The Mizen scam

[FrankO]

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.

Good points, Mr Lucky (& Bridewell). The fact that Cross & Paul failed to notice that Nichols' eyes were open gives us some idea of how dark that gloom actually was.

All the best,
Frank

[moonbegger]

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.

-

(I'm picturing it ).



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.



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.

Oh Ruby ,

Unless you pay full attention and read the posts as they are written , no amount of LSD will help you out ...

OK .. so the opening statement was made by Lechmere .. " moonbegger ect ect Bla , blar ,blar ,,

do i really need to explain how this works

moonbegger .

[moonbegger]

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.

Hello Mr Lucky ,

When CrossMere first became aware of the approaching paul , Yes he ( CrossMere ) was on the same side of the street as Paul ..

CrossMere was a few feet from Polly's body , when Paul came walking up that very same side where Polly lay . Then assuming a possible mugging on himself , Paul steps off the left hand kerb into the road attempting to navigate his way around CrossMere who is now closer to the left hand side kerb, looking at Polly in the stable entrance .

cheers

moonbegger

[moonbegger]

Quote from Lechmere [ "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"[END 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 .[/QUOTE]


Hope this clears up all the confusion ..

moonbegger.

[Lechmere]

Ah another brilliant piece of work from Moonbegar that doesn't require an answer.

'Lucky' we have this bit...
'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. '

As Cross didn't place himself on the left side and any further over than half way across until he went over to the body with Paul, it is impossible for Cross to be saying that Paul approached on the left hand side.
Next?

[caz]

Morning all,

So no evidence whatsoever that in 1888 Cross was not known by any of his associates as Cross, and was in fact known by them all as Lechmere?

In that case, I hope the argument that he had something to hide when giving the name Cross to the authorities will not rear its head again in future.

You give your personal details to the police in the full expectation that they may wish to find you again, or at least to confirm you are who you say you are, and live and work where you say you do. No point in giving a name you never use when a quick check at your home or workplace would reveal all.

Love,

Caz
X

[Lechmere]

Hi Caz
We have about 60 instances avilable of Cross/Lechmere giving his name in various official records.
Only once his name was given as Cross - in the 1861 census when he was about 11 or 12. His stepfather would have either completed the relevant form or provided the information that resulted in him being listed as Cross. It is most probable that Cross/Lechmere was totally unaware that his step father had named him Cross for the purposes of that census.
The only other time we know of him being called Cross was when he gave that name to the police - which must have been in a police station, almost certainly on the Sunday evening - 2nd September. He then also obviously answered to that name when he appeared at the inquest on Monday 3rd September.
When dealing with authority he had always used Lechmere apart from on this occasion.
We do not know and never will have the means to know what he was called down the pub or at work (although there is some family memory to go on see below).

If it is subsequently learnt that someone involved in an unsolved murder case gave the name Cross when he was really called Lechmere (in the circumstances outlined above) then it need not be important or significant at all.
If he was one of the three butchers of Winthrop Street for example, or one of the slumbering caretakers, or someone who knew the deceased and identified the body a few days later.
But he was not.
He was someone who was found by the body (or half way across Bucks Row which in any case is effectively by the body).
He is someone who said he was late for work yet chose to walk a longer route to work that day than necessary and in so doing walked past the next murder scene. This next murder almost certainly resulted in the person who found him by the body (Paul) being raided by the police.
He also lied to the policeman (Mizen) he met around the corner and told him that he (Mizen) was wanted by another policeman in Bucks Row as there was a woman there who may or may not be dead. This resulted in Mizen failing to take any of his personal details.

The man who used this alternative name was the only one (with Paul) in all the 'Whitechapel' murders to abandon a body so that it was discovered twice.
He is the only one know to have touched the body (with Paul).

In the light of this I would suggest that the name swap is possibly significant.

A generous person might think that he was late for work and that he didn't want to worry his poor wife's pretty head unnessarily and so used a different name. We know that his family were totally unaware of his involvement in the case which counts against him being known as Cross to his contemporaries..
So if you were in the Whitechapel murder room, knowing what we know now, would you give him the benefit of the doubt, cut him some slack. Leave him be?
I wouldn't.
I would bash his door down late at night and his head would be in a bathtub full of freezing water before he could put his sacking apron on.

Now you ask various questions in seconding Sally's earlier post. I think to be fair most of not all the issues have been addressed but perhaps in a piecmeal fashion.
So I will go through these objections.
We can only use our imaginations here.

Why was Paul, an innocent witness, dragged form his bed?
A few possible reasons.
He slagged the police off in his newspaper interview. That probably put their backs up.
He was a witness to the finding of the body and did not come forward.
The next (Chapman's) murder happened about 150 yards from his workplace. He did not appear at the inquest until after this murder. The most likely explanation is that there was a search for him after this happened. Dew remembered a search for Paul taking place.

