The Mizen scam

[lynn cates]

Lloyd's

Hello MB. Aqui amigo.

Cheers.
LC

[moonbegger]

Muchas gracious Mon amigo Lynn .

I did actually find this one , but in my stupidity i was looking for an article where Paul actually mentions CrossMere "standing over Polly's body" which i think its a lot more of a condemning image than "Standing where she was" Silly Me

OK so, is this it , combining press and inquest statements ?

1) CrossMere walking down Bucks row on the right hand kerb

2) See's what he thinks is a tarp ( or bundle )

3)Steps from the right hand kerb , to the middle of the road for a closer look .

4 ) at which point Paul walking down the Row , same direction , on the left side kerb see's CrossMere in the Middle of the road .

5) CrossMere walks closer towards stable gates " Standing where she was "
( Pauls Lloyds article )

6) Paul , feeling a bit nervous wanting to avoid danger of possibly being mugged, steps from his left hand kerb into the middle of the road in order to pass CrossMere who is now close by Pollys body on his left. ( this also could be point where Paul mentioned " standing where she was " )

7) As paul passes CrossMere who is now directly on his left , he is asked for assistance by Crossmere . Then they both walk together to the body .

Apart from CrossMere Ripping poor Polly apart , did i miss anything ?

The main thing that jumps out here is that Paul First see's CrossMere in the MIDDLE of the road .. and being a bit worried for his own safety doesn't take his eyes off him ( like anyone with any sense would do ) He watches him move slowly over to ( his own ) Pauls side of the road for apparently no reason ( of course Paul is gonna suspect an attempt to rob him ) so he steps into the road in order to avoid him , which in turn places CrossMere in between Paul and Polly. Knowing Durward/Bucks row well i would say as a rough guesstimate CrossMere was standing 3 or 4 feet from Polly , and Paul was probably 3 from CrossMere . Which in turn gives them both a few feet to walk to Polly's body ( like they said they did at the inquest ) once Crossmere calls upon paul for his assistance .

A question for Retro-Letch-Man

Why would paul lie at the Inquest ? If the very FIRST time he saw CrossMere , was when he was stood Over Polly's body .. why wouldn't he say so at the inquest ? why would he lie and say the first time he saw CrossMere he was in the middle of the road . He wouldn't purger himself would he ? Lets see how them double standards fly

cheers all

moonbegger

[lynn cates]

not bad

Hello MB. De nada.

Your forensic reconstruction is not too bad. But specific questions need to go to Christer and Lechmere.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

Lynn
I know this is out of place, but...
I couldn't find any relevant references in the police files - but I only checked the ones published in the Sourcebook, which reproduces most but not all available. However I tend to doubt that any significant references, such as any extra information about Isenschmid, were not published.
The Star was the paper that interviewed Mrs Isenschmid and this is the source of much of what we know about him. It appeared in their edition dated 18th September 1888. They reported, amongst other things:
"Her husband's friends are in Switzerland, and unknown to her..."
I suspect that the absense of a brother in this country is taken as being implied from this statement.
However he had been absent from home for ten weeks and had not seen his wife in that time. So who knows who had turned up in that period?
Then on 21st September 1888, The Star reported:
"The man who was arrested at Holloway on suspicion of being concerned in the Whitechapel murder, and subsequently removed and detained at Bow Asylum, will shortly be released. His brother has given satisfactory explanation as to his whereabouts on the morning of the murder. It has transpired that the authorities of the asylum would not allow the police to interrogate the patient whilst there, as it is against the rules laid down by the Lunacy Commissioners. "
That he was not released but sent to Banstead can easily be explained as a revision of his medical condition

[Lechmere]

IchabodCrane
Apart from the double event all the murders happened at a time when Cross/Lechmere would have been going to work or perhaps during one of his earlier deliveries.
The Bank Holiday and weekend thing is based on modern interpretations and on current work practices.

Misses Retro
One of Cross/Lechmere's children ran a cat meat business from Entick Street which was about 200 yards north of Doveton Street. The slaughter yard they got their meat from was under the railway arches which are between Entick Street (now under Bethnal Green Gardens) and Doveton Street - about 150 yards from Doveton Street.
We know that Robert Paul had to pay a man 5 shillings a day to fill in for him as a carman. - that would be 30 shillings for a six day week. Not bad pay.

Moonbeggar - on what basis do you have Paul walking down the left hand kerb?
From his house on Foster Street he would turn into Bucks Row and naturally walk on the right hand kerb. And as he turned right on Baker's Row it would not make sense for him ever cross to the left hand side of the road unless he liked zig zagging for fun.
I think you should revisit the crime scene to get a better forensic reconstruction.
Paul was virtually dragged to the inquest by the police. He didn't want to be there. Cross/Lechmere had already stated that he was only half way across the road. I rather think Paul didn't want to extend his time in the witness stand and took the line of least resistance.

