Lawende was silenced

[Fisherman]

I know i'm repeating myself and others, but, at least as far as i know, the police itself decided not to analyze any lead originating by the supposed "Mizen Scam". This should not suggest that the police itself was convinced that it was just a big red herring?

I mean, back in the few days after the murder, the police had every element to decide whatever the should investigate further about Lechmere, Paul, Mizen, Neil or whoever else. Are we really entitled to think that the police was so incompetent that they decided, say, to let Lechmere walk away without having at least considered, and ruled out, the possibility that he was the culprit?

Are we entitled to think that the police was so incompetent as to search a loft three times without finding the body of Tia Sharpe?

We are "entitled" to award the police any grade of competence we wish to.

Are we really entitled to think that the police was so incompetent as to forget to speak to all the dwellers of Bucks Row?

Yes, we are - and we would be correct.

What you may be missing is the element of criminal anthropology that would have stamped "Not him!" on the forehead of Charles Lechmere. Prejudice was science and the order of the day in 1888. We are 128 years removed from that year. Back down in time 128 years from 1888, and you will end up in a Europe where witch trials were still being held.

Context is everything.

And in this case, the context should be Lawende, not Lechmere.

[Robert]

Hi Fish

And of course, your bleak picture of police incompetence has one ray of sunshine to lighten the gloom : Mizen. Mizen could not possibly have made a mistake. Mizen had been graded as 'good.' All the blundering police you mention - well, they must have been graded as 'bad.' But Mizen was graded as 'good.' We can depend on Mizen.

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

So we got a police which prejudices involved letting people walk away without even bother if what they said was plausible, but with NO possibile prejudices that would have let her to, say, take a poor bystander in just because he was the first one on the scene of a murder.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish

And of course, your bleak picture of police incompetence has one ray of sunshine to lighten the gloom : Mizen. Mizen could not possibly have made a mistake. Mizen had been graded as 'good.' All the blundering police you mention - well, they must have been graded as 'bad.' But Mizen was graded as 'good.' We can depend on Mizen.

You are quite welcome to believe tat the police were competent and that Mizen was not to be relied upon, Robert.

It will be a reversed mirror image of what you accuse me of, but what the hell...

[Fisherman]

So we got a police which prejudices involved letting people walk away without even bother if what they said was plausible, but with NO possibile prejudices that would have let her to, say, take a poor bystander in just because he was the first one on the scene of a murder.

Yes, we have a prejudiced police force, no doubt about that.

If you think that is the same as letting people walk away without bothering if what they said was plausible, then that is your call.

What Lechmere said WAS however plausible, and that would be an excellent reason to let him walk instead of delving deeper into him IF the police were prejudiced.

If we can elevate the level of discussion, it would be nice.

[Pierre]

Yes, we have a prejudiced police force, no doubt about that.

If you think that is the same as letting people walk away without bothering if what they said was plausible, then that is your call.

What Lechmere said WAS however plausible, and that would be an excellent reason to let him walk instead of delving deeper into him IF the police were prejudiced.

If we can elevate the level of discussion, it would be nice.

Hi,

When we discuss the police force we might be helped by looking through the cases where the police did manage to catch and convict murderers. There were a lot of such cases.

So the question is why this case seems to be different.

Regards, Pierre,

[Fisherman]

Hi,

When we discuss the police force we might be helped by looking through the cases where the police did manage to catch and convict murderers. There were a lot of such cases.

So the question is why this case seems to be different.

Regards, Pierre,

Sadly, Pierre, the history of policing involves a large number of cases aptly handled and a smaller number of cases handled with incompetence.

Why some cases are succeses and others failures is something that is not easy to establish. It just happens, for a variety of reasons.

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

Yes, we have a prejudiced police force, no doubt about that.

If you think that is the same as letting people walk away without bothering if what they said was plausible, then that is your call.

What Lechmere said WAS however plausible, and that would be an excellent reason to let him walk instead of delving deeper into him IF the police were prejudiced.

If we can elevate the level of discussion, it would be nice.

Frankly, Fisherman, i happen to discuss always with those two-three users here whose habit is to make the discussion converge always on the same points (the ripper is a policeman, the police is bad and there is a conspiracy, the torso murder cut the colon in this or that way, and so on) and is rather difficult to elevate it's level in this case.

[Fisherman]

Frankly, Fisherman, i happen to discuss always with those two-three users here whose habit is to make the discussion converge always on the same points (the ripper is a policeman, the police is bad and there is a conspiracy, the torso murder cut the colon in this or that way, and so on) and is rather difficult to elevate it's level in this case.

When it comes to the colon business I´ve done the job for you, so you can chill on that score.

[Elamarna]

Pierre

sorry about late reply, been a little busy.

Yes, you are speaking in very general terms here. And that could be right, but thinking i general terms has not led to finding Jack the Ripper.

Pierre that does not make another type of approach correct.

