The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Sally]

Sally

Ed!

Those are your killer points? Epic fail Sally I'm afraid - to go alongside the increasingly weird claim by Chris supported but GUT that Lechmere must gave hesitated for a while mid road to allow Paul to catch up or that Paul didn't make it clear he wasn't aware of Lechmere till he saw him mid road.

Oh no – not at all. Merely one or two off the top of my head as they occurred.

I'm not wasting time with that nonsense but I will answer your stuff once as I feel guilty for ignoring your pleas.

Thank you, that’s very decent of you.

You may recall that I didn't say there was evidence of his being 'controlling' - I said controlled, as in precise. That is shown by his meticulous record keeping and the fact that he was able to amass enough capital during his employment as a relatively humble carman to open a business and leave a healthy sum in his will. And that his kids moved house and school without a day off school.

'Controlled' is a little strong I feel, if you wish your contention to be supported by the available evidence. 'Organised' might be more appropriate – although I concede that this is a relatively minor distinction in context. I think that extrapolating from the evidence -, which as you observe, amounts to his meticulous record keeping and careful and successful financial planning – to see any suggestion of a controlling personality may be a step too far. My maternal grandfather was a bit like Crossmere in these respects – always filled in forms, ensured that the money was there for his widow should he die first. In life he was in fact quite a controlling person – and he actually did have a domineering mother. I don’t think he killed anybody.

However, that aside, the factors that you interpret as evidencing a controlled personality could as easily evidence anxiety [e.g.]

It has never been claimed that he had delusions of grandeur. It has been suggested that he might have resented his branch of the family's fall from grace. He was clearly in touch with his family as his daughters were named after his Lechmere aunts and some of his sons used traditional Lechmere name combinations. That despite his Lechmere father dissappearing when he was a toddler.

Ok, thanks for clarifying.

The claim isn't that he had a controlling mother either.
It is suggested that she had a strong personality as shown by the three marriages despite having kids in tow, as shown by her opening businesses up to quite old age, as shown by her bringing up Lechmere's second eldest daughter (not the eldest as mistakenly said in the film).

Ok, fair enough – she seems to have been resilient. I apologise if I’ve misread you with regard to Mrs. Crossmere. Perhaps in her resilience we can see the influence on her son which led to his punctilious behaviour in respect of officialdom and his financial affairs. Naturally you will realise that her resilience and determination are not evidence of any dysfunctional relationship between mother and son.

It has always been said that it is conjectural to suggest he may (that word is the give away) have resented his step father. When a step father turns up and the child is not a baby (I think he was about 9) and is not so much older ( I think Thomas Cross was 21 and much younger than his wife - Lechmere's mother) and an invasive authority figure twice over (being a policeman) it would not be that unusual for there to be resentment. There is room for conjecture there. Although I am sure many people have been happily brought up in such circumstances.

Ok – thanks.

That Lechmere continued undaunted - I'm not sure what you are getting at. If it is that he should have stopped in fear after his brush with the police relating to the Nichols case, then there are simply masses of examples that disprove that suggestion - but I will leave you to find them. If you mean there is no evidence he wasn't investigated at the time and cleared then there is - the police continued using his fake name and also the initial stages were full of police errors of a similar nature. The only evidence we have to assist in making a decision in this matter points to him not being investigated. Which again you can research yourself if need be.

It isn't a recent suggestion that Lechmere continued killing. There are a number of post Kelly Whitechapel Murders and a series of other murders or unsolved and unexpected deaths up to 1898 at least, that he can be connected to. I gave a talk last August on the 125th anniversary put on by Whitechapel Library (called an Ideas Store as they are trendy) that went through them all. Don't tell me you missed it?

But it's too lengthy to rehash here. Sorry.

I’m not suggesting at all that the killer [whomsever he was] ‘should’ have stopped at all. In fact I’m quite open to the idea that he didn’t. With regard to Crossmere I’m not getting at anything – it’s simply that I’ve seen the suggestion made by ‘Team Lechmere’ on several occasions now that he didn’t stop killing after Kelly and that he can, in fact, be ‘tied’ to later murders.
Obviously I’m interested to discover:

• Which murders are referred to here
• How Crossmere can be tied to them

As for missing your talk last August I’m ashamed to admit that I did – I really must get down to London more often – apologies, I’m sure it would have been fascinating. I wouldn’t want to take up too much of your precious time here – I’m sure you must be very busy at the moment – but a brief response clarifying your stance on Crossmere’s involvement with subsequent unsolved murders would be very helpful.

