The Mizen scam

[Lechmere]

Moonbegger
Undoubtedly the reason that both myself and Misses Retro were talking at cross (ha!) purposes with you is that I think we both thought that you had abandoned your proposition that Cross may not have been Lechmere but some manner of imposter.
I am slightly loath to address this issue again as a moment quiet reflection should tell anyone why this proposition is a non starter.

Let’s call this person Mr Smith.
On Friday morning Mr Smith walks down Bucks Row on the way somewhere which may or may not be to work. Maybe he has been up to some sort of minor mischief.
Mr Smith finds Polly’s body, is joined by Paul and they both bluff their way past Mizen.
Paul gives a newspaper interview that appears on the Sunday which mentions that another man was with him.
Why does Mr Smith come forward at all?
The only sensible reason would be that he always walks those streets and could be picked up in a dragnet. If he was walking down there for a ‘one –off reason then he would run little risk of that happening.
So Mr Smith appears at a police station and gives the name Charles Allen Cross and says he works at Pcikfords (is this a lie?) as a carman (which was Charles Allen Lechmere’s profession) and gives his address as 22 Doveton Street (which was Charles Allen Lechmere’s address).
Mr Smith then attends the inquest on the Monday under the assumed identity that he had given to the police.

For this to work we must assume that Charles Allen Lechmere was unconcerned by this. He will likely have read in the paper that someone was using an adaption of his identity, in a high profile murder case. That being the case Charles Allen Lechmere must have opted to keep quiet.
What we know of Charles Allen Lechmere, outside the Ripper case, is that he was a punctilious individual who was otherwise law abiding. Yet here he is unconcerned that someone else has used his ID in a way that would potentially compromise him if it were to come to light. What if the police called at 22 Doveton Street to follow up on some detail? They would find Charles Allen Lechmere not Mr Smith.
Was Charles Allen Lechmere in with Mr Smith in this deception? Or did Mr Smith do t without Charles Allen Lechmere’s knowledge?
Ether way it would be an exceptionally stupid thing for Charles Allen Lechmere to involve himself in and for Mr Smith it would be an action that could lead t him becoming suspect no 1 if the subterfuge got discovered. And why? What would he have got out of it?

It is unalloyed nonsense.

For Charles Allen Lechmere to use to name Charles Allen Cross he would potentially be keeping his involvement from his wife and immediate family. If he was guilty that would have been his sole aim. He had to come forward as he did walk those streets every night.

You say of Cross/Lechmere’s actions:
“Are These not also the actions of a completely innocent man discovering a body ?”
Possibly but lying to Mizen that he was wanted by another policeman in Bucks Row is not the action of an innocent man. Giving a false name to the police is not the actions of a totally innocent man.
When you add in that he was found over the body only the most bumbling homicide detective would merely shrug and say ‘perhaps he was innocent’.
We have the luxury of being more knowledgeable about Cross/Lechmere than the police were at the time. Their bumbling can almost be excused. Ours cannot.

You also seem to put great store in Cross/Lechmere’s unnecessary risk taking in stepping backwards to meet Paul, which you summarise as follows:
‘He really had no idea if someone was indeed watching him from a window directly opposite in Essex Wharf or to the side in new cottage."

Residents on the south side of Bucks Row could only have witnessed the Ripper (whoever he might have been) committing the crime if they were leaning out their windows. I think an observant Ripper may have been aware of this taking place. So we can discount New Cottage.
That leaves Essex Wharf. The Ripper (sorry Lynn) killed Polly opposite Essex Wharf come what may. He took that risk, but it was only one occupied residence and it was very late, so I would suggest it was a calculated risk.
By the same token how many occupied windows faced onto the rear yards of Hanbury Street? Dozens. They were more occupied windows in Mitre Square.
The simple truth is that however calculating and street smart the Ripper may have been, or I would say must have been, he was also a massive risk taker. You have to factor that in when addressing any of these issues.

[Jon Guy]

Lechmere

When you add in that he was found over the body

He wasn`t!! He was in the middle of the road when Paul clocked him. He wasn`t walking back to the middle of the road wiping his hands or hiding something in his jacket or apron, he was just standing in the middle of the road.

