's row?

The Witness - No, sir. I saw no one after leaving home, except the man that overtook me, the constable in Baker's row, and the deceased.

But I disparage about my possibilities to sway you, Chris. You may choose other press reports over this one, thatīs your prerogative. In fact, you just travel along whatever road you choose to travel - it will not only have something to add to the debate, any choice of road (the "forgotten" roads included) will also say something about you.

I wonīt however, just as I find it unlikely that I will comment any further on your posts on this thread. Others may find themselves equally deprived of comments - not interest, though! - from my side.

As a send-off, a Swedish proverb, a favourite of mine: Som man känner sig själv, så känner man andra.

Letīs just hope your Swedish is ship-shape.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Rob Clack]

The Times version, posted by Stewart Evans earlier in this thread, has "He had not met any one before he reached Buck’s-row, and did not see any one running away."

I don't see that that excludes his having seen a man walking in the same direction ahead of him.

It doesn't. There is also the alternative. If Paul was in a hurry as claimed then it is reasonable to assume he was walking faster than Lechmere. So it is also reasonable to assume Lechmere was furthest away from Paul when Paul left home, say 50 to 60 yards in front of him ap its possible he wouldn't have caught up with him till Bucks Row or a little further along anyway. I don't see anything at all suspicious here.

Rob

[Fisherman]

Just to clarify this point (which I hope will be helpful): at the time (i.e. 1888), a prima facie case of murder against an individual would have been sufficient to prosecute them at trial. At one inquest into a suspicious death (in April 1915), for example, the Coroner for Central London told his jury (as reported in the Islington Daily Gazette) that, "They were inquiring whether there was a prima facie case against some person or persons of causing the death of the deceased" - and when that jury brought in a verdict of wilful murder against the woman who had been arrested for the crime he gave the police a warrant committing her to trial for murder at the Old Bailey.

At the same time, I would have to say that I think it was a bit of a cop-out for Scobie QC to have made the point about there being a prima facie case because, by implication, he was saying that the evidence was not strong enough for him to conclude that Lechmere was guilty; which means that any rational jury on the same evidence would have had to have found Lechmere "not guilty".

Actually, what Scobie says is that it is "a case good enough to put before a jury that suggests that he was the killer".

Whether Scobie would find it enough or not for a conviction is a question on itīs own. What we must bear in mind here is that he nevertheless says that the case would be good enough to put before a jury.

Exactly how many of the other suspects would answer up to that? Itīs easy enough to answer: none.
Scobie aslo says that he is of the opinion that the coincidences mount up in Lechmereīs case, that he is a man that looks suspicious and that the jury would not like that.

Once more, even if Scobie hesitates as to whether the verdict would be "guilty" - when was the last time Ripper research had a suspect that could be taken to trial?

126 years have passed. Just as is said in the documentary, it is not to be expected that we will find anything but circumstantial evidence. But the circumstantial evidence we have dug up agianst Lechmere would be enough to warrant a trial. If we had been able to go back in time and search his home, speak to people in his vicinity, interview women who could have been attacked but survived - than maybe we would get that conviction.

At the end of the day, what matters is that Scobie and Griffiths both acknowledged the value of the suspect Charles Allen Lechmere. Griffiths worded it: he is of tremendous interest.

And he is.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

The Daily Telegraph's version of Paul's inquest testimony says "Before he reached Buck's-row he had seen no one running away."

The Times version, posted by Stewart Evans earlier in this thread, has "He had not met any one before he reached Buck’s-row, and did not see any one running away."

I don't see that that excludes his having seen a man walking in the same direction ahead of him.

[Chris]

Morning Post 1888

Thanks, but that's Cross's testimony. There's no reason he should have seen Paul, whatever the distance between them, as Paul was behind him.

[HelenaWojtczak]

Morning Post 1888