The Mizen scam

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Phil. Thanks. I know what you mean.

Say, get well soon, will you?

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

Hello Lynn,

Thanks my friend, will endeavour to do so!

Best wishes

Phil

[Fisherman]

Lynn:

" if he were a single-minded, distracted chap in a hurry, I can see using a previously used name. The idea is not to get involved."

Since when, Lynn, was distraction something that made you use a name you never used otherwise, going by the records? Distraction makes you forget your phone number - not your name. And if he did not want to get involved, then why did he ask Paul to look at the body with him, after which they both set out to find themselves a PC? How is that not getting involved?

" I don't see that as a lie. It was surely more his name than an alias would have been..."

...and it was therefore a name that gave him a better chance to stay out of trouble with the police than an alias would have been.

" and I'm not certain that using an alias is tantamount to a lie."

It is tantamount to hiding your true name from the police at any rate, and if it is philosophically a lie or not does not alter that this is what criminals do when they try to avoid getting caught.

" if he were anticipating PC Neill, I don't see this as a lie. Inaccurrate, to be sure, but a lie? "

Saying that an Indian maharajah was harassing a twohundred year-old sailor in Buckīs Row would have been a more blatant lie, I admit that. But then again, such a lie would have been seen through by the police, if not before then at least after checking things out. You must remember, Lynn, that our boy was first and foremost interested in constructing a lie that did TWO things:
1. get himself out of harmīs way, and
2. hold up at the inquest, should he have to attend it.

What you need to do to understand what happened, if I am correct, is to ask yourself "How does the optimal, tailormade, watertight lie look like in Lechmeres case if he was the killer. And it looks exactly like what he told Mizen!

" there is a rather small geographic area indicated, and I suppose much turns on how much on the route the murders were."

Not only that, Lynn, it also depends on how the timings applied. We donīt want Stride to be an early morning strike, do we? If so, it would have pointed away from Lechmere. Lucky then, that this is the only murder that happens on a weekend night, wouldnīt you say?

Geographically, there can be no faulting the suggestion that the murders happend in places where Lechmere had reason to pass. Itīs zero yards in Buckīs Row, zero yards in Hanbury street, thirty yards or so in George Yard, zero yards in Berner Street (if he used that way to his motherīs house) and 150 yards or thereabouts in Kellyīs case - if she was not parading her usual street, Leman Street, as they met. And Leman Street goes all the way down to Old Montague Street, meaning that it MAY have been a case of zero meters here too. Itīs all good and well to state that other men could have fit the bill - they could, potentially - but it does not alter the fact that the man WE are looking at, the man who gave the wrong name to the police and was not investigated and found out, the man who conned Mizen in order to stay away from the PC:s interest, the man that was found standing close to the first victim in the Ripper series, was somebody who actually had a very good reason to be at each of the murder spots! In fact, if the Ripper was somebody else than Lechmere, then this illusive killer would potentially have heard Lechmere walking by every time he killed. I find that odd, to say the least.

" I think more research is required here"

Lechmere is absolutely screaming for attention at this stage, Lynn, so you are quite correct!

"To me, perfect sense would be to have fled when Paul approached."

That would have answered to what YOU would have chosen to do, Lynn. But if Lechmere was a sociopath, then what happens? He would perhaps have welcomed Paul, feeling superior when manipulating him, taking comfort in his knowledge that Paul would provide a useful travelling companion, giving the impresion that the two men travelled in company to their work - just like Mizen thought.
Panicking and running, Lynn, is for you and me - not for that kind of a man. And we would probably have been nicked at the next street corner, all sweating and blabbering. I truly believe that Lechmere would have despised us for it.

Thanks, at any rate, for offering useful criticism, Lynn!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Phil Carter:

" for what it is worth I thought it a well written and formulated piece"

Itīs worth a lot, Phil. Thanks!

"Now when one talks of this pc or that pc either lying, fibbing or even being involved in any way in these murders, one is bound to tread on toes here and there. A by product is if the police are seen to have been fooled so obviously, so openly- it wont go down well in some quarters."

