The Mizen scam

[Bridewell]

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.

Apologies if you've already answered this, but how do we know that the police never found out his 'real' name?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Cogidubnus]

More to the point what if Cross turned up at the Police Station and asked which name he should make the formal statement under? Only surmise, but so is much of what I read here...

Dave

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

"how do we know that the police never found out his 'real' name?"

It was not his "real" name, Bridewell. It was his real name. He was born Lechmere, he lived Lechmere, married Lechmere and died Lechmere. The only official errand in which he occurs as Cross is the police investigation into the murder of Polly Nichols. They accepted him as "Cross" and referred to him like that from the moment he contacted them and throughout the whole affair. And when the police were aware of an alias being used, they recorded both names.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"what if Cross turned up at the Police Station and asked which name he should make the formal statement under? "

??? I donīt get what you are after, Dave. Would the police not want him to make the statement under his correct name, is that it?

"Only surmise, but so is much of what I read here..."

I would say that when you read about Lechmere being proposed as a subject, you read much, much more of real, established connections to the murders than you do in any other case. Take, if you will, Kosminsky, and ask yourself how many hard facts and how much testimony ties him to any of the cases. We have him walking a dog, and thatīs about it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

I'm merely thinking aloud and positing a "what if?"

I'm not necessarily "after" anything...

Dave

[Fisherman]

Nor am I "after" you in any respect, Dave. I am just asking whether it makes a viable thing to posit that people went to the police and asked then under which name the police wanted them to testify?
Are there any precendents in such a case? Is this common practice in Britain? Or anywhere else?

No rush to answer - Iīll be sound asleep in five minutes time. Nighty-nighty!

The best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

The Question

Bridewell:

"how do we know that the police never found out his 'real' name?"

It was not his "real" name, Bridewell. It was his real name. He was born Lechmere, he lived Lechmere, married Lechmere and died Lechmere. The only official errand in which he occurs as Cross is the police investigation into the murder of Polly Nichols. They accepted him as "Cross" and referred to him like that from the moment he contacted them and throughout the whole affair. And when the police were aware of an alias being used, they recorded both names.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

Okay, I'll remove the inverted commas and I'll accept, for the sake of argument, that they didn't know it at the time, but

How do we know that the police never found out his real name?

Regards, Bridewell.

[moonbegger]

Hi Fisherman ,

"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"

The Big difference with the other murders, is that he didn't hang around to find out if someone was watching ,due to a sleepless night or curious to see what was going on beneath their window. He didn't take that risk , he was off down the road , gone, And even if someone did see a shady looking chap hacking at some poor woman in Hanbury st or mitre sq .. the only incriminating evidence left behind would be another vague description of the shadowy Ripper ... Unlike ..

"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"

Yes , until he stepped out of the shadows into the centre of the road .. and doubled up as part of the discovery team .. i can almost hear Mrs Purkis now " Yes officer i saw him that killed her over at the stables .. then he stepped out into the middle of the road .. and was joined by this other chap .. Gore blimey , that's him there "

I really don't think if CrossMere was the killer of Polly, he would even allow the possibility of that scenario to ever play out ..

The funny thing is , CrossMere probably disturbed the Ripper himself when he turned into Bucks Row .. And the Ripper fled just like everyone is pointing out CrossMere would have done if he was the Ripper .

cheers

moonbegger .

[Abby Normal]

Hi everybody!

Having returned from a weeks outdoors living - fishing included! - I am anxious to hear what you all think about what I refer to as the Mizen scam. The theme is presented in my article in Ripperologist 126, in the article "Two murders in Buckīs Row".

Much has been said already about whether I have made my mind up that Charles Lechmere was the Ripper, and those who have taken the time to read my article will know by now that I confess to that exact belief. And it is the Mizen scam that pushed me over the edge, so to speak.

For those unfamiliar with it, I will make a short presentation of the scam.The fewest do, actually - when reading books by Sugden, Evans, Begg and Rumbelow, for example, it quickly becomes clear that the very detail that I belive gives away the Ripper, remains untouched upon in these books.

