The Mizen scam

[Fisherman]

Lynn:

"when was the last time you switched off football for a documentary?"

Football, Lynn, is a documentary. Only yesterday, it was a documentary of how people can totally overestimate their capabilities...

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Simon:

"As you are positing Charles Cross/Lechmere as the Ripper, I would like to know how he was identified and thus came to appear as a witness at the Nichols inquest.
Robert Paul was interviewed by Lloyds Weekly News on the evening of Friday 31st August—after which he was visited at home by the police—and again on the night of Saturday 1st September. There was no mystery about his name and address.
But Robert Paul did not know Charles Cross.
So how did the police learn the identity of the man who first discovered/may have murdered Polly Nichols?"

Because he walked into the nearest police station after having found out about the Paul interview and told the desk sergeant there that he, Charles Cross (ehrm!), had been that other man described in the article. And yes, he had actually been the man who had found the body, but only seconds before ...

Thius of course means that he was not identified at all: He served the police an alias, and they bought it.

In the Paul interview, Robert Paul described the other man as somebody ho had stood "where the body was" - a very disconcerting thing for Lechmere, who would quickly have realized that he would do next weeks morning treks to Pickfordīs along routes that the police would potentially watch, looking for the man who had walked to work via Buckīs Row Friday last. And he would always run the risk of stumbling on Paul again, in which case it was far better if he had spoken to the police and served his version of events before that happened.

Mizen, as you will know if you have read the thread, was NOT the one who took down their names. Noone did. The only credible opportunity left is that Lechmere took care of it himself. If you care to read post 104 of this thread, you will get it all in more detail!

The best, Simon!
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Hmmn, let me see...

I've got no problem with your way of thinking, Fishy.

I find it totally rational for the guilty party, having been spotted by a witness compromisingly close to a murder victim in the right time frame, to wish to pre-empt any police suspicion with a double bluff by offering himself up as an innocent witness ...and getting his version in quick..before any unwelcome accusations came his way.

Reminds you of any other willing witnesses ?

[Lechmere]

It is undoubtedly the case that it took the police some time to track down Paul - based on his report given to the Lloyds Weekly Newspaper (whioch gave his name, occupation as carman and an indication that his work took him to Covent Garden. Cross also testified that Paul worked at Corbetts Court.
Dew remembered that there was a bit of a hunt for Paul although he misremembered that Paul was actually found.
Paul himself states that he was raided, dragged out of bed and questioned.
We don't know when this happened but it seems likely that it was after the Chapman murder.
As for Cross it is clear that neither Paul nor Cross gave Mizen their name nor their address.
Cross appeared at the inquest on the Monday.
So when did he appear at a police station to give his story?
My best guess is on Sunday evening after the appearance of the Lloyds story.
Neil was unaware of Cross's and Paul's role in finding the body when he was questioned about it at the inquest on the Saturday.
The Coroner asked Neil if he had been sent by two men - this line of questioning was lost certainly motovated by a press leak about Cross and Paul's involvement following Paul's interview on the Friday evening.
The implications attached to Cross giving his details at a police station after leaving Mizen are interesting.
It takes away the one possible legitimate reason for calling himself Cross while on his way to work - on the basis that there is a very slight chance that Cross was known as Cross at Pickfords as he started work their while his step-father Thomas Cross was still alive - some 20 years earlier.
It also somewhat undermines those who say that he obfuscated to Mizen becasue he didn't want to be late for work and so miss pay. By showing up at the police station he put himself in the frame to miss much more pay by losing a days work to attend the inquest (the expenses given for attendance were only 1 shilling).
I would suggest he had no option but to give his real address in case the police came knocking. If they came knocking and it was a false adrress he would be the subject of a manhunt. His wife couldn't read so any sub poena would be his secret. In any case I suspect he didn't get sent a sub poena as he probably attended a police station on Sundat and appeared at court next day... in his work clothes to avoid alerting his wife to hios involvement.

[Lechmere]

Ruby - Lewis did not spot Hutchinson - wide-awake man was not Hutchinson

[Stephen Thomas]

Ruby - Lewis did not spot Hutchinson - wide-awake man was not Hutchinson

Well that's Ben's theory down the drain.

Care to elaborate?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fisherman,

Thanks. I've read Post #104.

