The Mizen scam

[Lechmere]

Abbey
Yes I can see that proposing that Cross was lying about going to work at that time could help the case against him - but I prefer to build the case by using every item of recorded information and going with that rather than ignoring inconventient information or making the culprit lie when it isn't necessary for the case. Part of the strength of the Cross/Lechmere case is that it does not ignore a single piece of evidence.

FrankO
The whole point of Lechmere using Cross as an alias was that he could come up with a **** and bull story to explain his use if it if push came to shove while at the same time it provided distance. The distance he needed was so that his wife did not suspect him, so he could carry on.
The proof of the pudding is that it seems clear that his house was not visited and neither was his workplace. He passed through the case unnoted. And remained unnoted by generations of Ripperologists even though he was always there in plain sight.
You may wish to rework what Mizen actually heard Cross say. But as I indicated to Abbey (above) - I will stick to what Mizen claims was actually said and go with that.
Cross makes it clear that he took the lead role in talking to Mizen. Paul in his inquest testimony didn't big up his role but in his nespaper interview he did. That says much about Paul's character.

[Rubyretro]

Quote:
Mizen doesn't come out of this - whatever way you look at it - as the most competent Rozer to ever pace the streets of London.
Judging from the available evidence, he indeed doesn’t. He even comes across as somewhat absent-minded. He doesn’t ask the men anything after he’s been told that there’s a dead or drunk woman lying flat on her back in Buck’s Row, doesn't take their names and doesn’t go there immediately, but knocks up another person first.

Poor Mizen !

I feel very sorry for him, because I feel that I would have done the same thing.

[lynn cates]

plus ultra

Hello Lechmere. Thanks.

“On Cross's inquest attire - it wasn't just that he went in work clothes because he didn't have a decent suit - he was actually wearing his apron as if he was waylaid en transit to work. Or as if he set off early to convince his wife that he was going to work. And the work attire reinforced his humble inconspicuousness. That is the implication of him choosing to wear his work clothes in stark contrast to every other inquest witness where there is a description of their clothing. That is why his strange choice of dress is grounds for suspicion.”

Suspicion? Very well. Just as you wish. But, seriously, when I was a new adjunct professor AND a janitor part time elsewhere, I routinely wore my key ring to lecture class. Why? No, I didn’t need them, but I am that bloody absent minded. When the right day came, my habit saved me. Was I being humble? No, just prudent, being aware of my lack of concentration.

“I don't think Cross was worried about losing his position in 1888.”

Was, however, concerned with being behind time.

“Why did Cross make such a faux pas as to approach Paul aggressively? Because he would have been in a heightened state of aggression having just sliced someone up.”

Alright. I can buy that. But SURELY that would apply to the whole business with Paul? I was going to suggest that IF Cross had killed Polly, surely he would be very excited. I figured that you and Christer would suggest that he were a very cool, brasen, chap.

“You would not expect someone - even a cool calculating character - to just switch a button and moderate his countenance. It is what we should expect in a similar scenario.”

Precisely! Which is why I cannot believe he calmed down for Paul

“Question
How many otherwise law abiding people in the Ripper (sorry to use that word) case are known to have given a false name immediately after finding a body.
Answer
One.
And I didn't have to refer to the Ultimate Companion to find the answer.”

Very well. Counter question. How many witnesses gave an alias?

“The timings are based on Cross saying he was late and left home at 3.30 (or 3.20) and Paul saying he was late and leaving at 3.45... and they end up 40 yards apart when they live 5 minutes apart.
It is not based on a modern day estimate that Polly died at 3.27 am (how precise!).”

Precise? Like 3.45? At any rate, walking rates vary. Few people can keep up with my, and my wife’s, pace. Nor will I bore you with the usual objection about Victorian time pieces.

“I am content to be in the same category as FBI profilers! The reason they look at these details is based on scrutinising past cases. Not a bad basis to go on.”

And many of those cases looked to “Jack the Ripper" as a model. To which of those cases did “Jack” look?

“Are you the long lost son of the chief of Clan Robertson? If not there is no comparison - everyone mildly Scottish can claim a tartan or two.”

Close. Son of a . . . , um, how does the rest of that go? Oh, well, another’s opinion. At any rate, his coat of arms fails to impress me.

“Cross's grandfather was listed as a 'Gentleman' and was named after Charles Fox the prominent Whig politician and he lived in an impressive mansion. Fownhope is littered to this day with Lechmere memorials.”

