Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Lechmere]

Frank

My guess is that Mizen didn’t ask any questions because Lechmere gave the impression that he was wanted by another policeman to assist in a minor incident.
Two things – minor incident (woman lying in street) and policeman already there.
It isn’t an either/or.
No doubt of you had been in Mizen’s shoes and Lechmere approached you with a similar tale, you would have asked all sorts of searching questions and history would be different.

On Lechmere contradicting himself, you cut my passage in the wrong place – hence you seem to have missed the contradiction.
Let me go over it again, using my original text but with some extra explanations:

Incidentally, Lechmere contradicted himself at the inquest.
He initially testified that in conversation with Paul over the body he said:
"I believe she is dead."

So he testified that he said to Paul, while they were over the body, that he thought the woman was dead. Paul at this stage said he thought she was alive.

Then when he met Mizen he claims he said:
"She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead."
By claiming he thought she was dead from the outset, it makes it look like he had nothing to hide in saying she was dead to Mizen. He claimed Paul was unsure over whether or not Nichols was dead.

So again Lechmere testified that he expressed the opinion that the woman was dead. This time to Mizen.
In fact some press reports have Lechmere saying that Paul said the second bit about the woman being dead.
This obviously contradicts Lechmere’s earlier testimony where he said that Paul thought she was alive.
Actually for the purposes of my discussion with Caz it does not matter who told Mizen that they thought she was dead.
The significant thing is that Lechmere testified that Mizen was told (either by him or by Paul, it matters not who) that there was a dead woman around the corner.
Lechmere also testified that he did not tell Mizen that he was wanted by another policeman.
Hence if we believe Lechmere then Mizen was extraordinarily negligent, particularly as another woman had been murdered just a few minutes’ walk away three weeks before.
Or you can try some convoluted explanation such as that Mien wasn’t listening properly.

To continue…

But when questioned by the coroner, Lechmere said:
‘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.’
So under cross examination he said he didn’t think she was dead after all.

So we have Lechmere testifying that while they were with the body he told Paul that he thought she was dead and Paul saying that he thought she was alive.

Then when they met Mizen he testified that he told Mizen he thought she was dead (or alternatively he made Paul contradict himself and Paul now thought she was dead – take our pick).

But when questioned by the coroner, Lechmere said he just thought she had fainted (gone off in a swoon). There is no indication whatsoever that this was merely his impression prior to telling Paul that he thought she was dead.

It is blatantly obvious that Lechmere contradicted himself in his testimony.

[Lechmere]

DRoy
I would suggest that one has to weigh up what each person says against their actions and how they interlock with what other people said about the same event and their actions. And at the same time try and work out of one person is more believable than another.
This is of course what juries have to do all the time.
For example I have no difficulty in believing Mizen over Paul.
Paul's newspaper interview for example shows him to be economical with the truth. His untruthfulness however wasn't born of guilt, but of vanity (bigging himself up) and I think he was easily suggestible and was influenced by the first sensationalist newspaper reports.

[FrankO]

My guess is that Mizen didn’t ask any questions because Lechmere gave the impression that he was wanted by another policeman to assist in a minor incident.
Two things – minor incident (woman lying in street) and policeman already there.
It isn’t an either/or.

Thanks for clearing that up, Edward.

No doubt of you had been in Mizen’s shoes and Lechmere approached you with a similar tale, you would have asked all sorts of searching questions and history would be different.

No need to get cranky. I just think it’s odd to say the least that Mizen didn’t ask any questions at all to try and establish the urgency of the situation and, as Caz suggested, even the veracity of the two men. By the way, just 2 of 3 would have done nicely.

On Lechmere contradicting himself, you cut my passage in the wrong place –

Sorry, not intentional.

This obviously contradicts Lechmere’s earlier testimony where he said that Paul thought she was alive.

On the surface that indeed seems to contradict his earlier testimony, Edward, but on taking another look at Paul’s testimony, I found that it isn't necessarily a contradiction.

While they’re examining the body, Paul first thinks she’s dead and only just before pulling her clothes down he fancies feeling a slight movement of the chest. So, at the end of the examination , Paul was unsure she was dead. It’s feasible, however, that Paul, on the way to Mizen, had come the conclusion that she was more likely dead (by then). Maybe Paul didn’t say this to Mizen, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t say so to Lechmere after they’d left the crime spot.

