The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Stewart P Evans]

They certainly do...

No they don't.

They certainly do, I have been involved in court cases where the defence brings in their own expert witness to counter evidence given by a prosecution expert. Because, you see, experts are the only witnesses allowed to give opinion in evidence, and that does not always correspond.

[Lechmere]

I think you'll find that was a joke.

GUT
Only the Star published Lechmere's address and they got it spot on.
The Star was an evening paper and they did not cover the afternoon session of the Monday sitting of the inquest because the had to go to print.
Where most newspapers gave the addresses of witnesses (which they would read out at the outset of their evidence) they invariably gave approximations as the journalist would be feverishly scribbling away in the noisy courtroom. None of the other newspapers even gave an approximation of Lechmere's address.
The supposition is that the intrepid Star reporter went to the court usher during the lunch recess and got Lechmere's address, and that Lechmere had not given his address in open court and he was not picked up on this omission.
The Star would not have had time to go to Pickfords to meet their print deadline.
Not a single newspaper did any sort of follow on story about Lechmere - he seemed so dull, boring and ever so humble - one account has him yes siring and no siring the coroner with his every statement.

[GUT]

They certainly do, I have been involved in court cases where the defence brings in their own expert witness to counter evidence given by a prosecution expert. Because, you see, experts are the only witnesses allowed to give opinion in evidence, and that does not always correspond.

G'day Stewart

I think Paul was trying to be funny, by disagreeing with you, perhaps he's just not very good at it.

[Lechmere]

I thought it was quite amusing

[Chris]

The supposition is that the intrepid Star reporter went to the court usher during the lunch recess and got Lechmere's address, and that Lechmere had not given his address in open court and he was not picked up on this omission.

Does this supposition really help your case, though?

Presumably you're not disputing that Cross/Lechmere would have gone to the coroner's court in the expectation that he would have to give his address, and that it would be in all the newspapers?

[GUT]

I thought it was quite amusing

Actually I did too, but if Stewart didn't it must not have been as funny as I thought.

[Stewart P Evans]

Not an expert

G'day Stewart
I think Paul was trying to be funny, by disagreeing with you, perhaps he's just not very good at it.

I've known Paul for a long time and I always take him seriously, although I do know of an impish sense of humour that always lurks. But to understand this one I would have had to consider myself an expert - and I don't, as I've often stated here.

[Trevor Marriott]

The real test is will you even get a committal where the test is, could a jury properly instructed on the law convict. At that stage the defence has the option of reserving or presenting some, or all of it's evidence.

And the issue of prima facie case is very much a part of a criminal trial.

And Scobie, or anyone else saying that there is a good enough case to put before a jury is totally irrelevant, I've seen some real dogs go before juries.

Lets pick 12 random Casebooksers and see if you get anywhere near a conviction.

They dont have committals anymore. The first time evidence is tested is at court. That why more than a prima faceia case is now looked for.

[Stewart P Evans]

For Ease of Reference

Friday 31 August 1888
P.C. 97J Neil, reports at 3.45 on 31st inst. he found the dead body of a woman lying on her back with her clothes a little above her knees… - Inspector Spratling, MEPO 3/140 f239, Friday, 31 August 1888.

Her name was Mary Ann Nichols…She was seen walking the Whitechapel Road about 11 p.m. 30th; at 12.30 a.m. 31st she was seen to leave the Frying Pan Public House, Brick Lane, Spitalfields; at 1.20 a.m. 31st she was at the common lodging house, 18 Thrawl Street and at 2.30 a.m. at the corner of Osborn Street and Whitechapel Road, on each occasion she was alone. At 3.45 a.m. or an hour and a quarter later, she is found dead, and no person can be found at present who saw her after 2.30 a.m. – Inspector Joseph H. Helson, MEPO 3/140 f237, Friday, 7 September 1888.

About 3.40 am 31st Ult. as Charles Cross, “carman” of 22 Doveton Street, Cambridge Road, Bethnal Green was passing through Bucks Row, Whitechapel (on his way to work) he noticed a woman lying on her back on the footway (against some gates leading into a stable yard) he stopped to look at the woman when another carman (also on his way to work) named Robert Paul of 30 Foster St., Bethnal Green came up, and Cross called his attention to the woman, but being dark they did not notice any blood, and passed on with the intention of informing the first constable they met, and on arriving at the corner of Hanbury St. and Old Montague St. they met P.C. 55H Mizen and acquainted him of what they had seen, and on the Constable proceeding towards the spot he found that P.C. 97J Neil (who was on the beat) had found the woman, and was calling for assistance. P.C. Neil had turned on his light and discovered that the woman’s throat was severely cut. – Inspector Frederick G Abberline, MEPO 3/140 ff242-243, Wednesday, 19 September 1888.