Yes, yes. I, too, am a big fan of Hardy’s and “Tess of the d’Urbervilles.” Come to think of it, Tess DID kill a bloke with a knife. Zounds! You may be on to something here! (heh-heh)

“I rather doubt that many other people walked roughly the same route early in the morning and had only just moved into the vicinity.”

Which makes it more puzzling that Cross and Paul had not met before.

“Of the last three canonicals - two - the double event - are on his night off - when he would have been visiting his dear mama (at least he would be if he did it - probably).”

But then the “on his way to work” argument is diminished.

“As for Kelly - at what time of the morning was she killed? Who actually can say with any sensible degree of precision.? In any event if she died later rather than earlier, who is to say that Cross didn't use his early morning deliveries as cover?”

Forgive me. I have never put faith in “who’s to say” arguments. Conversely, who’s to say that he did? (See what I mean?)

At any rate, I obviously will look forward to your and Christer’s research in this area.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

Cross was wearing his apron because he probably had been at work that morning. These inquests rarely started very early. The Saturday inquest had started in the afternoon. If Cross had to be at work at 4 a.m. he may have had plenty of time to put in at least a good part of his day.

Sometimes a coroner had several inquests scheduled on a given day. Baxter conducted as many as four in a day at times. The ones with the most witnesses were usually scheduled last. Does anyone here know what time the Monday, Sept. 3 inquest started?

Also, does anyone think that Cross' co-workers and employer didn't know that he was appearing at an inquest on a sensational murder as Cross?

[Rubyretro]

Good point, Hunter.

[Mr Lucky]

Sometimes a coroner had several inquests scheduled on a given day. Baxter conducted as many as four in a day at times. The ones with the most witnesses were usually scheduled last. Does anyone here know what time the Monday, Sept. 3 inquest started?

Hi Hunter,

Cross was last witness before the inquest was adjourned for luncheon

[Mr Lucky]

Nor will I bore you with the usual objection about Victorian time pieces.

Hi Lynn

Think I've missed this, what's the objection?

Thanks for your help

[lynn cates]

tempus fugit

Hello Lucky. Thanks for asking.

The objection runs that LVP timepieces were notoriously off compared to Greenwich mean time and unsynchronised one with another. That card is played whenever one wishes to disestablish a time; ignored when one wishes the converse.

Cheers.
LC

[Mr Lucky]

Hello Lucky. Thanks for asking.

The objection runs that LVP timepieces were notoriously off compared to Greenwich mean time and unsynchronised one with another. That card is played whenever one wishes to disestablish a time; ignored when one wishes the converse.

Cheers.
LC

Fantastic ! I can join in some Annie Chapman threads

Most public clocks would have been quite accurate I would have thought by then, but possibly unsynchronised as you mention, but if every one was going by the same clock, the synchronisity becomes largely irrelevent.

Thanks again.

[Lechmere]

Hunter
The Nichols inquest started on Saturday 1st August, reconvened on Monday 3rd August (all day) and went on for several more days after an adjournment. It was not one of those rush jobs. It started first thing in the morning which for a court may have been 10 am but witnesses would have been expected to be there before hand.
Again I will proffer the experience of Robert Paul. He started work at a similar time to Cross/Lechmere but had to get someone else in. He did not put a half shift in before going to the inquest despite having the motive for doing so as he complained about how the inquest left him out of pocket and he had to appear on two days even though his time on the stand was very brief.
I am certain that Cross/Lechmere will have been expected at the court when it opened. It would not have been acceptable for him to saunter up mid morning.
As a carman his work could have taken him in all sorts of directions and made it impractical for him to work a few hours I would suggest.


Lyn
Cross said he was worried about being late for work. That would be an excuse for rushing off and leaving he body though.

As for Cross’s composure when with Paul – I would expect him initially to be agitated and to progressively calm down as he mastered the situation. That is what can be inferred from his actions. Of course most people would not be able to switch modes that quickly at all. But I would expect that virtually no one could do it instantaneously.

Counter- counter question...
How many people (witnesses or suspects) who gave aliases were only discovered to have used an alias when their address was checked on line over 120 years later?

The probable reason why Paul and Cross/Lechmere had not met before was that paul was late for work. He was probably normally scurrying in his nervous manner along Bucks Row and Hanbury Street while Cross/Lechmere was barely off Cambridge Road.
And dare I say it I suspect that Cross/Lechmere usually went down the terribly dangerous Old Montague Street most days and so didn’t share much of the same route as Paul – just Bucks Row really.

[lynn cates]

coda?

Hello Lechmere. Thanks.