It all lies in what Mizen claimed "Cross" had told him on the evening of the murder. Mizen says that Cross was the one who spoke to him (apparently pointing to Paul not being involved in the conversation, at least not to any significant degree), and stated in his words to Mizen: "You are wanted in Buckīs Row" (he said Bakerīs Row, but he of course meant Buckīs ditto), and "Another policeman wants you there". "Cross" then proceeded to point out that a woman "had been found there", lying flat on her back, being either dead or drunk.

This has always been the source of much consternation. Lechmere himself witnessed after Mizen at the inquest, and was asked whether he had really told Mizen that another PC waited for im in Buckīs Row. He denied that he had done so, pointing out that there had been no other PC in Buckīs Row.

The situation that was crated at the inquest was thus one that seemingly entailed a question that needed to be settled: Had there been a PC in Buckīs Row as Lechmere and Paul were there, or had there not? The ones that championed the different views were on the one hand Mizen, who argued that there HAD been a PC there, and on the other hand Lechmere, who claimed that this had not been so. And Lechmere came out on top, Paul and Neil supplying corroboration of his version.

This was all a game of smoke and mirrors, though. For the truth of the matter was that BOTH views originated with Lechmere! He was the one who had claimed that there had been a PC in place (when speaking to Mizen) and he was ALSO the one who claimed that there had NOT been a PC in place (when witnessing at the inquest).

But the REAL question should have been another one: Did Lechmere tell Mizen that there was a PC in Buckīs Row, waiting for assistance, or did he NOT do so? THAT is the pertinent question, and in this case, there is no Paul and Neil to corroborate Lechmere!!

So who told the truth, Mizen or Lechmere? Well, when we accept that Lechmere was the truthful party, we end up with a testimony on behalf of Mizen that makes no sense, which is what Sugden, Evans, Begg and Rumbelow all noticed, conveniently leaving the "strange" testimony aside.

But look what happens if we instead accept that Mizen, a serving PC, was the one who told the truth! We can suddenly see how Lechmere fabricated a tailormade lie, shaped in the EXACT manner he needed to have it to ensure that Mizen would not search him, ask him any questions or bring him along back to the murder spot:

-He claimed that a PC was waiting for assistance in Buckīs Row, meaning that Mizen could rely on this colleague of his having already done whatever checking out needed visavi Lechmere and Paul.

-He claimed that a woman "had been found there", effectively obscuring the fact that he himself had been the one who found her.

-He omitted to mention that the woman was the victim of either murder or suicide; IF ther had truly been a PC in place who had sent Lechmere and Paul looking for a fellow PC, then he would have done so after having noticed the cut throat, and thus the two carmen would have known that murder or suicide was the case. Mizen made that exact remark at the inquest, according to the press, obviously consternated by the leaving out of this important fact. But of course, Lechmere had every reason to play down what had happened, since he needed to slip through the net!

The Mizen scam thus held the EXACT parameters it needed to have to allow Lechmere to slip away unsearched. It can even be questioned whether Jonas Mizen even bothered to take the menīs names. After all, why would he? If that fellow PC had already spoken to the carmen, then he would have noted their names according to regulation.

My suggestion is that Lechmere was very much aware of PC Neilīs beat as he killed Nichols. When Paul turned up, he had a limited time window to come up with a way to leave the spot, and he did so by claiming that he was ALSO late for work, just like Paul. And when the carmen reached Mizen in Hanbury street, Lechmere either chanced that Neil would have had the time to come up via Bakerīs Row, turn right into Buckīs Row and find Nichols, or he was actually sure that this would be the case; the distance inbetween the little group Mizen/Lechmere/Paul and Neil, coming up Bakerīs Row, would perhaps be a mere 50-60 yards or so, and therefore Lechmere may very well have heard Neil walking his beat, and thus he may actually have known that Neil would find the body.

At any rate, we all know that the scam worked in every detail: when Mizen arrived in Buckīs Row, that PC (Neil) WAS there, just like he had been told. And as he ran off for an ambulance, he would not have suspected foul play for a second, having had the carmanīs ("Cross") prediction come true. The only thing that he thought strange was that the carman had omitted to mention the seriousness of the errand. A sound enough reflection, but one that has been left unattended to for 124 years.