So far as ignoring questions goes, I think you have the wrong people. Does Fisherman ignore questions? Most moan that he answers them at too great length.

Hmm – you know what they say – it isn’t so much the size as what you do with it that counts.

But perhaps ‘ignore’ isn’t quite the right term – perhaps, as in my earlier post - a better one would be 'fail to address' - although I can see that you’ve tried to do so here.

You often mockingly refer to the number and length of Lechmere threads as do others where the same questions are raised and answered ad nauseum.

Yes, I’m very naughty. I promise not to mock your threads ever again. Honest.

At meetings and events where I talk to real people, as opposed to virtual Internet ones, they tend to marvel at my stamina and patience in bothering to engage in this repetative time consumming exercise at all.

Me too - thanks for your response.

[Monty]

Courtesy of Ed Stow, from the forums

http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=184706&postcount=100

"Many reports indicate that it was dark in Buck’s Row on the early morning of 31st August 1888. Take this report for example from*

On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said :- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's Row to my work as a carman for Covent Garden Market, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church Row, just at the top of Buck's Row,

This extract also refers to Bucks Row being ill-frequented at that hour – a statement backed up by testimony from P.C.s Neil, Thane, and Mizen and by Charles Lechmere in the guise of Charles Cross.

Although Paul says it was dark, it could be objected that the gas lamps gave off a weak light and would not have greatly affected the overall level of darkness to any material extent. Accordingly simple statements to the effect that Bucks Row was dark do not necessarily tell is whether or not the gas lamps down Bucks Row were working on the night in question.
However the only source that directly refers to the lighting is P.C. Neil. This is not entirely surprising as he was the beat constable and one of his duties wads to report faulty lamps. Accordingly he would have been more aware of the street lamps that were working and those that were not.

I have extracted the different versions of PC Neil’s inquest testimony. Some are repetative as certain newspapers have clearly relied on one journalist who was at the inquest as their source. These repetitions do not add weight to that version of the story.

Daily News, Monday 3rd September 1888
Police constable John Neil deposed that on Friday morning at a quarter to four o'clock he was going down Buck's Row, Whitechapel, from Thomas Street to Brady Street. Not a soul was about. He was round there about half an hour previously, and met nobody then. The first thing he saw was a figure lying on the footpath. It was dark, but there was a street lamp on the opposite side some distance away. The figure was lying alongside a gateway, of which the gate, nine or ten feet high, was locked. It led to some stables belonging to Mr. Brown. From the gateway eastward the houses began, and westward there was a Board School.

The Daily Telegraph, Monday 3rd September 1888
John Neil, police-constable, 97J, said: Yesterday morning I was proceeding down Buck's Row, Whitechapel, going towards Brady Street. There was not a soul about. I had been round there half an hour previously, and I saw no one then. I was on the right-hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street. It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row. I went across and found deceased lying outside a gateway, her head towards the east. The gateway was closed. It was about nine or ten feet high, and led to some stables. There were houses from the gateway eastward, and the School Board school occupies the westward.

East London Observer, Saturday 8th September 1888.
John Neil,the police constable of the J Division of police who found the body - a tall, fresh-coloured man, with brown hair, and straw coloured moustache and imperial. He deposed that on Friday morning, at a quarter to four o'clock, he was going down Buck's Row, Whitechapel, from Thomas Street to Brady Street. Not a soul was about. He was round there about half an hour previously and met nobody then. The first thing he saw was a figure lying on the footpath. It was dark, but there was a street lamp on the opposite side some distance away. The figure was lying alongside a gateway, of which the gate, nine or ten feet high, was locked. It led to some stables belonging to a Mr. Brown. From the gateway eastward the houses began, and westwards there was a Board School. All the houses were occupied. The deceased's left hand was touching the gate. Directly he turned his lantern on the body he noticed blood was oozing from the woman's throat. She was lying on her back with her hands beside her body, the eyes wide open, the legs a little apart, and the hands open.