I realize that, Phil. But I fail to see how I could have broken the story in a more forgiving manner. Mizen was conned, yes, but I would not hold him in any way responsible - the scam was a very clever one, and it was in no way disconfirmed at the body; the other policeman WAS there! Mizen was also the man who made sure that we can point a finger at Lechmere, by laying down that the latter was the one who had done the talking and by stating exactly how that talking had manifested itself. If it had not been for Mizenīs thoroughness at the inquest, we would have been none the wiser about the scam.
If anybody is to blame, then it is the inquest itself, where no further efforts were made to find out what had happened in this detail, than a lame question asked by a juryman ("Is it true that you told PC Mizen that another policeman awaited him in Buckīs Row?").
Not following up on this made Mizen look like a fool. Then again, the question the inquest first and foremost needed to answer was how Nichols had died. And that was seemingly not affected by what was regarded as a misunderstanding of some sort.
I am also slightly baffled by how all the major books on the subject leave this detail aside as if it had never happened. Just like Richard Nunweek so wisely put it, we need to concentrate on the bits and pieces that seemingly make no sense, and see if they CAN be made sensible by using new angles. Of course, the writers of these books have all been aware of what Mizen said at the inquest, and they must all have tried to make sense of it, without succeeding. And that would have been why it was left out. But if it is left out, then how are the readers going to get the chance of trying to make sense of it? If the anomalies are set aside, if all the bumps in the road are flattened, we will all get the exact same, very smooth ride. And it will all take us to the exact same places.

"It does raise one important question. If Lechmere killed Polly, how in heavens name do we connect him to the other murders?"

By methodology - we either had a number of eviscerators operating in the same three-month span or just the one. And eviscerators are unusual. Plus we have the geographical distribution of the deeds, tallying with Lechmeres route to work. Plus we have the timings, tallying roughly with his work trek too. Plus we have the Stride deed, tallying with his route to visit his mother and daughter. Plus we have that deed TOO corresponding with a time when Lechmere would potentially have been around - on Saturday evening.

It really is a lot.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"For what it's worth I'm inclined to believe Cross's account to Mizen...after all the other witness, Paul, didn't contradict this statement..."

Paul never commented on it, Dave, donīt you see that? He commented on another question altogether; the question of whether there had been a PC present in Buckīs Row or not. The question he did NOT comment on was whether Lechmere had TOLD Mizen that there was a PC in place. That is the scam, Dave! We have been conned for 124 years by it, so letīs not prolong the agony.

"My own gut-feel is that Mizen presented his slightly-modified version as a somewhat belated attempt to excuse his dilatory actions that day"

If he wanted to do this, then why would he concoct a lie that entailed a PC waiting for his assistance in Buckīs Row? Does that not strike you as very odd? Why on earth would Mizen falsely claim that he knew that another PC was awaiting his help as some sort of excuse for being slow? It makes absolutely no sense. The obvious lie to present in such a case would be to say that the carmen had only spoken of a woman that was lying drunk in the street. Such a story would not be entirely untrue - Lechmere DID mention that the woman could be drunk - and it would make a great excuse for not hotfooting it to Buckīs Row. Knowing that another PC had sent two men for his help would in no way whatsoever do that trick for him.
Plus, of course, when Lechmere and Paul witnessesed at the inquest, Mizen would go down in flames, since they would both deny having spoken of a PC if this was not true. Surely you realize that?

Of course, Mizen went down in flames ANYWAY - but that was due to the scam.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Lynn:

" if Cross were fairly well familiar with the area at a given time, then how would Paul catch him unawares?"

Paul did not arrive there at "the given time", Lynn. He was late. Not that I for a second think that Lechmere had the area covered in that manner - there was no certainty that he would find himself a prostitute that would take him to Buckīs Row, was there? - but at any rate, Paul did not arrive "on schedule" that morning.

The best,
Fisherman

[miss marple]

The most straight forward explanation,is has been said, that Cross did not want to get involved, or delay his journey to work.
A fact that has not been considered is that Cross's pay would have been docked if he had been late. Men could be dismissed in an instant on the smallest excuse.
This is a hard working man, who has been with the same company for many years, with a wife and a large number of children to support. The last thing he needs is involvement in a murder case. He has to be pragmatic and look after number one, murder is police business.
That motive is more in keeping with what we know of Cross's respectable life, married to the same woman,for many years no involvement in criminal activity, hard working.
Fisherman, you are so determined to find Cross a murderer that you see a dark motive in his words.
You cannot link him to any other murder, or to leading an irregular life.