[caz]

...Cross (or Lechmere if we like, whatever) appeared at the inquest as Cross. He also therefore gave a statement to the police, as Cross.

At the same time, he gave the police accurate details regarding:

His workplace.

His address.

By these details, he could be identified by others. How was this not a risk, if the name 'Cross' was not the one he used in everyday life?

The inquest proceedings were in the papers. All that had to happen was for somebody who knew him to read about a Charles Cross who lived at Doveton Street and worked at Pickfords for them to say - 'Eh? But that's Charles Lechmere, not Cross! Why is he giving a false name to the cops? And there's this murdered woman. Hmm. Maybe I'd better say something...'

This man had neighbours, friends and colleagues. If everybody knew him as 'Lechmere' it would've looked mighty odd if he'd suddenly called himself 'Cross' in connection with a dead prostitute.

The trouble here is that his use of the name 'Cross' at the inquest and use of the name 'Lechmere' on official documents effectively concealed his identity for a long time; and people have assumed that this means that his identity must have been concealed at the time. But that doesn't follow, necessarily.

If he had wanted to conceal his identity - and again I ask why, if he and Paul hadn't given their details to Mizen; how would the police have tracked him down exactly? - If he had wanted to conceal his identity, why on earth would he have given a 'false' name and the right address and workplace? So that the police didn't come to his house? A kind of pre-emptive strike? But then if that was his plan, why not give false details about his home and work as well? In case the police checked? But then if they did check, they'd discover that he was Lechmere, not Cross.

It doesn't make sense. However tempting it might be to see the 'name swap' as the cunning plan of an evil killer, I'm inclined to think that a more mundane solution applies.

Hi Sally,

When I got to your post above (on page 33) I breathed a sigh of relief, because you expressed more or less exactly what I was thinking myself. Yet here we are, a dozen pages further on, and I don't think your very reasonable objections have been dealt with at all, never mind satisfactorily.

Paul is presumed to be a completely innocent witness, yet he had to be 'virtually dragged to the inquest by the police' (Lechmere's words - hi Lech ). His fellow witness, on the other hand, came forward and volunteered his home and work addresses to the authorities, but is viewed with suspicion because the surname he went by was that of his late stepfather, Cross.

Where is the evidence that he used the name Lechmere in his everyday dealings with family, workmates and boss? I thought there was none. Where is the evidence that he only used the name Cross for the purpose of dealing with the temporary inconvenience of having discovered an early Whitechapel victim? I don't see how there can be any evidence if nobody today can tell us which surname he used socially at the time. But it would certainly make more sense to give the name Cross, while supplying his workplace details, if that was how he was known at work. And who's to say he wasn't?

Love,

Caz
X

[Sally]

When I got to your post above (on page 33) I breathed a sigh of relief, because you expressed more or less exactly what I was thinking myself. Yet here we are, a dozen pages further on, and I don't think your very reasonable objections have been dealt with at all, never mind satisfactorily.

Hi Caz - Too true, I'm afraid. Throwing a spanner in the lovely suspect-fantasy works is never a popular move - who wants to hear that they might be wrong? ( I notice that I've effectively killed the latest Barnett thread off with my pesky inclination to think that much 'suspect' theorising is a load of baloney. Oh well. )

Of course people should look for new avenues of enquiry - it just might be better in my humble opinion if the evidence informed the facts, and not the other way around. Conclusion-led 'research' is at best misleading and at worst damaging to our knowledge base.

'A man hears what he wants to hear and he disregards the rest' - as the song goes.

Meanwhile, there's still no indication that Cross was using Cross as a way of dodging the cops. He'd have been more likely to implicate himself if anything. What a silly man he would have been! The known facts of his life don't paint a picture of an incompetent idiot - so I'm afraid I must continue to suspect that he wasn't dodging the cops at all; and that in real life, he was known as Cross.

[lynn cates]

zilch

Hello Lechmere. Thanks. Yes, I could not find anything from the Met exonerating him.

His friends had been questioned some time earlier. Nothing.

Cheers.
LC

[Rubyretro]

-

who wants to hear that they might be wrong? ( I notice that I've effectively killed the latest Barnett thread off with my pesky inclination to think that much 'suspect' theorising is a load of baloney. Oh well. )

It is always easy but futile to compare things which are not comparable , to the detriment of one of them.

Obviously Heinrich is totally subjective in his Kelly worship and Barnett rant.
I have no argument with your views on that matter.

However, Lechmere (the poster) is a whole different kettle of fish to Heinrich:
Lechmere does his own research and actually knows what he's talking about.

That is not to say that Lechmere is right in his concusions -but I think that you owe him a real debate rather than rhetoric.