[Lechmere]

Jon
Read paul's press interview - conducted before his version was corrupted by other people's accounts

[moonbegger]

The Press ? Ahh ,, so freddie Star really did eat that hamster after all

moonbegger

[moonbegger]

Lechmere ,

"Undoubtedly the reason that both myself and Misses Retro were talking at cross (ha!) purposes with you is that I think we both thought that you had abandoned your proposition that Cross may not have been Lechmere but some manner of impostor"

I did actually (possibly) concede That , you are correct . But when the argument was used as to why he could not have been an impostor .. in fact the same argument that i used as to why Lechmere could have not been the killer ..
" Mr Smith finds Polly’s body, is joined by Paul and they both bluff their way past Mizen.
Paul gives a newspaper interview that appears on the Sunday which mentions that another man was with him.
Why does Mr Smith come forward at all? "

you accept it when Lechmere does it , but not when Mr Smith does it for exactly the same reasons ... Guess i'm just not a big fan of double standards.

"So Mr Smith appears at a police station and gives the name Charles Allen Cross and says he works at Pcikfords (is this a lie?) as a carman (which was Charles Allen Lechmere’s profession) and gives his address as 22 Doveton Street (which was Charles Allen Lechmere’s address) "

Yes , this is more than plausible ! As i have mentioned it happens today , just as it happened back in the day .Take a quick Boo at the book " The Governor " A friend will always help out a friend .. and it is Amazing how a small untruth can become a whopping out of control phib .

"Was Charles Allen Lechmere in with Mr Smith in this deception? Or did Mr Smith do t without Charles Allen Lechmere’s knowledge?
Ether way it would be an exceptionally stupid thing for Charles Allen Lechmere to involve himself in "

once again you gotta love those double standards Murder and mutilation .. OK . Helping out a mate .. unalloyed nonsense.

"The Ripper killed Polly opposite Essex Wharf come what may. He took that risk, but it was only one occupied residence and it was very late, so I would suggest it was a calculated risk. By the same token how many occupied windows faced onto the rear yards of Hanbury Street? Dozens. They were more occupied windows in Mitre Square"

I guess thats why he didn't hang about there too long either , for a chat maybe with Richardson ( if he in fact showed up that morning ) or Cadosh

Like i have said from the very start , if lechmere was caught red handed over polly's body ( Like you and the press Suggest ) and which you seem to put great store in , i would wholeheartedly agree you have a case . But EVERYONE WAS in agreement at the INQUEST that Paul first saw him in the middle of the road ...

But wait just a minute here !!!! With the danger of throwing this case a well deserved bone .. What if Paul had actually said " up in the Middle of the ROW ! And speaking as a Cockney i can tell you there is actually NO difference in pronunciation Between [ Road ] and [ Row ]

Now that could be a game changer ! Up in the middle of the Row would infact mean he could well have been next to the body after all .. for infact the stable gates where Polly lay , was indeed roughly the Middle of the Row.

Just a thought .

moonbegger .

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Moon, Lech, and all. But Cross would make sure that his testimony on that point would be identical to whatever Paul actually saw, as not to set off his suspicion. It would do Cross no good if Paul started calling him a liar. And since Cross placed himself in the middle of the road at that time, we can bet that's what Paul said.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Rubyretro]

mistake

[Rubyretro]

"

you accept it when Lechmere does it , but not when Mr Smith does it for exactly the same reasons ... Guess i'm just not a big fan of double standards.

But it's not double standards...it's not the same thing at all.

Cross would surely have read Paul's account in the paper and feared a man hunt
-and he could risk coming forward and bluffing. There is no way that Mr Smith could have taken that risk.

I presume that Cross would have gone to work as usual on the day of the inquest -and what would his co-workers have thought when they read in the paper that 'Cross' had attended that same inquest ? They'd have told the Police that there had been an imposter, that's what. Then the Police march Mr Smith ( after a frantic search) down to Doveton Street and ask Mrs Cross and the neighbours to identify him...which they can't. Next thing Mr Smith is on trial for murder.

[Lechmere]

Bridwell
When looking at a case like this it is often useful to look for exceptions, for unusual happenings and see what might be the reason.
In the case of Cross/Lechmere it is the only instance ion all the ‘Whitechapel’ murders (canonical and non canonical) where someone was found over a body (yes I will insist on using that term).
It was the only instance where the people who found a body tampered with it.
It is the only instance where they then abandoned it and the body was rediscovered by someone else.
These are just some examples.