Cheers Miss Marple

[Ben]

I haven't had time to digest the argument properly, Fish, but I promise I'll do so and offer feedback when times permits. Anything that takes the focus off the "all murders committed en route to work*" argument - which didn't work at all well for me - will doubtless be a step in a more positive direction.

*(For instance, if you're "zero yards" away from the Chapman murder scene, you can't also be "thirty yards" away from the Tabram murder scene!)

All the best,
Ben

[lynn cates]

Lechmere thoughts

Hello Christer. Thanks.

“Since when, Lynn, was distraction something that made you use a name you never used otherwise, going by the records? Distraction makes you forget your phone number - not your name. And if he did not want to get involved, then why did he ask Paul to look at the body with him, after which they both set out to find themselves a PC? How is that not getting involved?”

By distraction, I mean his wanting to get to work. Now he sees a body. What to do? He investigates. She seems to be dead. Now Paul arrives. He can hardly just walk away—in for a penny; in for a pound. But he CAN cut his losses by hurrying matters along. I suggest interpreting ALL his subsequent actions through this schema.

“...and it was therefore a name that gave him a better chance to stay out of trouble with the police than an alias would have been.”

It was his previous name and, I think, served well to fulfill duty but not to plunge in too deeply.

“It is tantamount to hiding your true name from the police at any rate, and if it is philosophically a lie or not does not alter that this is what criminals do when they try to avoid getting caught.”

And many others who wish to put some distance between themselves and a situation.

“Saying that an Indian maharajah was harassing a two hundred year-old sailor in Buckīs Row would have been a more blatant lie, I admit that.’

Well, it would have been a lie. Full stop.

“ But then again, such a lie would have been seen through by the police, if not before then at least after checking things out. You must remember, Lynn, that our boy was first and foremost interested in constructing a lie that did TWO things:
1. get himself out of harmīs way, and
2. hold up at the inquest, should he have to attend it.”

I nearly agree here. Although we are still not agreeing whether it was a lie, I do think his story was intended to keep from being implicated in this situation.

“What you need to do to understand what happened, if I am correct, is to ask yourself "How does the optimal, tailor made, watertight lie look like in Lechmere’s case if he was the killer. And it looks exactly like what he told Mizen!”

Yes, IF he lied and IF he killed Polly, his actions may have been close to the ones you describe.

“Not only that, Lynn, it also depends on how the timings applied. We donīt want Stride to be an early morning strike, do we?”

I have no wants—except to know the truth. (Sorry for the stilted sound here, but I really mean that.)

“ If so, it would have pointed away from Lechmere. Lucky then, that this is the only murder that happens on a weekend night, wouldnīt you say?”

I don’t understand this reason at all. Sorry.

“Geographically, there can be no faulting the suggestion that the murders happened in places where Lechmere had reason to pass. Itīs zero yards in Buckīs Row, zero yards in Hanbury street, thirty yards or so in George Yard, zero yards in Berner Street (if he used that way to his motherīs house) . . . “

Big “IF.”

“ . . . and 150 yards or thereabouts in Kellyīs case - if she was not parading her usual street, Leman Street, as they met.”

But what about 200 yards? 300? If we continue to expand the boundaries, then many people could have passed that way.

“Itīs all good and well to state that other men could have fit the bill - they could, potentially - but it does not alter the fact that the man WE are looking at, the man who gave the wrong name to the police and was not investigated and found out, the man who conned Mizen in order to stay away from the PC’s interest, the man who was found standing close to the first victim in the Ripper series, was somebody who actually had a very good reason to be at each of the murder spots!”

Or near them. As again, so did many others.

“In fact, if the Ripper was somebody else than Lechmere, then this illusive killer would potentially have heard Lechmere walking by every time he killed. I find that odd, to say the least.”

If I accept your premise that Cross walked by the murder sites on his way to work, it still does not follow that the times were right. Surely he was not headed to work when Kate was done in Mitre Square?

“Lechmere is absolutely screaming for attention at this stage, Lynn, so you are quite correct!”

Agreed. Then to it! I approve.

“That would have answered to what YOU would have chosen to do, Lynn. But if Lechmere was a sociopath, then what happens?’

Haven’t the foggiest.