[moonbegger]

"Moonbeggar - on what basis do you have Paul walking down the left hand kerb?
From his house on Foster Street he would turn into Bucks Row and naturally walk on the right hand kerb. And as he turned right on Baker's Row it would not make sense for him ever cross to the left hand side of the road unless he liked zig zagging for fun.
I think you should revisit the crime scene to get a better forensic reconstruction.
Paul was virtually dragged to the inquest by the police. He didn't want to be there. Cross/Lechmere had already stated that he was only half way across the road. I rather think Paul didn't want to extend his time in the witness stand and took the line of least resistance".[/QUOTE]

Lechmere ,

It's Elementary dear Watson

Surely we Know CrossMere was on the right because he clearly states he saw a bundle on the other side of the road !

And we Know he walked towards the gate where polly lay !
and that leaves us with with Pauls inquest testimony

"As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Baul) stepped in the roadway to pass him"

And i thought i was the bad detective here

So i guess he did like zig zagging for fun. unless you can find a more sinister reason for doing so ? But my guess is being a bit of jumpy (scary cat) sort of a fellow .. he would take a certain comfort in walking close by people's houses as opposed to a big dark wall ( he may have even chose the brighter side of the road ) People who actually live round here still make those same choices today. guess you wouldn't find that in your " Tourist guide to murder locations " book

"I think you should revisit the crime scene to get a better forensic
reconstruction"

Ha Ha, i walked through the " crime scene " on my way to work for four years !

And this one is equally as funny ..

"I rather think Paul didn't want to extend his time in the witness stand and took the line of least resistance"

So after we extract the BS , you are actually saying ( Paul was willing to purger himself ) I am glad to see you are still flying that double standard flag , no matter how hard you try to disguise it

So its fair to say , the only people in the East End willing to Lie and commit perjury ( according to Team Lechmere ) are the very people you rely upon to give your case half a leg to stand on . You gotta love that !

I Thank You .

moonbegger .

[Sally]

-

It is always easy but futile to compare things which are not comparable , to the detriment of one of them.

Obviously Heinrich is totally subjective in his Kelly worship and Barnett rant.
I have no argument with your views on that matter.

However, Lechmere (the poster) is a whole different kettle of fish to Heinrich:
Lechmere does his own research and actually knows what he's talking about.

That is not to say that Lechmere is right in his concusions -but I think that you owe him a real debate rather than rhetoric.

Ruby - whatever.

It isn't about any poster in particular - so you defend your friend to no effect. It isn't personal. I have not a jot of interest in what any poster personally believes. That's their concern.

What I object to is Suspect Blindness.

It means conclusion- led enquiry. Plenty of that going on. It means cherry-picking the evidence. It means twisting and spinning the evidence. It's a waste of time.

As I have said before - no evidence has yet been presented that points to Cross having been guilty of anything. Its all supposition; for some at least, based upon a personal conviction that they are correct and a personal desire to be so.

Now if others want to pursue that course, its up to them. I don't.

[Rubyretro]

I have never tried LSD (even the term probably dates me), but I got the idea of what a 'bad trip' must have been from reading this post.

-

on what basis do you have Paul walking down the left hand kerb?
From his house on Foster Street he would turn into Bucks Row and naturally walk on the right hand kerb.

(I'm picturing it ).

Surely we Know CrossMere was on the right

So, both Paul and Cross are on the right.

That is to say , on the same side, and the opposite side to where Polly's body lay.

"As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Baul) stepped in the roadway to pass him"

Little bit of a Leap here. I imagine that Cross had actually been on the left at the crucial point (next to Polly's body) and was moving back towards the right hand pavement , causing Paul to change his trajectory ?

It's a very very narrow spot.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Moonbegger/Rubyretro

This is from a different press report of Cross's testimony

'At the same time he heard a man coming up the street, in the same direction, and on the same side of the road as himself. ' Woodford Times 7th Sept 1888

So even Cross says that Paul was on the same side of the road as he was.

[Bridewell]

Hi All,

"I saw a man standing where the woman was".

I accept that this could describe a man 'standing over the woman's body', but that's not what it says. Could it not equally mean that the man seen was at a point in the length of Bucks Row which was level with where the body was ? That looks more likely in the context of the rest of Paul's statement. If Paul had actually seen Cross/Lechmere standing over Nichols' body, would he not in fact suspect him of being the killer - and, ultimately, say so?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi All,

"I saw a man standing where the woman was".

I accept that this could describe a man 'standing over the woman's body', but that's not what it says. Could it not equally mean that the man seen was at a point in the length of Bucks Row which was level with where the body was ? That looks more likely in the context of the rest of Paul's statement. If Paul had actually seen Cross/Lechmere standing over Nichols' body, would he not in fact suspect him of being the killer - and, ultimately, say so?

Regards, Bridewell.

Hi Bridewell

During the Lloyd's interview Paul makes the point that he believed that the body had being there for sometime (the body was cold) so this may have left him with the impression that the murderer had long gone.

The point about perspective is a good one, Paul could really only judge where Cross actually was in the gloom when he first saw him, by keeping his eyes on him for most of the time, which I suspect he may have had good reason to do this as he claimed he felt threatened by Cross.