3.45 a.m. 31st. Augst. the body of a woman was found lying on the footway in Buck’s Row, Whitechapel, by Charles Cross & Robert Paul, Carmen, on their way to work. They informed P.C. 55H Mizen in Bakers Row, but before his arrival P.C. 97J Neil, on whose beat it was, had discovered it…The result of Police enquiries are as follows:- 2.30 a.m. 31st Aug. 88 Mrs Nichols was last seen alive at 2.30 a.m. 31st Aug 1888 in a state of drunkenness at the corner of Osborn Street and Whitechapel Road, by Ellen Holland…She was then alone & going in the direction of Bucks Row by Whitechapel Road. An hour and a quarter afterwards the body was found at Bucks Row. Enquiry was then made at common lodging houses, & the statements of persons taken, but no person was able to say that they had seen her alive more recently than Ellen Holland…Enquiry at the common lodging house where Mrs Nichols lived shewed that when she left there at 1.40 a.m. it was for the purpose of getting sufficient money to pay for her bed, - 4d – that she had then no money and she told Ellen Holland at 2.30 a.m. that then she had no money to pay for her bed. – Chief Inspector Donald Swanson, HO 144/221/A49301C ff129-132, Friday, 19 October 1888.

[GUT]

They dont have committals anymore. The first time evidence is tested is at court. That why more than a prima faceia case is now looked for.

They sure dd in 1888.

[Stewart P Evans]

Reference

Friday 31 August 1888 Night

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. It was dark, 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 characters 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, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head. – Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper, Sunday, September 2, 1888.

Saturday 1 September 1888 Inquest opened in the afternoon

Police-constable John Neil 97J, 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 Essex Wharf. The deceased was lying lengthways and her left hand touched the gate. With the aid of his lamp he examined the body and saw blood oozing from a wound in the throat. Deceased was lying on her back with her clothes disarranged. Witness felt her arm, which was quite warm from the joints upwards, while her eyes were wide open. Her bonnet was off her head and was lying by her right side, close by the left hand. – The Times, Tuesday, 4 September 1888 [HO 144/221/A49301C f6].

[Stewart P Evans]

Reference

John Neil, police-constable 97J, 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. She was lying on her back, with her clothes disarranged. I felt her arm, which was quite warm from the joints upwards. Her eyes were wide open. Her bonnet was off and lying at her side, close to the left hand. I heard a constable passing Brady-street, so I called him. I did not whistle. I said to him, “Run at once for Dr. Llewellyn,” and seeing another constable in Baker’s-row, I immediately sent for the ambulance. The doctor arrived in a very short time. I had in the meantime rung the bell at Essex wharf, and asked if any disturbance had been heard. The reply was “No.” Sergeant Kirby came after, and he knocked. The doctor looked at the woman, and then said, “Move the woman to the mortuary. She is dead, and I will make a further examination of her.” We then placed her on the ambulance, and moved her there. Inspector Spratley [sic] came to the mortuary, and while taking a description of the deceased examined her clothes, and found that she was disembowelled. This had not been noticed by any of them before. On the body was found a piece of comb and a bit of looking-glass. No money was found, but an unmarked white handkerchief was found in her pocket. There was a pool of blood just where her neck was lying. The blood was then running from the wound in her neck.
The Coroner: Did you hear any noise that night?
Witness: No, I heard nothing. The farthest I had been that night was just through the Whitechapel-road and up Baker’s-row. I was never far away from the spot.
The Coroner: Whitechapel-road is busy in the early morning, I believe. Could anybody have escaped that way?
Witness: Oh yes, sir. I saw a number of women in the main road going home. At that time anyone could have got away.
The Coroner: Someone searched the ground, I believe?
Witness: Yes, I examined it while the doctor was being sent for.
Inspector Spratley: I examined the road, sir, in daylight.
A Juryman (to witness): Did you see a trap in the road at all?
Witness: No.
To be contd...

[GUT]

I've known Paul for a long time and I always take him seriously, although I do know of an impish sense of humour that always lurks. But to understand this one I would have had to consider myself an expert - and I don't, as I've often stated here.