Or you can try some convoluted explanation such as that Mien wasn’t listening properly.

Whatever the case, Mizen was negligent and that may well have gone hand in hand with not paying enough attention.

[Lechmere]

Apologies for any crankiness

[Fisherman]

And so I´m back! Lots of sun and sea, no computers, no tellies, no electricity - seven days on a remote island, away from civilisation. One can do worse.

I find that now I´m back, I´ve had all sorts of things asked from me. And I´ve read through all the other matters covered - again.

There are a few things I´d like to say.

To begin with, we (or you, to be more exact) will always be able to find excuses and explanations for the odd behaviour of Lechmere on the murder night. In that respect, those who really, really do not want to believe in any possible guilt on his behalf will always have a convenient straw to grasp and hang on to. And I and Edward won´t be able to copnclusively prove that we are right.

Nor should we try to, given the scarceness of the material. All we should do - and I know I will do just that - is to point to the very obvious possibility that Lechmere DID lie. A chain of events CAN be formed, pointing to him as the killer, and that is as good as it is going to get and as good as we can hope for.
After that, anybody may suggest any explanation, that´s fine and dandy - but it won´t change that the chain can be formed. And has been formed, at long last.

I am asked if Mizen really said that just the one man spoke to him.

Semantically? No.

But if Paul DID speak to him, why did he not say so? Why did the coroner have to remind him that another man was present? Why did Mizen chat away about Lechmere, seemingly forgetting Paul? Why does he keep saying "a man" spoke to him, and not "two men"?
Is that how we do it ourselves, when we are approached by two men who both speak to us, and who both gravely point out that they carry news about a probably dead woman? Do we relate to such an event by saying that "a man told me about..."?
Somehow, I think that´s just wrong. And I think the sooner we wave farewell to the "in company" charade, the better. Fran and I am reoccuringly in company about this, and we have oceans between us.

This detail is also the deciding factor when it comes to judging who was the truthful party and who was the liar. No sense can be made of Mizen lying about this detail, whereas a world of sense can be made by realizing that Lechmere needed to make us believe EXACTLY what Caz, Frank, DRoy etcetera now ARE firm believers of.
So Lechmere conned not only Mizen but also a lot of latter day Ripperologists who really ought to know better, at least to my mind.

One detail that has gone missing in this discussion is how Mizen adds that "he" (not "they", for some VERY peculiar reason...?) did not say anything about any murder or suicide.

Have a look at this passage, and then you will see that thick-as-pigshit Mizen was rather a bright fellow. Any dumb PC would have reflected that Lechmere said nothing about a murder, since with a three-day retrospect, we would all know that it WAS a murder.

But Mizen instead realizes that the fellow PC that the carman had spoken of, would have sent him (Lechmere) and Paul to look for a fellow PC for the simple reason that he had discovered that the woman had had her throat cut. And that, ladies and gentlemen, would NOT necessarily speak of murder - it could equally speak of suicide, as long as no further knowledge had been gathered. And Mizen knew that no such knowledge HAD been gathered at the time, he realized that the grounds had not been searched and that it could therefore be EITHER murder or suicide, as far as that phantom PC knew.

Either way, it would have been the reason that he despatched the carmen, and either way he (Lechmere) and not they (the carmen, since only one spoke to Mizen) should have brought that message and knowledge with him (not them), thus informing Mizen about the grave character of the errand.

But he (not they) never did inform Mizen about ANY grave character at all: he simply said that there was a woman lying in the street in Buck´s Row, and that a fellow PC wanted him there.

Mizen, bright and analytical as he obviously was - would surely have wondered WHY that fellow PC needed his assistence as he walked down Buck´s Row. And when he reached Neil, he was baffled about why he had not been told about the cut throat by the carmen, who to his mind MUST have known about it.

It all hangs together once we realize that Mizen told the truth.

All the best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

if Paul DID speak to him, why did he not say so? Why did the coroner have to remind him that another man was present? Why did Mizen chat away about Lechmere, seemingly forgetting Paul? Why does he keep saying "a man" spoke to him, and not "two men"?
Is that how we do it ourselves, when we are approached by two men who both speak to us, and who both gravely point out that they carry news about a probably dead woman? Do we relate to such an event by saying that "a man told me about..."?