Charles Allen Lechmere lied his way past Mizen on the 31 of August 1888. We know this, since Mizen testified about it. To my mind, he unknowingly pointed out the Ripper by doing so - and generations of Ripperologists opted for believing that he was a total crackpot, getting it all wrong...

There you go; this is why my mind is made up. Somewhere along the line, I am sure that somebody will point out that Lechmere may simply have conned Mizen in order to be at Pickfordīs in time. Technically correct though this may be, I would suggest that we do not forget all the other parameters that point in Lechmereīs direction. My conviction is that we are not dealing with an inventive carman, late for work, but instead with what has often been described as classical sociopathy - somebody who would never panic although he was in very serious trouble, but who instead in the blink of an eye came up with useful solutions to every problem along his way, perhaps even without the ability to feel fear. Or remorse, for that matter.

Thoughts, anybody?

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish
AS I stated before "the Mizen Scam" could simply be a mistaken flustered PC or a man trying to get to work. However, your points are good food for thought and it's definitely made me think twice-nice job and congrats on your article. FYI I have not read it yet but I get the gist of it and after further considerations here are some of my thoughts.

it has started to dawn on me that the discrepancies with Lech are starting to add up-The possibility that he did tell Mizen that there was a PC waiting for him, telling the police his name was Cross, found standing near a victim. Taken as a whole-it's adding up. The scale is tipping towards suspicious for me a bit I have to admit.

Now having said that I have some little grenades I want to toss your way and would like to see your response. first of all, if Lech felt he needed to volunteer himself to the police why does he need to say his name is Cross? he is The murderer and he is coming forward as a helpful witness. Would he not think that there was a chance the police would find out he gave them a different name than the one he usually used and that this would raise their suspicion? if he is going to be bold enough to come forward to the police on his own, what does he gain from risking giving them a "fake" name?

Secondly, why come forward as a witness at a time when he would know that doing so soon would get him a nice little invite to the inquest. Why not just wait until the inquest is over and then stroll into the station? he has decided he will be a witness that comes forward voluntarily, so what could he possibly gain from being an inquest witness as opposed to being a witness that does not have to take the risk of being at an inquest?

Now, I said your theory has made me think good and hard and I have a final thought. One of my main objections to Lech being the ripper is that I find it hard to believe that a organ taking mutilating serial killer could possibly do his killing on the way to work. But wait-How the heck do we know he was on his way to work?!??? Maybe he just told everyone he was on his way to work on the night of the murders when he was really off--His wife, anyone who saw him out at that time, the police. How would anyone find out? And if they did-so what. he could just say I thought I had to work today-my mistake. On the night of Nichols murder, is ther anywhere on record that the police checked to see if really did work that morning?

If he was the ripper what better cover than a bloke just going to work? Who is going to discover it? Not his illiterate wife. he could take his time, troll for victims, spend a few hours in the pub. And on the nights he did get a kill then he would have all the time he needed with his trophies and not have the deadline nor the risk of going to work right after his murders. Plus he would probably know where the prostitutes hung out along his work route as he saw them there on his daily treks to work. Everyone has been working from the assumption that he WAS on his way to work but perhaps he just pretended to be. If he was the ripper than its a brilliant cover. The murders were on weekends and holidays perhaps further research could be used to find out when carmen in general or Lech in particular was off those nights.

Anyway, interesting stuff Fish-good job.

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

"How do we know that the police never found out his real name?"

By chance, you mean? Or do you suggest that they researched Lechmere thoroughly at a later date, finding out about the alias?

At any rate, we donīt have any memoirs, any reports, any material at all that named him anything else but Cross. Furthermore, IF there had been a, say, 1895 revival of the investigation, finding that our carman had given an alias to the police, then this would have prompted a large interest in him, of which we would in all probability have heard. AND it would have been mentioned in memoirs. We may of course, if we so wish, entertain a belief that there was a cover-up when the police found out, for whatever reason, but the much simpler truth is that the police showed very little interest in Charles Lechmere from day one, as effectivel proven by the failure to ask somebody - anybody - in his circle of aquintances about him, or to run a check of their own through the registers. It would have taken them five minutes - but they apparently didnīt have them five minutes to spare. Itīs almost beyond belief, but the facts of the case are undisputable - they did NOT know his name.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"The Big difference with the other murders, is that he didn't hang around to find out if someone was watching ,due to a sleepless night or curious to see what was going on beneath their window."