East London Observer, Saturday 1st September 1888.
It seems that on Friday morning Police-constable Neale, 97 J, was on his beat at about half-past four, in the neighbourhood of Buck's Row. It was then just after half-past four, and, in the early light of day he discovered lying on the pavement just outside the high brick wall which surrounds the Essex Wharf, the form of a woman. She was lying on her back, with hands that were tightly clenched, and presenting altogether the appearance of one who had died in the greatest agony. She was wearing a little black straw bonnet, battered almost out of recognition, and placed at the back of her head. Around her was a cloak - a threadbare garment that had once been red, but was now a dull, dirty colour. It was open in front, and the black bodice of her dress was thrown slightly open, revealing a horrible gash more than an inch in diameter, extending from one ear to the other, and completely severing the windpipe, which protruded from the deep wound. Constable Neale 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.

This highly coloured account appeared the week before – almost certainly it was provided by the Mr Edmunds who gives himself an important role in the proceedings.

Evening News, Saturday 1st September 1888
At a quarter to four yesterday morning Police-constable Neil was on his beat in Buck's Row, Thomas Street, Whitechapel, when his attention was attracted to the body of a woman lying on the pavement close to the door of the stableyard in connection with Essex Wharf. Buck's Row, like many minor thoroughfares in this and similar neighbourhoods, is not overburdened with gas-lamps, and in the dim light the constable at first thought that the woman had fallen down in a drunken stupor.

Evening Standard, Monday 3rd September 1888
Police Constable John Neil said - On Friday morning I was proceeding down Buck's Row, Whitechapel, going towards Brady Street. There was not a soul about. I had been round there half an hour previous, and I saw no one then. I was on the right hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street. It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row. I went across and found deceased lying outside a gateway, her head towards the east. The gateway was closed. It was about nine or ten feet high, and led to some stables. There were houses from the gateway eastward, and the School Board school occupies the west.

Morning Advertiser, Monday 3rd September 1888
John Neil, police constable, 97 J, said - On Friday morning I was proceeding down Buck's Row, Whitechapel, going towards Brady Street. There was not a soul about. I had been round there half an hour previously, and I saw no one then. I was on the right hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street. It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row. I went across and found deceased lying outside a gateway, her head towards the east. The gateway was closed. It was about nine or ten feet high, and led to some stables. There were houses from the gateway eastward, and the School Board school occupies the westward. On the opposite side of the road is Essex Wharf.

The Times, Monday 3rd September 1888.
Police-constable John Neil 97 J, deposed that on Friday morning he was passing down Buck's Row, Whitechapel, and going in the direction of Brady Street, and he did not notice any one about. He had been round the same place some half an hour previous to that and did not see any one. He was walking along the right-hand side of the street when he noticed a figure lying in the street. It was dark at the time, although a street lamp was shining at the end of the row. He walked across and found the deceased lying outside a gateway, her head towards the east. He noticed that the gateway, which was about 9 ft. or 10 ft. in height and led to some stables, was closed. Houses ran eastward from the gateway, while the Board school was westward of the spot. On the other side of the road was the Essex Wharf.

Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, Sunday 2nd September 1888.
John Neill, police-constable 97 J, was sworn, and said: Yesterday morning I was proceeding down Buck's Row, Whitechapel, going towards Brady Street. There was not a soul about. I had been round there half an hour previous, and I saw no one then. I was on the left hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street. It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row. I went across and found the deceased lying outside a gateway, her head towards the east. The gateway was closed. It was about nine or ten feet high, and led to some stables. There were houses from the gateway eastward, and the School Board school occupies the westward. On the opposite side of the road is Essex wharf. Deceased was lying lengthways along the street, her left hand touching the gate. I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat."

[Fisherman]

Chris:

You really need to bear in mind that these are reports of what the witnesses said in answer to questions - of course they didn't stand up in court and make long speeches - particularly if you are going to make inferences based on what subjects the witnesses commented on.