If guilty why did Cross volunteer and come forward?
Paul's newspaper story appeard on the Sunday evening. It mentioned someone else as being by the body. This would have alerted Cross to the danger of the police searching for him and finding him either on his way to work or via a door to door search at his house. This would have led to an active interrogation. If he voluntarily went to the police he could set out the story in the manner he wanted it recorded. He could be in control and set the agenda. He would look innocent.

So why give the name Cross if he was really always called Lechmere and never used Cross?
I doubt that it was to pull the wool over the eyes of his work colleagues as he had to take a day off work for the inquest.
On that subject, and his attendance at the inquest in his work clothes, it is inconceivable given the nature of a carman's work that he could have popped in to do a few jobs and then got back to the inquest. We know from Paul's second newspaper interview that inquest witnesses were expected to be there all day.
My guess is that he did not want his wife to know. That explains his attendance in his work clothes. As I said above, his family never knew of his involvement in the Ripper case.
By the time he married his wife, his stepfather Thomas Cross had been dead a few years and he may have seldom been mentioned. Cross's mother soon after remarried somneone else. His wife was illiterate and so couldn't have read any press reports. The family had only recently moved into Doveton Street so neighbours may well have not made the connection either.
Could a friend have read the papers and sussed Cross out, thinking 'hold on this guy who is passing himself off as Cross is really Lechmere'? It seems unlikely to have happened because his immediate family did not suss him out. Cross's wife died in 1940. Some of her great grandchildren who were alive when she was still kicking around are still alive today. Her great granddaughter (who is now dead) was about 14 in 1940 and she knew nothing about any Ripper connection nor anything about the name Cross.
East End families tend to brag about Ripper connections (see Toppy Hutchinson). The Lechmere's are (or were) in total ignorance.

Using the name Cross - as opposed to Jones say - would have also been a sensible option as if the subtefuge (presuming it vwas a subtefuge of course) was discovered then he had a plausible reason for using that name. In other words using that name gave distance and hid his involvement from his wife and immediate family yet if the worst happened and the police followed it up and visited his house, he had a ready made excuse for using the name.

Similarly if he gave a false address or work place and the police followed it up and he wasn't known there, then they would have come looking for him with all the implications that would hold.

Now you could argue that he gave the name Cross to keep his involvement from his wife and immediate family, just because he did not want to worry them. Maybe.
But to claim that this was not suspcious is plainly ridiculous.
If there was nothing else to say about Cross and this case then the explanation that he didn't want to upset his wife would hold more water. But there is a lot more that can be said about Cross and this case.

Once Cross was found by Paul and once he decided to bluff it out, the series of events would have virtually forced Cross/Lechmere to act as suggested - presuming he was guilty.

I think that answers the points raised by Sally and seconded by Caz.

[lynn cates]

question

Hello Lechmere. I was wondering if you could settle a minor point?

"Similarly if he gave a false address or work place and the police followed it up and he wasn't known there, then they would have come looking for him with all the implications that would hold."

Suppose that Cross never said a word to anyone after the episode with Mizen. Paul is questioned and he indicates another person at the scene. How would the police have found Cross?

You mention they could have looked for him on the way to work. But did you not claim that there was a shorter route possible? Had he substituted the shorter route subsequently, then, absent a name, workplace, etc. would not, say, a chance encounter with Mizen or Paul have been remote? But then there would be no identification.

Cheers.
LC

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Lechmere

Additionally, Cross's address of 22 Doveton st only appeared in one press report, the Star 3rd Sept.

His working for Pickfords Isn't mentioned in all the press reports either, eg the Times just has him working in Broad st.

[caz]

We do not know and never will have the means to know what he was called down the pub or at work (although there is some family memory to go on see below).

And there's the rub, Lech. You don't know that his boss and workmates knew him only as Lechmere, and never Cross. You don't know that he didn't simply prefer the name Cross (I think I would), and therefore used it socially and at work. If he did, bang goes any possible suspicion attached to calling himself Cross when giving his details to the cops. It would be the wholly logical, and least suspicious thing to do if they only knew him as Cross at work. The fact that he gave his real address and workplace shows that he was ready for the police to check him out if they had felt any need (for instance after Paul had given them the runaround).

It was entirely Mizen's fault if he didn't see any need to ask for witness details when told about a woman possibly dead in Buck's Row (just three weeks after the sensational murder of Tabram). Equally it was the fault of the authorities if they failed to square Mizen's version of what he was told and by whom, with the versions given by Cross and Paul themselves. Mix-ups like this are all too common though, and Mizen could well have needed a pretty good excuse for his failure to take any details or to go immediately to the spot. Merely assuming that Neil would soon be there to sort it out, as part of his beat, would not have looked good compared with being told that a policemen was already on the scene. And who would not have taken Mizen's word for it?

A generous person might think that he was late for work and that he didn't want to worry his poor wife's pretty head unnessarily and so used a different name.

Again, you don't know that he did use a 'different' name, nor that his wife would not have known perfectly well it was him, if any friend or neighbour had noticed her address in the papers in relation to Cross having discovered the murdered woman.