1. I know little about him.

2. I know few sociopaths.

3. Many sociopaths are NOT serial killers.

4. Not sure how sociopathic serial killers react in various situations.

“He would perhaps have welcomed Paul, feeling superior when manipulating him, taking comfort in his knowledge that Paul would provide a useful travelling companion, giving the impression that the two men travelled in company to their work - just like Mizen thought.”

Perhaps he would; perhaps he would not. I have absolutely no way to judge here.

“Panicking and running, Lynn, is for you and me . . . “

Not to mention tossing the murder weapon over the stable fence.

“ . . . not for that kind of a man.’

Better: the kind of man you suppose Cross to have been.

“ And we would probably have been nicked at the next street corner, all sweating and blabbering.’

I daresay. I suppose we’d make truly pathetic criminals.

“ I truly believe that Lechmere would have despised us for it.”

Indeed, if he were the monomaniacal, sociopathic chap you take him for. As you already know, it would be most helpful if this personality type could be determined of him. Likewise, it would be helpful if his access to knives were established. Finally, it would be most beneficial to ascertain why his behaviour after autumn 1888 seemed so bland and unimaginative.

“Thanks, at any rate, for offering useful criticism, Lynn!”

Positively delighted. I can always count on you for intelligent conversation and gentlemanly conduct.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

addendum

Hello Christer.

"Paul did not arrive there at "the given time", Lynn."

Indeed. But perhaps, neither did Lechmere.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Miss Marple:

"The most straight forward explanation,is has been said, that Cross did not want to get involved, or delay his journey to work."

Straight forward? How straight forward is it to con a policeman in order to get to work a little less late? I find that very un-straightforward.
If he needed to get to work in time, then why did he not simply pass by the "tarpaulin"? That would have saved him lots and lots of time. Please note that he did not know - by his own account - that the tarpaulin was a woman until he crossed the road halfways. And still he decided, pressed for time as he was, that it would be interesting to look at a discarded tarpaulin for some time, instead of going to work.
How "straight forward" is that?

He also took the time to investigate the body alongside Paul, and to chat with Mizen, instead of just dashing for Broad Street. Straight forward?

"A fact that has not been considered is that Cross's pay would have been docked if he had been late. Men could be dismissed in an instant on the smallest excuse."

It HAS been considered, miss Marple. Many times, in fact. But we know that he WAS late for work, as was Paul, and they STILL took the time, both men, to spend a minute or two extra in Buckīs Row, making them FURTHER late.
Did they do so, freely giving up their jobs? I think not. I think that both men were convinced that their jobs would not be on the line for a split second, even though some little money would perhaps be. But that was as it was; people sometimes overslept, then as now, and employers still needed trained and experienced workmen, then as now. Only an idiot would dismiss a trained an useful employee for arriving slightly late, then as now.

The same thing would apply to the Mizen meeting. Lechmere could have told the truth, and THEN asked for permision to go to work after having been checked and after having given his particulars to the PC. It would not have taken more than a minute or two. So the explanation that a carman would think up a devious scheme in order to avoid being held up on his way to work holds precious little water. It leaks profusely, to be honest.

"This is a hard working man, who has been with the same company for many years, with a wife and a large number of children to support. The last thing he needs is involvement in a murder case."

Aha. Does that mean that it was ridiculous to nail Dennis Rader for the BTK murders, hard-working man that he was, with a family to support? Or that it was a mistake to jail Ridgway? That it was daft to suspect John Wayne Gacy? Letīs be a little bit pragmatic here, and make good use of our knowledge that serial killers come in many shapes and forms, one of them being the kind of killer that works under the cover of being a hard-working family man.

"you are so determined to find Cross a murderer that you see a dark motive in his words."

Itīs a good thing that SOMEBODY researches Lechmere, miss Marple, when others - like you - persistently claim that the distribution of the murder spots was just a coincidence, although we can clearly see that the slayings fell alongside Lechmereīs working route. Most people also claim that Lechmere was a very honest citizen, but now that they are faced with him lying to Mizen, they instead opt for him ditching his societal responsibilities in favour of making a shilling extra for his family.
With respect, miss Marple, I am not the only one with a determination here. Lechmere enjoys a hoard of naysayers, who all claim that he for some reason could not have been the killer.
He was found by a victim - coincidence.
His work route pinned the murders nicely - coincidence.
He used a name he did not use otherwise - a hommage to his dead stepfather, just for the occasion.
He lied to a PC, allowing him to slip by that policeman - all in order to get to work a little less late than he would have done anyway.