Well, I am not really interested in Lechmere, he just happened to have a testimony which might be explained by other sources, and I am not interested in "explaining Lechmere". That is the job of Fisherman!

Once again my friend you are being economic with the truth, and once again that is with yourself, not us.

Of course you are interested in Lechmere, you require him to be misleading to allow a tie in to your theory of a police officer in Bucks Row and the grand conspiracy you are attempting to construct.


So let us put what Lechmere said into some sort of perspective.

Did he mislead?

He gave his correct first name.
He gave his correct middle name.
He gave the correct home address.
He gave the correct employer.

in addition he gave a surname under which he was listed on a census in the 1860's.

Was he therefore trying to hide?

Given he supplied the first four above, he was extremely easy to trace if need be.


Again, there is no way of knowing the truth, and people will never agree.

I know, and as I have said before people were probably often worried about being witnesses in murder cases. So using the name Cross could have been convenient for him for that reason only. But then there is the statement about the policeman. And there is no explanation for that. That is the problem. So I think the tendency in his testimony is that he tries to protect himself. If he had just said that his name was Lechmere, that hypothesis would perhaps be weaker. I don´t know. On the other hand, it could have been stronger, since you could have claimed that he was a man who told the truth.

The statement about the police is only of importance if you accept that he lied and Mizen told the truth.


We should now briefly look at PC Mizen to see if there are any reasons why his testimony was different from Lechmere and Paul.

1. He may have simply misunderstood, when told he was needed in Bucks Row and then finding an officer already there it could have been an assumption on his part. This is certainly possible.

2. You have said before that there may be a bias against the police in witness reports.
However from Mizen's own testimony he admitted he did not go immediately to Bucks row, rather he continued to knock up one more house.
The comment about being told a police officer was already in Bucks Row may have to cover up his failure to proceed immediately.

We have limited sources, analysis of that data does not give a clear indication if either of the witnesses lied, it is highly possible, indeed i would say probable, that there was a genuine misunderstand, but there is no way of being sure.

And we can not make a wish list for them.

It is not a wish list, it is a statement of fact.

Can employment data be produced which shows he was always employed under the name Lechmere ( I do not know myself, however I am sure Fisherman could tell us)

I think it is only a matter of definition. If he had something to gain or made a rational choice (good theories for this) it would have been that no one would find a "Lechmere" at his adress. Why would he have wanted that?

No they would found a man with:

The same first and middle names, with the same employer.

That is a very weak attempt at deception.

But the consequences are the most important since it is an historical fact that he called himself Cross:
1) What was the consequences of his giving his name as Cross?

And I do not mean what "could have been" the consequences.

What do you think about this, Steve?

The overall effect we cannot know, we were not there.

However we can draw some conclusions.

The consequences were:

That his family were not linked directly to the murders.

That his identity would not be immediately obvious, other than to those who had the right (legally) to conduct a search for him.

The Police may ( I know you said not could have been, but we cannot know if this was the case or not) have trusted him more being he was the step son of a former officer, that is highly probable.

Has with Lawende, whom this thread is meant to be about, there’s no convincing data to suggest anyone was silenced.

You see it, because you want to my friend, not because it is real or tangible.



Steve

[Fisherman]

Steve, I sometimes despair over these matters. I ask myself "Do people bother to read what I write at all?"

Here it is again, that old "If he wanted to deceive, he made a poor job" business.

So here is my answer again, same as usual. Please read it, digest it, and then tell me if you can see the logic of it!

Charles Lechmere was asked twice to state his name, addres and working place - inititially when he arrived at the cop shop, and then as he testified at the inquest.

What I am now saying works from the assumption that he was the killer. If so, then he would have come forward since he had been mentioned - albeit not by name - by Robert Paul in the latters interview in Lloyds. So Lechmere would have been aware that his presence by the body of Polly Nichols had been made public.
He did not know to what extent the police believed what Paul had said, but he would have known that IF the police believed in Paul, then they would have been very interested in his role in the business. And potentially, they would regard him as a suspect.

So he decides to go to the police and serve up a story that makes it impossible for him to have been the killer.

Now, as he makes that decision, he will be aware that he will be asked to state who he is, where he lives and what he does for a living. And he will be aware that the police, if they take an interest in him as the possible culprit, may check him out.

So, to what extent could he have made a better job of deceiving the police, Steve?

If he was checked and had given the wrong name, the wrong address and the wrong job - would that have the police entertaining suspicions against him? It most certainly would - it would turn him into a red hot suspect, and the pressure would be on. Is that a better deceiving job? Or is it a more thorough deception, but a stupid and extremely risky one?

Realistically, he had no choice but to give the police correct information to as great an extent as possible. And given that he had presented himself to them, showing them his face, attending the inquest, it was always obvious that he was not trying to avoid the police - he was hoping that they would not investigate him, but taking steps to avoid suspicion if they did.