Possibly because Lech did most of he talking? While you were on holiday, if you bumped into a couple of guys and one of them waxed lyrical about a local bar and the other just nodded and threw in the occasional word, would you later say two guys had recommended the bar, or would you say 'This guy told us about a really good bar...?'

Welcome back,

MrB

[MrBarnett]

Calling Ed,

Is this thread OK to discuss cats' meat conundrums?

Re: Kids' capabilities.

T's grandson was known as 'Tipper', because in his early teens he could singlehandedly flip a horse carcase. It was considered a marvel, but I doubt even he could have dragged a whole carcase from Winthrop Street to Pinchin Street.

So I am assuming that the cuts the L's, obtained from the abattoir were, in your own words, 'sides', manageable hunks of meat that did not contain joints requiring skilful dismemberment.

If we have to decamp to a new 'Horsemeat' thread, I'm up for it, I suppose.

MrB

[Fisherman]

Possibly because Lech did most of he talking? While you were on holiday, if you bumped into a couple of guys and one of them waxed lyrical about a local bar and the other just nodded and threw in the occasional word, would you later say two guys had recommended the bar, or would you say 'This guy told us about a really good bar...?'

Welcome back,

MrB

That would depend on what guy number two actually said. In the case we have at hand, Lechmere claims that he told Mizen that the woman they had found was either drunk or dead, and that Paul was more definitive about it, as per the Daily News:
The witness added, "She looks to me either dead or drunk," and the other man remarked, "I think she's dead."

If Mizen was to leave out that both men spoke to him, then such a thing would predispose that Paul said almost nothing and that what he said added no other information than the one Lechmere provided. And even in such a case, I would STILL expect the PC to say that TWO men came up to him and told him about the woman, because otherwise he gave the wrong picture.

The Morning Advertiser is interesting in this context, since they reveal that the coroner actually had to ask about Paul to have his presence confirmed. Here´s the whole snippet:

"Police constable George Maizen (sic), 55 H, said - On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone 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 George Cross, was brought in and 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.

The Coroner - There was another man in company with Cross?

The Witness - Yes. I think he was also a carman."

Notice that Mizen first tells the whole story as if only ONE man was there on that morning. Lechmere is brought in and the PC says "Yes, that´s him, that´s the man who spoke to me", and then he moves on in his story, thinking he has covered what happened at the intersection of Hanbury Street and Baker´s Row, which is why the coroner had to remind him that he has forgotten to mention that there was another man present at the time.

The other papers boil this down to sentences like "When witness spoke to the PC he was accompanied by another man", something that some posters take as a verfication that the two were physically close together. The Morning Advertiser very much allows for a different interpretation. It is the coroner who uses the term "in company", and Mizen simply recognizes that two men - who he thought were working comrades - were there on that morning.

As I have said before, we can easily do what you did: suggest that Paul said a little something and that Mizen didn´t think much enough of it to mention it. There is always the possibility to help Lechmere out!

But in the end, the chain that can be formed, tallying precisely with our suggestion that he conned Mizen and that he was the killer, is not affected by such suggestions.

And look at it from the other angle! If Paul really did chat up Mizen, telling him that he was of the belief that the Buck´s Row woman was dead, then just how big was the chance that the material reported from the inquest would still allow for our interpretation? And not only that, it even prioritizes our view!

Just how big a chance did Edward and I stand that not a single paper, not one of them, would have Mizen stating that "Two men came up to me and told me that ..."?
How big was the chance that Mizen would have totally forgotten about the significance of what Paul told him, that the woman would be dead? So totally, in fact, that he left out Paul of his story altogether and had to be reminded about him by the coroner?

I´d say that the chance was miniscule. And yet, there you are. That´s exactly what happened if your suggestion applies.

But I don´t think it does.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Mr B - if you wish to discuss the ins and outs of the horse meat for cats business, I would recommend a new thread.

[caz]

By the way there is manifestly no contradiction in it being clearly odd that Charles Lechmere always used the name Charles Lechmere in all his dealings with authority (which we know he did) apart from when he went to the police after being fingered as being spotted standing close to a freshly mutilated body, and his coming up with an alias that he could explain away if push comes to shove.

Hi Ed,

Manifestly no contradiction? I've highlighted it for you in your own words!

You say it's 'clearly odd' for him to give an alias to the authorities on the one occasion he has been 'fingered as being spotted standing close to a freshly mutilated body' (wow, what emotive language), but at the same time you say he can 'explain away' the alias 'if push comes to shove'.