Are you absolutely sure, miss Marple, that you are not letting your good heart get in the way of good sense here? I arrived at the Mizen scam from an other angle than you did, admittedly - I was already very suspicious of the manīs behaviour. To me, the scam more or less ensures that he was the killer of Nichols. Itīs either that or he came up with a Moriarty solution to getting to job a little less late. No other rational explanation applies, in my eyes. If he had been a stand-up citizen, he would not have lied to Mizen. It would have been a morally faulty thing to do, and it would furthermore quite probably get him in very much trouble when it was discovered.

So itīs not a question of me looking for any dark motives in Lechmere - it is a question of him providing one reason after another to suspect that he was the killer. The position alongside a victim. The pulled down dress, hiding the wounds. The refusal to prop her up, something that may have brought her about, potentially. The leaving of the body. The giving a wrong name to the police, staying undetected for more than a century. The lying to a PC. The refusal to admit the lie at the inquest.

I am not piling up the evidence, Charles Lechmere does it for me. I just acknowledge it, instead of leaving it out for convenience sake or for wanting to believe that family men cannot be killers.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"if you're "zero yards" away from the Chapman murder scene, you can't also be "thirty yards" away from the Tabram murder scene!)"

Before we loose sight of it, letīs admit that if Lechmere used both Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street - and I am working from that presumption - then both Chapman and Tabram were killed in very close proximity to those streets. Yes, Chapman was killed s few yards away from the street itself, but she must have come from the street when she entered the backyard. And Tabram was killed not in Old Montague Street, but instead in George Yard, some thirty yards away. But the gist of the matter is that both killings were close to one of the two main thoroughfares that would arguably have taken Lechmere to Broad Street, no matter if we have him recorded on both or not.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Hi Fisherman

If he needed to get to work in time, then why did he not simply pass by the "tarpaulin"? That would have saved him lots and lots of time. Please note that he did not know - by his own account - that the tarpaulin was a woman until he crossed the road halfways. And still he decided, pressed for time as he was, that it would be interesting to look at a discarded tarpaulin for some time, instead of going to work.
How "straight forward" is that?

A tarpaulin would have had some value to him, especially as a carman, and his initial interest in what he thought was a tarpaulin is reasonable enough for him to stop for a split second to pick it up, seeing as he could have easily took it with him.

Only an idiot would dismiss a trained an useful employee for arriving slightly late, then as now.

They were carmen, ten a penny, like today`s lorry drivers. They knew someone would fill their shoes at the drop of a hat.

Have you considered Paul as the murderer or the pair worked in tandem? After all, Paul WAS the one who we know passed through Bucks Row and worked a few yards from 29 Hanbury St. (I am currently researching where Paul`s mum lived ..)

[Fisherman]

Lynn:

"By distraction, I mean his wanting to get to work. Now he sees a body. What to do? He investigates. She seems to be dead. Now Paul arrives. He can hardly just walk away—in for a penny; in for a pound. But he CAN cut his losses by hurrying matters along. I suggest interpreting ALL his subsequent actions through this schema."

Including the pulling down of the dress, obscuring the wounds...? Including the refusal to prop her up? Why did he have time to feel the hands and the face, but not to prop her up? Was he rushed at one stage but not at the other?

"It was his previous name and, I think, served well to fulfill duty but not to plunge in too deeply."

It seems now that he did actually NOT give his name to Mizen. There is an Echo report that tells us something along the lines of "Mizen, now knowing that the man was a carman named Cross ..." etcetera, pointing to the possibility that he went to the police himself and gave his name at THAT stage, when he realized that he would be called to the inquest. If so, was he still trying to avoid to get too deeply involved? He WAS already inquest involved. How much deeper could it get?

"Although we are still not agreeing whether it was a lie, I do think his story was intended to keep from being implicated in this situation."

I can think of no other reason to lie the way he did. So itīs either or, and I donīt invest in or, Iīm afraid.

My words:
“ If so, it would have pointed away from Lechmere. Lucky then, that this is the only murder that happens on a weekend night, wouldnīt you say?”