Now, if he was not trying to avoid the police, then why did he not call himself Lechmere? Well, because he may have been trying to avoid somebody else´s interest - that of his family and aquaintances. If he did not want them to know that he was the Bucks Row witness, how could he avoid that?

There were three elements involved:
1. His name - if he called himself Charles Lechmere, then his family and aquaintances would know it was him.
2. The address - if he said he lieved at 22 Doveton Street, the same thing would apply.
3. His working place - Pickfords was huge and hundreds of men worked there, so he could stay incognito even if he gave that information.

Now, what do we have? We have him giving another name than the one he normally used in contact with the authoritites. But not a name to which he had no connection! The advantages were apparent:
A/ He could defend it with the police - if they checked him.
B/ He would stay undisclosed to his family and aquaintances on the name score.
What more do we have? We have the fact that one paper only had the address, making it a very obvious possibility that he did not state his address before the inquest, once again leaving him undisclosed to his family and relatives. The Star only had the address, and they had it exactly correct, opening up the possibility that the reporter got it from a clerk, and copied it letter by letter.

So it seems that he fulfilled what would have been a very clever tactic: He stayed kosher with the police, regardless if he was examined or not, and he served up information that would not have him identifiable to family and relatives, the ones who were able to keep a daily track of him.

If that is a stupid thing to do, then I must say that I have seem things that have been a lot more stupid. I think that what he did was absolutely optimal.

Can you see how I reason, Steve? Can you see the logic of it? The viability? Can you see how I get very tired about the "if he wanted to deceive, he really did a bad job of it" stuff?

I hope so. But bitter experience tells me that many posters are very slow when it comes to picking up on this, so I am not holding my breath.

[Elamarna]

Dear Fisherman,

I have not really taken any previous interest in Lechmere, and I only mentioning him in relation to the posts by Pierre, I did mention in my post that I knew little and you certainly did.

And my friend the view that people do not read what is write is indeed correct in this particular case.

Will be honest I have not read all of your posts, or indeed others on the subject, because I do not consider Lechmere as a very good suspect. certainly not in my top suspects.
Of course you will obviously disagree and such is the way in this field.

Just because someone gives a view, such as yours on "did he do a good/job: does not mean that the view must be accepted, and while your post is very detailed and obviously represents a well reasoned argument, I do not agree.
Without going into details and turning this into a fully fledged Lechmere thread, all I will say is that I fell it would be far easier to hide by giving information other than what he did give.

Of course I find it interesting that this thread began as was "Lawende silenced", but evolves to include Lechmere because the OP has a theory that witnesses were systematically silenced as part of a grand coverup.

I must say I loved you comment previously about you not being the one to take it off topic.


The actual facts on Lechmere are reasonably clear and on those I feel you are a fount of knowledge.
The points I listed about what he gave as information were all true were they not?

However when it comes to how those facts are interpreted we part company.
ultimately I disagree with many of your conclusion.


My main interest here was with regards as to if Lechmere spoke about a police officer, as that is the premise of Pierre theory, and his reading of that is based on the idea the Lechmere lied.
That was the point I was addressing, and not the overall case for/against Lechmere.

I fully understand that you may feel frustrated, however to me at least while you have given a viable explanation, it is not the only one.

I am not slow on picking up what you say, rather I just do not agree with it.
There are times when your own certainty about the case for Lechmere, means you are unable to accept others do not see it as you do.
That I am afraid is the way of things when you are so sure, but cannot prove a position.

Anyway Fisherman, you may one day find the information which will convince me at least.

I will never rule any reasonable argument out completely.

best wishes

Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna:

Will be honest I have not read all of your posts, or indeed others on the subject, because I do not consider Lechmere as a very good suspect.

Maybe reading what is written about him could make a change, Steve. Knowledge was never a bad thing before deciding these matters.

Just because someone gives a view, such as yours on "did he do a good/job: does not mean that the view must be accepted...

What a very curious thing to say. Have I ever argued that what I reason must be accepted?

I fell it would be far easier to hide by giving information other than what he did give.

Then you should be able to exemplify, no doubt!

I fully understand that you may feel frustrated, however to me at least while you have given a viable explanation, it is not the only one.

With the risk of repeating myself: What a very curious thing to say! Have I suggested that it was?

Anyway Fisherman, you may one day find the information which will convince me at least.

Really?

What a very curious thing to say.

[David Orsam]

True Colours

Hi David,

I respectfully suggest that you seek treatment for your disorder.

Good luck.

I see that Simon, as he always seems to do when he has nothing sensible to say, resorts to personal abuse, the veneer of civility disappearing as fast as one can say "there is no Jack the Ripper". Certainly, his post fails to answer any of the questions I asked him about his bizarre "alibi" theory.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

It wasn't personal abuse. It was concern.

You took my post, twisted it inside out and then argued against it.

This is not normal behaviour, so please do not bother responding.

Regards,

Simon