I am at a loss to know why you think choosing an explainable alias exempts the one and only use of that alias as being odd.

Can you not see that it's the unique use of an alias, and the circumstances in which he uses it, rather than the alias itself, that would be seen as 'clearly odd' by anyone checking the basics, and can't simply be explained away if push comes to shove. And that's assuming you are right in the first place about him only being known as Lechmere at home and work. If you are right, and the police had decided to check at his home and workplace, and discovered he had made their job ten times more difficult by giving them an alias that nobody recognised or connected with him, and then found only the one use of that alias, in the context of his gruesome discovery in Buck's Row, the late stepfather 'explanation' would have been no explanation at all. What would his late stepfather have had to do with any of it? He'd have still needed to explain the one-off use of an alias, whether it was Mr C Cross, Mr Angry of Purley or Mr C Clown. And the police would have been bloody furious about it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Lechmere]

Caz

OK, I don’t want you to get too emotional. Rather than...

Lechmere only using the name Cross (so far as we can determine) after he was spotted standing close to a freshly mutilated body.

what about…

Lechmere only used Cross (so far as we can determine) after he was spotted close to a deceased person who had expired only a short time before.

On oddness.
The odd thing is that on this occasion he chose to call himself by a name that he was never to use when dealing with any form of authority or in any sort of record whatsoever (so far as we can determine).
The name he chose to use in itself was not odd. Coco the Clown would have been odd.
But the fact that he chose to call himself by a name that was explainable – if push came to shove – as an insurance policy – in no way makes it any less odd that he chose on this one occasion to call himself by a name that he was never to use when dealing with any form of authority or in any sort of record whatsoever (so far as we can determine).

Claiming that his decision to call himself something different was not odd just because he chose an explainable name is frankly perverse. There is no contradiction inherent in this as you strangely try to claim. Even if he made the police very angry had they checked him out.

[Roy Corduroy]

Good morning Lechmere (Ed),

Charles Lechmere discovered the body of Polly Nichols and gave his name as Charles Cross. I suggest he used the name Cross (his stepfather's) because this was the name he was known as at work, at Pickfords. Since he discovered the body on his way walking to work.

But there is another possibility, equally plausible. Charles Lechmere gave the name Charles Cross for the safety, privacy and security of himself and his immediate family. Which makes sense too. Etiher way.

Consider this in context -

The notoriety brought upon Buck's Row by the murder brought about protest by local inhabitants. One story, possibly apocryphal, has it that one particular postman used to address the residents with phrases like "Killer's Row, I believe?" Their petition for a name change was eventually successful and Buck's Row (along with the rest of the street leading up to Vallance Road was renamed Durward Street on 25th October 1892.

(John Bennett essay)

The entire street changed name.

Roy

[caz]

The entire street changed name.

Roy

Arrest that street immediately!

Love,

Caz
X

[Lechmere]

But its been known about since it happened - no subterfuge was possible,

[caz]

The odd thing is that on this occasion he chose to call himself by a name that he was never to use when dealing with any form of authority or in any sort of record whatsoever (so far as we can determine).
The name he chose to use in itself was not odd. Coco the Clown would have been odd.
But the fact that he chose to call himself by a name that was explainable – if push came to shove – as an insurance policy – in no way makes it any less odd that he chose on this one occasion to call himself by a name that he was never to use when dealing with any form of authority or in any sort of record whatsoever (so far as we can determine).

Claiming that his decision to call himself something different was not odd just because he chose an explainable name is frankly perverse. There is no contradiction inherent in this as you strangely try to claim. Even if he made the police very angry had they checked him out.

You're not getting this, are you Ed?

You killed a woman on the street a couple of days ago and are compelled to go to the authorities because you have since been 'outed' as the chap who claimed to find the body. So you decide to give them the surname of a long-dead relative that you have never used before and are not known by at home or work. Now that would be odd because the police only had to seek some independent confirmation of your identity and movements on the morning in question and you'd be caught out using an alias which, however 'explainable' in terms of the name itself, would be mighty tough to explain in terms of why you felt the need for an alias in the first place, giving the police a hard time ascertaining exactly who you were and where you could be contacted.

None of it would be odd, however, if you were known - outside of official documents the police were unlikely to be consulting - by the surname you gave them, at the addresses they asked you to give.

Love,

Caz
X