Paul obviously thinks you are.

[Stewart P Evans]

Contd...

Juryman: Knowing that the body was warm, did it not strike you that it might just have been laid there, and that the woman was killed elsewhere?
Witness: I examined the road, but did not see the mark of wheels. The first to arrive on the scene after I had discovered the body were two men who work at a slaughter-house opposite. They said they knew nothing of the affair, and that they had not heard any screams. I had previously seen the men at work. That would be about a quarter-past three, or half-an-hour before I found the body. – Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper, Sunday, September 2, 1888.

Despite the policeman’s assertion that he was the first to discover the body, Mr. Paul last night repeated the statement made to our representative on Friday evening that he and another man found the corpse long before the police. He says the policeman he spoke to was not belonging to that beat. Every word he had said was true. – Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper, Sunday, September 2, 1888.

Monday 3 September 1888 Inquest Resumed in the morning
George[sic] - Charles] 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. Witness walked along Buck’s-row, and saw something lying in front of the gateway like a tarpaulin. He then saw it was a woman. A man came along and witness spoke to him. They went and looked at the body. 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. He did not notice any blood, as it was very dark. They went to Baker’s-row, saw the last witness, and told him there was a woman lying down in Buck’s-row on the broad of her back. Witness also said he believed she was dead or drunk, while the other man stated he believed her to be dead. The constable replied “All right.” The other man left witness at the corner of Hanbury-street and turned into Corbett’s-court. He appeared to be a carman, and was a stranger to witness. At the time he did not think the woman had been murdered. Witness did not hear any sounds of a vehicle, and believed that had any one left the body after he got into Buck’s-row he must have heard him. – The Times, Tuesday, 4 September 1888 [HO 144/221/A49301C f8].

Chas. Andrew [sic] Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for over twenty years. About half-past three on Friday he left his home to go to work, and he passed through Buck’s-row. He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck’s-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. When he came up witness said to him, “Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement.” They both crossed over to the body, and witness took hold of the woman’s hands, which were cold and limp. Witness said, “I believe she is dead.” He touched her face, which felt warm. The other man,
To be contd...

[Stewart P Evans]

Contd...

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 [sic]. Witness did not notice that her throat was cut, the night being very dark. He and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker’s-row they met the last witness [Mizen], whom they informed that they had seen a woman lying in Buck’s-row. Witness said, “She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead.” The policeman said, “All right,” and then walked on. The other man left witness soon after. Witness had never seen him before. Replying to the coroner, witness denied having seen Police-constable Neil in Buck’s-row. There was nobody there when he and the other man left. In his opinion deceased looked as if she had been outraged and gone off in a swoon; but he had no idea that there were any serious injuries. The Coroner: Did the other man tell you who he was? Witness: No, sir; he merely said that he would have fetched a policeman, only he was behind time. I was behind time myself. A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck’s-row? Witness: No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck’s-row. – The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday, 4 September 1888.

Constable G. Mizen 56H stated that at a quarter past 4 on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker’s-row and a man passing said “You are wanted in Baker’s-row.” The man, named Cross, stated a woman had been found there. In going to the spot he saw Constable Neil, and by the direction of the latter he went for the ambulance. When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street. Cross simply said he was wanted by a policeman, and did not say anything about a murder having been committed. He denied that before he went to Buck’s-row he continued knocking people up. – The Times, 4 September 1888 [HO 144/221/A49301C f8].

Police-constable G. Maizen [sic – Mizen], 55H, said – On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury-street, Baker’s-row, when some one who was passing said, “You’re wanted down there” (pointing to Buck’s-row). The man appeared to be a carman. (The man, whose name is Cross, was brought in, and the witness identified him as the man who spoke to him on the morning in question). I went up Buck’s-row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, “Go for an ambulance,” and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman. There was another man in company with Cross. I think he was also a carman. – The Morning Post, 4 September 1888.

Charles Allen Cross, a carman, in the employ of Messrs. Pickford, said – On Friday morning I left home at half-past three. I went down Parson-street, crossed Brady-street, and through Buck’s-row. I was alone. As I got up Buck’s-row I saw something lying on the north side [sic] in the gateway to a wool warehouse [sic]. It looked to me like a man’s tarpaulin, 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 done, so I waited for him to come up. When he came up I said, “Come and look over here; there is a woman.” We then 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
To be contd...