We all need top bear a lot in mind, Chris. Personally, I donīt think the coroner asked about the distance inbetween the men. In the Morning Advertiser, we can see that the coroner did add a few questions, but nowhere is it inferred that he asked about that distance.

But on your "ad verbatim" report - which in fact is obviously very incomplete - all it implies is that Cross/Lechmere heard Paul at the same time he saw it was a woman. It doesn't tell you how long that was after he stopped walking along the road.

Wrong. It says "but on going into the centre of the road I saw it was the figure of a woman. At the same time I heard a man coming up the street in the same direction as I had come.."

So he saw it was a woman "on going into the centre of the road", he did not go onto the centre of the road, stop there, wait for a longish time and then realize that it was a woman. The inference is that the shortened distance allowed him to see that it was a woman.

And of course, you've still produced no evidence whatsoever that Paul didn't see Cross/Lechmere walking ahead of him in Bath Street. And it hasn't been for want of asking.

I think we need to go back to your initial assertion at this stage: We really need to bear in mind that these are reports of what the witnesses said in answer to questions. I think the coroner asked both Lechmere and Paul about whether they saw anybody else in the streets, and I donīt think they asked only about people they "met". And Pauls says that he saw nothing suspicious or something like that.

It was of the utmost interest for the coroner and inquest to establish whether there were other people in the vicinity, as you will appreciate. They needed to establish whether any of the participants had seen any other person, regardless of that person was walking in front of them in Bath Street or anywhere else. The police and the inquest alike were astonished by how nobody was seen around the area, and that astonishment will have involved Pauls assertions too.

Whenever something like this is obvious, I prefer not to nitpick about it myself. You may be of a different opinion as you will allow for any number of people having travelled, motorway style, alongside with Paul down Foster Street, Bath Street, over Brady Street and along Bucks Row - as long as they did not walk in an opposing direction to him. He had only professed to not having met anybody, and this you choose to interpret lawyer style.

But Iīm fine with that, Chris. I keep saying that people out here must decide for themselves what quality the arguments made are of.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

I think we need to go back to your initial assertion at this stage: We really need to bear in mind that these are reports of what the witnesses said in answer to questions. I think the coroner asked both Lechmere and Paul about whether they saw anybody else in the streets, and I donīt think they asked only about people they "met". And Pauls says that he saw nothing suspicious or something like that.

If you can quote a report that says Paul said he saw no one in the streets, fair enough.

If not, you're just inventing the evidence rather than following it.

[Lechmere]

Monty
That was a blast from the past.

[Fisherman]

If you can quote a report that says Paul said he saw no one in the streets, fair enough.

If not, you're just inventing the evidence rather than following it.

That works both ways, Chris. It is not as if the evidence tells us that Paul did see somebody, is it?

I would suggest that we can bank on the coroner and inquest having asked whether Lechmere or Paul saw anybody in the streets, just as he would have expanded that question to ask about if they saw anything suspicios at all. That is what is mirrored in Pauls answer, speaking about how he saw no suspicious persons running away, for example.

After that, we really donīt need any report where Paul says that he did not see anybody EITHER coming from his front or overtaking him from behind.

You may want to ask yourself the question how you yourself would have reasoned if you had been involved in a high profile murder inquest, where you knew that somebody had overtaken you and headed for the murder site, where you would yourself arrive two minutes later, and where the coroner asked you if you had met anybody during your trek.

Would you

A/reason that the coroner only wanted to hear about people coming at you from the front, or if he
B/would have asked that question in order to find out whether there had been anyone at all around.

If you want to pride yourself of having found a linguistic loophole designed for desperate/ridiculous flights, then be my guest. You still havenīt found a credible alternative to the coroner and inquest having satisfied themselves that Paul was alone until he met Lechmere, though.

For me, that concludes and finishes that particular part of the issue.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rick_Wall]

Questions about the New Ripper Documentary

Hi,

I recently watched the channel 5 documentary implicating Cross/Lechmere. There was something that I thought were a bit odd and wondered if there were obvious answer.

On meeting PC Jonas Mizen Lechmere gives Cross as his name, but his correct address. I wondered why he would do this and potential police interest?

[Monty]

Monty
That was a blast from the past.

It was, and quite a good post too.