What makes you think he "hung around" in Buckīs Row? In Hanbury Street, Mitre Square and Millerīs Court, he left after having extracted organs from his victims. Arguably, after having done that, he had no reason to "hang around". In Buckīs Row, he had not gotten that far as Paul came upon him. How does that make him "hanging around"? And in Berner Street, if it was him, he probably fled when being interrupted. But how could he stay? After Buckīs Row, he had sort of used up the kind of scheme he employed there. If it was Diemschitz (I donīt think it was, but for the sake of the argument...) that disturbed him, he could not really stop and use Diemschitz as a way out, could he? "Hi, itīs me, Cross, again. Guess what happened? I found ANOTHER tarpaulin/woman lying dead..." That really would not work at that stage, would it? Buckīs Row effectively closed that door behind him.

"Yes , until he stepped out of the shadows into the centre of the road .. and doubled up as part of the discovery team .."

What do you suggest happened then? Was a lamp suddenly lit over the middle of the street? Did the Sun rise for a second or two? It was as dark there as by the gates, Moonbegger. The one and only lamp that shone over the narrow part of Buckīsw Row leading from Brady Street down to the school building, was positioned all the way up the Brady Street intersection.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Abby:

" your points are good food for thought and it's definitely made me think twice-nice job and congrats on your article."

Thatīs great news, Abby. I find that you are not easily persuaded when you have started out on a suspicious note, and I am delighted that you still see value in the Lechmere bid.

"I have some little grenades I want to toss your way and would like to see your response."

Aha. Well, just let me get my helmet on, and ... there we are ... alright, fire away!

" if Lech felt he needed to volunteer himself to the police why does he need to say his name is Cross? he is The murderer and he is coming forward as a helpful witness. Would he not think that there was a chance the police would find out he gave them a different name than the one he usually used and that this would raise their suspicion? if he is going to be bold enough to come forward to the police on his own, what does he gain from risking giving them a "fake" name?"

Well, Abby, if he had called himself Mr Pumpkinpeeler, then he would have all the troble in the world if the police found about the lie. You will have observed that he not only gave them an alias, but he also gave them the correct address, 22 Doveton Street. If he had wanted to lie totally to them, he would have given a fake address too, right?
The obvious benefits of the Cross, Doveton Street routine was that IF the police had started to suspect him in any way - and that was totally on the cards after the Paul interview of the 2:nd, at which stage he arguably had not contacted the police yet - the he ran an obvious risk of having the police checking him out at his home and job. The second it dawned on them that there was no Mr Pumpkinpeeler working at The Salty Shipyard in Brick Lane, and that there was actually not one single shipyard there, then he needed to run for it. And if that was his original intent, then why go to the police in the first place? But it was not - he did NOT want to run for it. He wanted to keep on walking the road between Doveton Street and Broad Street undetected, and therefore he gave the police a name that he could explain as being relevant if they DID check at his house, a name that he DID have some sort of right to. His hope, though, would be that they never checked him - which they didnīt - and that he could slip into oblivion.

" why come forward as a witness at a time when he would know that doing so soon would get him a nice little invite to the inquest. Why not just wait until the inquest is over and then stroll into the station?"

Paul had given away that IF the police had a minute or two to spare, then there was a guy out there who had stood where the body was at the murder night and who potentially had spent time with that body as it was still standing upright, Abby. Time was of the essence; he needed to pour water on the fire before it burnt 22 Doveton Street down. The potential deductions the police could draw from that Paul interview were deeply incriminating, and what better way to quench the suspicions than to go to the police himself and explain how innocent it had all been?

" One of my main objections to Lech being the ripper is that I find it hard to believe that a organ taking mutilating serial killer could possibly do his killing on the way to work. But wait-How the heck do we know he was on his way to work?!??? Maybe he just told everyone he was on his way to work on the night of the murders when he was really off--His wife, anyone who saw him out at that time, the police. How would anyone find out? And if they did-so what. he could just say I thought I had to work today-my mistake. On the night of Nichols murder, is ther anywhere on record that the police checked to see if really did work that morning?"