Let me see if I've got this straight.

Cross walked into a police station, admitted to having been alone for a few minutes in Bucks Row with the deceased, gave the police an alias, presumably underwent intensive questioning, appeared at the Nichols inquest, went on to commit four more murders without attaching the slightest suspicion to himself and then walked off into history?

Sorry, Fish. Credibility doesn't enter into it.

Regards,

Simon

[moonbegger]

Hello Fisherman ,

" A very disconcerting thing for Lechmere, who would quickly have realized that he would do next weeks morning treks to Pickfordīs along routes that the police would potentially watch, looking for the man who had walked to work via Buckīs Row Friday last. And he would always run the risk of stumbling on Paul again, in which case it was far better if he had spoken to the police and served his version of events before that happened "

( Q )
So could you enlighten me Fish , as to what the actual benefits of killing on the way to work are ?
(A)
I could, absolutely! If you are of a mindset that craves killing, and have no other option to do so than en route to work, then the obvious benefit will be that you can satisfy your urge by making use of that option.

We obviously have a different meaning for the word "absolutely" fisherman.

" No other option to do so other than en route to work "

WHY ? when you explained earlier that he may have even popped down the busy Whitechapel road to trawl for a victim , before getting back on the work track .. and you also mentioned that we only had his word as to what time he left for work . For one with such a blood lust as you describe , surely getting up a little earlier in order to fulfill and satisfy his urges wouldn't be too much of a price to pay ?

"At the inquest, Paul said that the man he met (Lechmere) was standing in the middle of the road as he approached him from the east. It is only in the interview of the Lloydīs Weekly of the 3:rd that Paul claims that Lechmere was standing where the body was. And Lechmere did not walk to the body before Paul did - they did so together, on Lechmereīs bid.
" He would have stepped out in the middle BEFORE Paul could make him out in the dark. The reason, I think, should be very obvious!"

So he murders and mutilates Polly .. jumps out of the shadows and hovers around in the middle of the road waiting on the arrival of Paul .. Still not knowing if he had been watched from a nearby window .

I just dont see the Ripper as someone Yo Yo ing around his fresh kill wondering what to do .. or confused as to what his next move should be . The very little we do know about the killer is that , he was Cold and calculating and always in control of his own destiny . I have no doubt he could have bluffed his way out of a few sticky situations .. But only and i mean ONLY if it was his last and very only option.

cheers ,

moonbegger

[Rubyretro]

Well that's Ben's theory down the drain.

Care to elaborate?

Stephen -Lechmere is just being provoking.

Elaborating on it here is silly , because Fish & Ben will hijack the thread to a different suspect.

However, it it is clear that some people will start saying that it is unbelievable that a guilty party would willingly come forward and volunteer himself as a witness to the police -I really don't think that that is the case, for a variety of reasons.

[Rubyretro]

We obviously have a different meaning for the word "absolutely" fisherman.

" No other option to do so other than en route to work "

Well, I understood that perfectly clearly, Moonbegger.

If on your way to work was your easiest time to murder, then that's when you'd do it.

It would be difficult to vary the time by too much if he had a wife and family.

..

Still not knowing if he had been watched from a nearby window .

He would know that if he'd looked at the windows -he was in total darkness, at an hour when innocent households were tucked up in bed.

I just dont see the Ripper as someone Yo Yo ing around his fresh kill wondering what to do .. or confused as to what his next move should be . The very little we do know about the killer is that , he was Cold and calculating and always in control of his own destiny . I have no doubt he could have bluffed his way out of a few sticky situations .. But only and i mean ONLY if it was his last and very only option.

Some one cold & calculating & in control of their own destiny, is just the sort of person to walk into a police staion as a volunteer, before being searched for.
cheers ,

moonbegger [/QUOTE]

[Fisherman]

Simon:

"Let me see if I've got this straight."

Yes, letīs!

"Cross walked into a police station..."

Yes.

"... admitted to having been alone for a few minutes in Bucks Row with the deceased..."

No! He would only admit to having been the man who found her, being aware of her presence the fewest of seconds before Paul came upon him.

" ...gave the police an alias..."

Well, we actually know that this was so, so yes.

"... presumably underwent intensive questioning..."

Arguably, yes. And was arguably written off too.

" ...appeared at the Nichols inquest..."