Your words:
"I don’t understand this reason at all. Sorry."

Maybe I was unclear. What I mean to convey is that if Chapman had been killed on a Saturday night, and Stride on a Tuesday morning, then the scenario with Lechmere killing on his route to job or on the way to visit his mother/daughter weekendwise, would not apply. But it does apply!

"But what about 200 yards? 300? If we continue to expand the boundaries, then many people could have passed that way."

It only applies in Kellyīs case, Lynn. And only potentially, since we know she worked Leman Street, leading down to Old Montague Street. The rest of the slayings are all within the fewest of yards from Hanbury Street or Old Montague Street.

"If I accept your premise that Cross walked by the murder sites on his way to work, it still does not follow that the times were right. Surely he was not headed to work when Kate was done in Mitre Square?"

Kate is the odd one out, but if there was a double event, then this could explain things. And of course he was not en route to his job; it was the night between Saturday and Sunday, and my presumption is that he had been visiting his motherīs house, killed Stride on his way back home, was interrupted for some reason, aborted the kill and went in search of another victim, preferably not too close to the hornetīs nest he had created.

"Indeed, if he were the monomaniacal, sociopathic chap you take him for. As you already know, it would be most helpful if this personality type could be determined of him."

I agree very much that he must have been a cool customer to be the killer. But that is entirely feasible - the mechanisms we find when looking at him in the killerīs role all speak the same language. Imaginative, almost brilliant, quick in thought and with no remorse. Those are all traits that tally with a sociopath, who easily copies the normal mans behaviour and feelings, but who feels nothing at all himself like sorrow, fear, panick etcetera. They know when to cry and why, and they can do so - they just donīt understand the need for it, but are willing to copy the behaviour to fit in. And with respect, no matter if he was the killer or just anxious to get to work in time, he STILL produced that elaborate lie, aimed to get past Mizen. He thus STILL was a pretty cool customer, and so we DO have the trait on record no matter what we think in the guilt question.

"Finally, it would be most beneficial to ascertain why his behaviour after autumn 1888 seemed so bland and unimaginative.""

But do we know this? Do we know that he did not harass people, that he did not make life hell for his wife, that his neighbours were not scared of him etcetera? What we know, Lynn, is that we DON`T know.

What we DO know, however, was that the Pinchin Street torso was found in 1889 in the exact railway arch outside 147 Cable Street, where his mother resided, perhaps twenty, thirty yards away from her doorstep. And we know that Phillips spoke of similarities in the knife work, if I donīt misremember things. So maybe, Lynn, Lechmereīs life was not as bland as we may want to believe!

"I can always count on you for intelligent conversation and gentlemanly conduct."

Thanks, Lynn. I have no problems at all to say that the same goes for you!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

"A tarpaulin would have had some value to him, especially as a carman, and his initial interest in what he thought was a tarpaulin is reasonable enough for him to stop for a split second to pick it up, seeing as he could have easily took it with him. "

Agreed - what I want is to point out that IF he was in danger of loosing his job for arriving late, it would perhaps have been very shortsighted to stop and pick the tarpaulin up; it would have taken some little time, and it would probably have weighed a lot if it was the size of a human being, further slowing Lechmere down.
Therefore I suggest that he would not have felt that his job was at stake.

"They were carmen, ten a penny, like today`s lorry drivers. They knew someone would fill their shoes at the drop of a hat."

But todays lorry drivers are - just like carmen - people who are accustomed to the routes their employers use, used to handling the paper work and the goods they freight, used to speaking to the people along their routes as friends and associates, etcetera. No employer needs the extra trouble it represents to loose a good employee. Kicking out a carman with twenty years of experience of the trade would be thick. Most employers would avoid it if they relied in the employee otherwise. I am not saying that the carmen enjoyed some sort of a protection against being kicked out - they clearly did not. But kicking useful employees out is and remains bad for business.

"Have you considered Paul as the murderer or ther pair in tandem? After all, Paul WAS the one who we know passed through Bucks Row and worked a few yards from 29 Hanbury St. (I am currently researching where Paul`s mum lived ..)"

No, I have not. I donīt see much mileage in it, whereas I see many trips around the globe in Lechmere alone. But itīs nice to hear that you are researching Paul!

The best!
Fisherman