No, there is not. What there is, is the police accepting him to be called "Cross" - and they would have found out that he was instead called Lechmere if they had checked at his job. So yes, this is a possibility that should be weighed in.
But we must also take into account that Lechmere made Mizen think that he looked like a carman. That means that he was dressed for work! And of course, he could have put on his working clothes and stayed away from job anyhow. But why would he do that? If he had been spotted, then why give away that he was a carman? It would narrow down the search considerably. Moreover, the approximate time at which he killed Nichols - if he did so - actually tallies well with him being en route to work.
But on the whole, we must offer some slack in this department. It is said, for example, that Chapman was killed too late to be a Lechmere deed. But if he had told his employers that he would be late that morning, then there goes that problem. Or he could have started in time, only to kill Chapman while doing his first trip of the day.

"If he was the ripper what better cover than a bloke just going to work?"

That very much applies!

"Anyway, interesting stuff Fish-good job."

A million thanks, Abby!

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Bridewell
We can't know that the police neevr found out Cross's real name but there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that they did.
All the evidence we have suggests that they did not.
All the evidence we have also suggests that her gave that name on the Sunday. Mizen at the inquest on the Monday even says that he only then - i.e. on the Monday had learnt that his name was Cross.
In serial crimes the police event today loose track of events as the murders and evidence and witnesses mount up and seldom revisit earlier events. This is one of the reasons the Yorkshire Ripper got away with it for so long.

Moonbeggar
The big difference between Bucks Row and the other murder sites, which in the case of Mitre Square, Berner Street and Hanbury Street were all over looked, is that the murderer wasn't disturbed while committing the crime so he had no choice - no dilema - to fight or fly.

Abbey
If I may pick up your grenades and cooly stick the pin back in...

Why give the name Cross when he reported?
It gave distance - people who read about the case would not immediately associate him with it so it would enable him to catrry on with less suspicion on his shoulders.
Also if he was discovered using a dofgy name he could claim that he used it innocently in tribute to his long dead wicked step-father.


Why did he come forward knowing that he would be ropped into the inquest?
That may hhave been his intention. The Paul story that seemed to incriminate him appeared in print on Sunday evening. CRoss will not have known whether paul would appear as a witness at the inquest first and so cement hso version of teh story. Cross needed to present as the standard version HIS version of events.

An organ taker on his way to work?
You are quite correct that we should be sceptical of anything Cross says of he did it - so maybe he wasn't on his way to work at all? The problem is that a sensible liar minimises the lies he tells. I strongly suspect that he was indeed on his way to work. he would not wanat too many loose ends that could unravel and incriminate him if he was 'checked out'.
WE don't know whether the Ripper - whoever he was - actually did take organs. There is room for doubt (organ theft for students etc was not unknown).
If the Ripper did take organs we have no idea how far he took them. He may have disposed of them down the road somewhere. Taking them, or cutting them out, may have served his purpose rather than keeping them.
Lastly if he had indeed been working as a carman at Pickfords for twnety years (as he claimed and I would very much doubt that was untrue) then he almost certainly had a tack room at his disposal as Carmen would have groomed their own horses. The tack room would almost certainly have had cubby holes of some sort for keeping polish etc. Who's to say that he didn't kep his trophies there.
The only standard 'off night' that any of the murders (including non canonical) was the double event. Workmen had very few days off in those days so I would suggest every otehr night was a work night. Saturdays would have been a standard work day as well.

Hope not too much duplication with Fisherman's responses

[Jon Guy]

Lechmere

In serial crimes the police event today loose track of events as the murders and evidence and witnesses mount up and seldom revisit earlier events. This is one of the reasons the Yorkshire Ripper got away with it for so long.

But, as noted in the contemporary police reports by Swanson - the police had nothing to go on in early Sept and therefore concentrated on what leads they had - unlike the Yorhsire pOlice a hundred years later

[Ben]

Hope not too much duplication with Fisherman's responses

Quite a bit I'm afraid.