Monty

[Chris]

Fisherman

You can assume till you're blue in the face. It does nothing to change the facts.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman

You can assume till you're blue in the face. It does nothing to change the facts.

The problem being, though, that it is a fact that coroners in cases like these ask the witnesses if they saw somebody in the vicinity.

Another fact is that people who are asked by a coroner if they met somebody along their roads normally mention everybody theyīve seen. They will normally not assess the angle in which somebody have been seen before answering. Thatīs a pretty ridiculous assumption.

Is that your face turning blue...?


All the very best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

The problem being, though, that it is a fact that coroners in cases like these ask the witnesses if they saw somebody in the vicinity.

Another fact is that people who are asked by a coroner if they met somebody along their roads normally mention everybody theyīve seen.

And you can make as many unevidenced assertions as you like. It changes absolutely nothing.

You have shown no evidence whatsoever that Paul was asked such a question, or that he volunteered such information.

[David Orsam]

"I would be interested to know if you would accept that the case against him collapses entirely if, for the cogent reasons put forward on this forum by Stewart P. Evans, PC Mizen's evidence (about being told by him that there was already a policeman in Buck's Row) was false."

No, the case does not collapse entirely - there was a case before the Mizen scam entered the stage.
But as such, I would regard it as seriously diminsishing the implications of the case.

Fisherman - thank you for what, if you don't mind me saying so, I regard as a very frank response.

I fully understand the reasons you put forward as to why you think Mizen did not lie. My only comment in response would be that, as others have already pointed out, a guilty Lechmere would have been playing a very dangerous game because he could have had no reasonable expectation that a policeman would have been on scene when Mizen arrived at Buck's Row; and Mizen, on seeing this, would immediately have realised he had been lied to which would presumably have led to a police manhunt for Lechmere. I appreciate you think he took a calculated risk but, like I say, very dangerous.

On the other hand, we do have evidence from a police constable that he was told by this man that a policeman was already with the body when this wasn't true - so I can see why you think there are grounds for suspicion against Lechmere (although, as you have bravely admitted, if Mizen was lying, the case against him is seriously diminished).

For that reason, the strength of the opposition to Lechmere simply being considered a suspect, or person of interest (call it what you will) is perplexing. I saw a documentary on the murder of Jill Dando a few weeks ago and the woman walking along the street who found the body and called the emergency services said that she was (quite properly) considered by the police to have been a suspect and was questioned on that basis, even though as far as I am aware, she did absolutely nothing suspicious. Here we have an individual who may have lied to the police (even if there was an innocent reason), in which case it stands to reason that he has to at least be in the frame and I see no harm in considering him as a suspect.

[Rob Clack]

Have I not already told you that I have provided them with no material at all? I never met Scobie, so how could I tell him anything? I never met Norris, so how could I tell him anything? I only met Andy as I stepped into the Linnean Library.
So why do you go on claiming that I have told these people anything in advance, when I have stated adamantly that this is not true?

Furthemore, unless you noticed, not a single newspaper report works from an assumption that Lechmere was the culprit. So what reports would we have put in the files for Scobie and Griffiths if we wanted to make Lechmere out as the killer? How would we sift the reports and articles to come up with that presentation? What would we add, what would we exclude? None of the articles include the rather disingeuous criticism against the theory that is presented out here, so that was not included.
They were told our theory, and they felt it panned out with the material they got.
So what could that material be? Re-written articles from the papers? Articles were we had taken out a few words and added other ones?

You need to speak out and specify exactly what it is you think happened, and how the material could have been manipulated to sway Scobie and Griffiths.

What did we give them? Morning Advertiser only? It has Lechmere down as innocent. The police reports? They say that Lechmedre and Paul found the body together, exonerating Lechmere. The Times? Lechmereīs innocent in that paper. Daily Telegraph? Same thing.

So how did we do it?