Another example of an exception is the fact that Cross/Lechmere wore his work clothes to the inquest.
Why?
We know that people attending inquest’s commonly had to pay for someone else to do their day’s work as that very fact caused a stink during this inquest.
The nature of a carman’s work make it unlikely that a carman could nip in out and – as a long job or a traffic delay would potentially prevent attendance.
We also know that Cross/Lechmere was part of the prosperous hard working class – not the dirt poor who only had one set of clothes.
We know from descriptions of attendees that most turned up in their ‘Sunday Best’.
By itself attending the inquest in his work cloths may mean nothing but in conjunction with everything else we can piece together about Cross/Lechmere and his seeming desire to prevent his wife from discovering his involvement in this case.
The issue of his work clothes is just another suspicious behaviour pattern that can be associated with Cross/Lechmere.

I will remind you also for the umteenth time that Cross is a name that he is never known to have previously used. It was used on his behalf by his step father when he was about 11 in the 1861 census. This step father had been dead for 19 years by the time that Cross/Lechmere appeared at the inquest.

Yes the police’s failure to visit him was their failure. However had he been visited and put under proper scrutiny then it would be an argument against his guilt. That he clearly was not put under any scrutiny suggests that he was not looked at properly and accordingly could have slipped through the net.

Yes quite a few people probably had a relative living near Berner Street and Pinchin Street – less will also live near Bucks Row and still less will have moved into the address near Bucks Row just before the murders started happening.
Rather less will have been found over (yes over) a corpse.

From Berner Street – if disturbed and unsatisfied – where would the Ripper go? Straight home? I doubt it.
Perhaps he would go to where he thought he would have a good chance of finding another victim. Aldgate perhaps? The route from Berner Street to the Mitre Square area would have followed Cross/Lechmere’s route to work when he was living at JAMES Street (which is about 300 yards from Berner Street) prior to his move to Doveton Street in June 1888. In other words it would have been a familiar route.
The apron/graffiti site at Wentworth Model Dwellings is on the direct route back to Doveton Street from Mitre Square. The events of the night of the double event fit Cross/Lechmere well.

Miller’s Court is on his way to work also.

You will also notice that I said ‘possible feelings of powerlessness’. We have no way of knowing. What we can say is that he had elements in his background which are classically present in cases involving sociopathic serial killers.
The presence of these features strengthens the case against Cross/Lechmere although obviously by themselves they are not indications of guilt.

You seem to think that the fact that he moved to an address that meant his walk to work traversed the killing field, just before the murders started is of no consequence. It clearly is. I think you will soon be arguing that the sky is green.

[Lechmere]

Blimey Moon beggar
There is no double standard.
If Cross/Lechmere had to walk those streets every might to work then he was virtually compelled to come forward after Paul’s story appeared in the press – as it was him! If it was Mr Smith then it is implausible that Mr Smith would pretend to be Cross and then that Cross/Lechmere failed to come forward to clear the matter up.
It is quite simple to follow I think.

Also someone who is a murderer will behave differently to someone who is law abiding. Don’t you agree?
Someone who is law abiding might take exception to someone pretending to be them in a murder case. Someone pretending to be someone else in a murder case is themselves taking a massive risk for no goo reason.
Someone who is a murderer may take a calculated risk as Cross/Lechmere would have done if he was the culprit.

The first person to state that Cross was in the middle of the road was.... Cross. Big shock there.
By the time Paul appeared at the inquest some time later and under duress, he said very little but conformed with Cross.
However on the day it happened Paul made a statement saying that Cross was over the body.
You make your own mind up.
You wouldn’t be much use as a murder investigator I think though.

[moonbegger]

"



But it's not double standards...it's not the same thing at all.

Cross would surely have read Paul's account in the paper and feared a man hunt
-and he could risk coming forward and bluffing. There is no way that Mr Smith could have taken that risk.

I presume that Cross would have gone to work as usual on the day of the inquest -and what would his co-workers have thought when they read in the paper that 'Cross' had attended that same inquest ? They'd have told the Police that there had been an imposter, that's what. Then the Police march Mr Smith ( after a frantic search) down to Doveton Street and ask Mrs Cross and the neighbours to identify him...which they can't. Next thing Mr Smith is on trial for murder.