“Cross said he was worried about being late for work. That would be an excuse for rushing off and leaving the body though.”

It would indeed. And perhaps several hundreds of other reasons.

“As for Cross’s composure when with Paul – I would expect him initially to be agitated and to progressively calm down as he mastered the situation. That is what can be inferred from his actions. Of course most people would not be able to switch modes that quickly at all. But I would expect that virtually no one could do it instantaneously.”

Very well. But if we are talking about expectations, I would expect him to flee like a bird.

“Counter- counter question...
How many people (witnesses or suspects) who gave aliases were only discovered to have used an alias when their address was checked on line over 120 years later?"

Surely that is a question pertaining to investigation, not to suspect status?

“The probable reason why Paul and Cross/Lechmere had not met before was that Paul was late for work.”

As was Cross.

“He was probably normally scurrying in his nervous manner along Bucks Row and Hanbury Street while Cross/Lechmere was barely off Cambridge Road."

And this is based on . . . ?

“And dare I say it I suspect that Cross/Lechmere usually went down the terribly dangerous Old Montague Street most days and so didn’t share much of the same route as Paul – just Bucks Row really.”

What makes you suspect this?

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Lynn:

"Tell the truth. Do you really believe in Cross, or is this all a parody on Toppy to give others a taste of their own medicine? (heh-heh)"

I don´t believe in Cross, not for a second. I believe in Lechmere.

And I do see what you are getting at with the reciprocal medicine distribution! It has had me at some unease at times, because no matter how we look upon things, there are some major points of agreement inbetween the Hutchinson bid and the Lechmere ditto. If you had told me a year ago that I would spend my future arguing that a man went to the police by his own free will in order to save his behind, well, then I very much doubt that there would be a Lynn Cates posting on Casebook today. Ryanair is cheap and vengeance can be quick.

But the fact of the matter is that I have very little doubt that Lechmere was the Ripper. Take, to accord with the intentions of the thread, the scam - did Mizen get it right at the inquest? I have no doubts that he did;the lie as such was so elaborate and thought through that no mishearing would, by chance, produce it. The chances are - in my opinion - next to immaterial.

Therefore, to my mind, the only question I have to settle is WHY Lechmere produced that lie. Did he do so in order to get to job less late than he would have anyway? Not very likely - he went out of his way to be a faithful civil servant in all other aspects, contacting the police himself, attending the inquest, seeking out a PC on the murder night. The picture he painted was not one that would easily accomodate a guy that scams the police elaborately.
The other option is by far the better - to my mind (haven´t I said this before ...?) - he absolutely needed to bypass Mizen without being searched, without having his pockets, his sleeves checked. To me, this detail is what clinches an already strong case. I have very little doubt that once we look closer at our carman, more will surface, pointing in his direction. And the drop of water will eat into the stone eventually, Lynn.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"As I've previously been reminded by Tom, alas, at this stage of the case, all too often they most emphatically did not...otherwise Mizen would've recorded Paul and Cross's names, Thain wouldn't have needed reminding of his duties by the Coroner and Spratling wouldn't have had to be sent back by said Coroner to finish the house to house enquiries...
If they had recorded for exactitude there'd be far less for us to debate about on these boards!"

I am not saying, Dave, that the police was always competent. On the contrary, I think you will find that I criticize the force more severly than most. But I AM saying that WHEN the police took down names, then they wanted to get the correct names, and did not offer the possibility to choose inbetween aliases just for jolly.
THAT´S what I mean when I say the police did not record what they recorded as personal favours but intstead in order to get as much as they could absolutely right and useful for posterity.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Abby:

"On the other hand I think you and Fish were too quick to blow off my idea that lech ws NOT on his way to work but used it as cover and to free up his time to do his thing and avoid the risk of gettng caught showing up at work with incrminating evidence. I think its an idea that only helps your cause and should be further checked up on."

I am not saying this could not be the way you would have it, Abby. I am just saying that the timings of the Tabram deed and the Nichol´s ditto, plus potentially also the Kelly deed, actually all tally with the time he went to work. And it would be easier to keep things under wrap if he used this opportunity, just as it would be strange if he gave away that he was a carman if he did not have to.
All in all, you may be right, but if he did not work on the days involved, somebody - like his wife or employer - could perhaps have thought it odd that somebody died each and every time Lechmere was on leave.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

It has had me at some unease at times, because no matter how we look upon things, there are some major points of agreement inbetween the Hutchinson bid and the Lechmere ditto.

That's true Fish. Both are subject to endless speculation.