The best,
Fisherman

This is what Ed said on the other forum:

I met and discussed things with Andy Griffiths and you have been told on numerous occasions what he was given - so I find it slightly odd that you keep asking this question.
Very odd indeed.
The film company were only given by me a translation of Christer's newspaper article so they could get a grip on the case outline.
I also sent them a complete set of the newspaper reports of the inquest and around the inquest (from Casebook) and Lechmere genealogical information. I verbally discussed a lot of detail with them. Probably Christer did likewise.
They plundered the Casebook threads and obtained the police files.
I don't know what the guy from Aberystwyth was given - I presume the same as Griffiths. Neither I nor Christer met him.
I don't know what the doctor as given, but it seems to have been a fairly thorough account from the resources we have available.
I had presumed that Scobie had also got the same file - but he got a case summary prepared by Blink as he was too busy apparently to go through too much material. Neither I nor Christer met him either.

I have highlighted in bold the relevant bits. Plenty of opportunity for you and Ed to get your theory across. And it doesn't bother me whether you met these people or not. We haven't met but I know your theories and opinions.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam:

Fisherman - thank you for what, if you don't mind me saying so, I regard as a very frank response.

You are quite welcome, David!

I fully understand the reasons you put forward as to why you think Mizen did not lie. My only comment in response would be that, as others have already pointed out, a guilty Lechmere would have been playing a very dangerous game because he could have had no reasonable expectation that a policeman would have been on scene when Mizen arrived at Buck's Row; and Mizen, on seeing this, would immediately have realised he had been lied to which would presumably have led to a police manhunt for Lechmere. I appreciate you think he took a calculated risk but, like I say, very dangerous.

Yes, it was absolutely a very dangerous thing to do - I fully agree. But I think that we have to take a couple of things into consideration.
To begin with, he may well have had a useful idea about where Neil was and roughly how long it would take for him to get to the murder site. If so, it was to some extent a calculated risk, but of course Neil could have been delayed during his round, and it would go awry for Lechmere.

However, if we are on the money and he was the killer, then we know that there was no weapon at the murder site. This would have meant that he brought it along with him. So he would have run into Mizen with the murder weapon on his person, by the looks of things.

For me, that tells me he had a choice - say that he had found a woman lying in the street in Buckīs Row, in which case Mizen would arguably have taken him along back to the site, found the murdered Nichols and quite possibly have searched Lechmere and Paul.
The game would then be up.

Compared to that, any sort of chancetaking would be better.

And letīs not forget that even if there WAS no policeman in place, Lechmere could always say "No, I said that a PC needed to get there, not that there was already a PC there". At that stage, he would have had a number of days to dispose of the weapon and cover his tracks, whatever they may have been. It would have been word against word, and no hard evidence. Maybe he never regarded that other PC as anything else but a possible bonus - that happened to go his way.

In the end, anything would have been better than being exposed with a freshly bloodied knife in your apron pocket!

On the other hand, we do have evidence from a police constable that he was told by this man that a policeman was already with the body when this wasn't true - so I can see why you think there are grounds for suspicion against Lechmere (although, as you have bravely admitted, if Mizen was lying, the case against him is seriously diminished).

For that reason, the strength of the opposition to Lechmere simply being considered a suspect, or person of interest (call it what you will) is perplexing. I saw a documentary on the murder of Jill Dando a few weeks ago and the woman walking along the street who found the body and called the emergency services said that she was (quite properly) considered by the police to have been a suspect and was questioned on that basis, even though as far as I am aware, she did absolutely nothing suspicious. Here we have an individual who may have lied to the police (even if there was an innocent reason), in which case it stands to reason that he has to at least be in the frame and I see no harm in considering him as a suspect.

Yes, of course he has to be in the frame! And I can see how you find the resistance towards that stance perplexing. That is all very correct, but I would not expect those who oppose it to accept that! To them, itīs just "somebody had to find her", although they arguably all know that the argument is rather a silly one.

All the best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

I would suggest that we can bank on the coroner and inquest having asked whether Lechmere or Paul saw anybody in the streets, just as he would have expanded that question to ask about if they saw anything suspicios at all. That is what is mirrored in Pauls answer, speaking about how he saw no suspicious persons running away, for example.

This must be the funnies post on this thread, maybe on the whole Cross issue.

With an idea that is based on the police not making any inquiries, and the Coroner not asking Cross his address [one of the first three questions asked of any witness], we are now expected to "bank" on the coroner asking Paul certain things.