True enough!

"... went on to commit four more murders without attaching the slightest suspicion to himself and then walked off into history?"

Yes, Simon - although my guess is that perhaps as many as six more women fell prey to him.

"Sorry, Fish. Credibility doesn't enter into it."

Equally sorry, Simon, but the shere fact that we know that the police never even found out his real name more or less ensures that they never suspected "Cross" at all. If he had been the target of police interest, then the police would have spoken to his wife and family as well as to his colleagues at work, at which time the alias would had been blown. It was not, though. Conclusion?

And why could he not proceed with his killings? Do you want me to dig out some killers from history who have been the target of intense police interest and gone on to kill just the same? Ridgway was interviewed by the police at a number of occasions, and kept killing in spite of being the number one suspect, David Carpenter, the so called Trailside killer, killed inbetween reporting to his probation officer, Robert Pickton had been charged with sexual assault and attempted murder of a prostitute and was visited and questioned by the police - and merrily went on killing prostitutes anyway. And thatīs just to mention a few!

So why would a man in whom the police were NOT interested not go on to kill, when so may others who have been specifically targetted, suspected and questioned by the police have done so? Why does what have been grim facts in all these cases not even enter as a credibility in Lechmereīs case?

All the best, Simon!
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Football, Lynn, is a documentary. Only yesterday, it was a documentary of how people can totally overestimate their capabilities...

I didn`t realise they were still showing those documentaries in Sweden.

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"We obviously have a different meaning for the word "absolutely" fisherman."

Perhaps so. I still say he killed en route to work because he found that window of time useful. It presented him with dark, surrendered streets, streetwalkers and an alibi to be on the streets. Absolutely.

"For one with such a blood lust as you describe , surely getting up a little earlier in order to fulfill and satisfy his urges wouldn't be too much of a price to pay ?"

I canīt remember ever saying anything else. He may have gotten up ten, fifteen minutes earlier then he needed to, that is quite possible, as long as nobody (like his wife) kept track of the timings.

"So he murders and mutilates Polly .. jumps out of the shadows and hovers around in the middle of the road waiting on the arrival of Paul "

He murders and starts to mutilate Nichols, he probably concentrates his interest on the western outlet of Buckīs Row, as indicated by Nicholīs position (he stood more of a risk to be surprised from that direction, having only some meters to the schoolhouse corner), he hears somebody approaching from the Brady Street direction instead, coming up behind him, turns around, realizes that he CAN run for it, but not without being heard, and decides to bluff it out instead. He silently gets up, and steps, equally silently, into the street and awaits Paul. Thatīs about it.

"Still not knowing if he had been watched from a nearby window ."

How COULD he know? How could he know in Berner Street, in the Hanbury Street backyard, in Mitre Square? The answer is he couldnīt. But bear in mind that in Buckīs Row, he killed on the same side of the street as the dwelling houses, making it impossible for the dwellers to see him up at the fence - the other side was made up of industrial buildings, and the fewest lived there. And even if he had been seen from the Essex wharf, he would have been in almost total darkness, so his identity would not have been given away.

"I just dont see the Ripper as someone Yo Yo ing around his fresh kill wondering what to do .."

Nor do I. I see him as a killer knowing quite well what to do, and prepared to take risks.

"The very little we do know about the killer is that , he was Cold and calculating and always in control of his own destiny ."

Iīm afraid we donīt know this at all. But it fits with Lechmere and the picture I paint of him if it is really the case.

"I have no doubt he could have bluffed his way out of a few sticky situations .. But only and i mean ONLY if it was his last and very only option."

I think he would equally have chosen that strategy if he judged it to be his BEST option. And if I am correct, he never ran the risk of running straight into the arms of any PC, he made sure that no alarm was raised until he was well away, he bluffed his way past Mizen with ease and he stayed unsuspected throughout the whole Ripper affair. Thatīs not a small feat, is it?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Elaborating on it here is silly , because Fish & Ben will hijack the thread to a different suspect."

No I wonīt. This is a lot more interesting thread, and I will not have it Hutchinsonized. But Lechmere is correct, of course!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jon:

"I didn`t realise they were still showing those documentaries in Sweden."

Oh yes. It runs between "The Suicide Magazine" and "Letters from the Tax Authorities".

The best,
Fisherman