Hello RR

CrossMere and Paul walk off .. CrossMere Bluffs he way past Police
Mr Smith and Paul walk off .. smith bluffs his way past police .. Same

CrossMere comes forward in fear of a manhunt after Pauls Press story
Mr Smith comes forward in fear of a manhunt after Pauls Press story .Same

CrossMere Had to walk that route every day .
Mr Smith may well have to also walk that same route .. same .

Apart from the fact Mr smith Used the less familiar ID of his friend CrossMere to Mask his own questionable ID. where is the difference?

" There is no way that Mr Smith could have taken that risk" WHY NOT ?

Why would the police suspect a man who voluntary walks in to a police station and gives his account of being part of finding Polly team .. Especially after Paul and Mizen give him a thumbs up as being the same man ( ID ) ?

And more so when he found himself entangled in a situation that could shine an unwelcome light on his own ID .. As i have already mentioned, it happens today , just as it happened back in the day .Take a quick Boo at the book " The Governor " A friend will always help out a friend .. and it is Amazing how a small untruth can become a whopping out of control phib .

"I presume that Cross would have gone to work as usual on the day of the inquest -and what would his co-workers have thought when they read in the paper that 'Cross' had attended that same inquest ? They'd have told the Police that there had been an impostor"

You guys really need to get your story straight ! i thought that according to team Lechmere , NO one knew him as Cross ?

Although i admit this whole ID theft is pure conjecture .. and i am not really convinced about it myself .. the point i am trying to make is that it is Equally as plausible .. and even very slightly possible ..

Cheers ,

moonbegger.

[Lechmere]

Yes moonbeggar it is an excellent, very likely and well thought out explanation that is no doubt very possible.

[Rubyretro]

.

You guys really need to get your story straight ! i thought that according to team Lechmere , NO one knew him as Cross ?

Yes, so how would Mr Smith ? At least Cross knew that he wasn't at the inquest if he was at work ...

(sorry that I got my knickers twisted, but your whole scenario is just so convoluted that it does my head in).

Oh, I forgot...this is supposed to be his 'mate'. I suppose that Mr Smith popped round to Mr Lechmere's to ask if it was 'alright' to use the name Cross and the Doveton address and involve him in a murder enquiry and say that he was the first person next to the body, and Mr Lechmere/Cross said"no problem, mate...anything for a friend".

I've got some very good friends, but I can't see me asking them for a favour of that magnitude, nor them me...

Out of interest, Moonbeggar, would you ask some one if you could give their address as your own to the Police and appear at an inquest which had great
publicity...it is perjury...or would you personally agree to be involved in the same crime to help a mate out ?

[Lechmere]

Maybe 'Smith' lent his old pal his lawnmower and Lechmere was returning his good mate a favour?
Come come Frau Retro don't pour scorn on moonbeggars excellent idea.

[moonbegger]

Maybe 'Smith' lent his old pal his lawnmower and Lechmere was returning his good mate a favour?
Come come Frau Retro don't pour scorn on moonbeggars excellent idea.

LechRetro

I throw you a well deserved bone ... one in fact that could make your case a lot stronger .. and you respond with Scorn and sarcasm .. oh well

What if Paul had actually said " up in the Middle of the ROW ! And speaking as a Cockney i can tell you there is actually NO difference in pronunciation Between [ Road ] and [ Row ]

Now that could be a game changer ! Up in the middle of the Row would infact mean he could well have been next to the body after all .. for infact the stable gates where Polly lay , was indeed roughly the Middle of the Row.

And Yes RubyRetro , i am fortune enough to be blessed with a lot of good friends and family for whom i would unhesitantly be willing to put my life on the line for .. and them for me . I guess we just come from very different worlds . You should Never use your own misfortunes /fortunes in life as a yardstick to judge how other people interact with each other . I think that could be a problem when it comes to being objective , You will only be able to see things from a one dimensional view point .. Your own !

And i hope and prey you are never in a situation where you are in need a good friend

cheers

moonbegger .

This is my garden and these are my apples , go pick apples of your own tree .