If guilty why did Cross volunteer and come forward?

I agree that he was in a tight spot if he had read Paul's account. I don't agree that he would have had any good reason - if guilty - to give a name he wasn't known by, and to deliberately conceal the name he was known by, when it would have taken the police moments to rumble him from a quick visit to Pickfords.

If he was innocent there is a better case for him giving a name he was entitled to, but didn't ordinarily use, to keep the family name out of the papers, as many witnesses prefer to do. But as he didn't have the power to keep his address secret, anyone - particularly the press - could easily have doorstepped him and found out if nobody called Cross was living there.

So why give the name Cross if he was really always called Lechmere and never used Cross?

My guess is that he did not want his wife to know.

His wife was illiterate and so couldn't have read any press reports.

Being illiterate then, his wife would not have found out anyway, regardless of what surname he had given, unless someone had read the reports to her or spoken about it to her. And if they had done either of those things, the address would have given the whole game away, if not the surname! And then she'd have had a sight more to worry about.

...using that name gave distance and hid his involvement from his wife and immediate family yet if the worst happened and the police followed it up and visited his house, he had a ready made excuse for using the name.

But anyone in the immediate family had only to come across his address in the papers and his involvement - plus name change - would have become all too apparent. I doubt the police would have been terribly impressed with such a 'ready made excuse' if they had learned that everyone but them knew him as Lechmere, and he had only adopted Cross for their benefit - or rather his own.

Love,

Caz
X

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE=caz;229311]

And there's the rub, Lech. You don't know that his boss and workmates knew him only as Lechmere, and never Cross. You don't know that he didn't simply prefer the name Cross (I think I would), and therefore used it socially and at work. If he did, bang goes any possible suspicion

To be honest, Caz, I have argued the same thing myself.

Infact, Hutch is still a favourite suspect of mine (Cross/Lechmere is an alternative, and logically only one of them could have done it). If I were arguing for Hutch on a Hutch thread, then I would go along with you.

However, we come back to the 'supposition v fact' thing : It is supposition to guess that Lechmere/Cross mighthave been known as Cross socially.

The facts say that he always used Lechmere officially, and this was an official occasion (giving his name to the Police for a murder enquiry).

[Mr Lucky]

Being illiterate then, his wife would not have found out anyway, regardless of what surname he had given, unless someone had read the reports to her or spoken about it to her. And if they had done either of those things, the address would have given the whole game away, if not the surname! And then she'd have had a sight more to worry about.

Hi Caz,

I wonder if you could expand a little on what you mean by 'given the whole game away'

Thanks in advance

[Lechmere]

Ruby
I would hope you would use the same standards when discussing any possible suspect or indeed any aspect in this subject.
On which note isn't it interesting that those sceptical about Cross/Lechmere as a suspect use supposition to suggest innocent motives for using an alternative name?
Against that supposition we have an overwhelming list of instances when he used the name Lechmere when dealing with authority and not one single example if he himself using Cross - apart from when he was found over a Ripper victim. Nothing suspicious there - let's try and pin it on someone else.

[moonbegger]

Ah another brilliant piece of work from Moonbegar that doesn't require an answer.

'Lucky' we have this bit...
'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. '

As Cross didn't place himself on the left side and any further over than half way across until he went over to the body with Paul, it is impossible for Cross to be saying that Paul approached on the left hand side.
Next?

Lechmere ,

Like i have already explained ,

"When CrossMere first became aware of the approaching paul , Yes he ( CrossMere ) was on the same side of the street as Paul ..
CrossMere was a few feet from Polly's body , when Paul came walking up that very same side where Polly lay . Then assuming a possible mugging on himself , Paul steps off the left hand kerb into the road attempting to navigate his way around CrossMere who is now closer to the left hand side kerb, looking at Polly in the stable entrance "

With all due respect Lechmere , if you are struggling to put together the actual known documented facts , Facts that are pin pointed by the people who were on the scene at the time , and knew exactly where they were ..
Then how do you expect anyone to follow you when you dive beneath the dark waters of conjecture ..

The fact that you cant see this scenario playing out just how the witnesses said it did is beyond me ..

So how does the scene according to (Team Lechmere play out) ?

1) Paul and CrossMere both on right kerb .. paul a little behind .

2) Crossmere walks into middle ..then a step or two further left to see Polly.

( Question ? Why would Paul feel the need to step off the safety of the kerb and squeeze him self between CrossMere and Polly ? as according to you he would have had to .. )

3) CrossMere taps him on the left shoulder ..

( Question ? ) According to your chain of events .. Why does CrossMere reach past Pauls Right shoulder to tap his left one ? )

And yes Lechmere ( poster ) these ARE all questions , the fact that you refuse to answer them doesn't render them rhetorical .. just like all the great questions thet CAZ asks . But my main beef question .. let me try it again ..

Question ? Why if Paul , FIRST saw CrossMere Leaning over Pollys body ,
( as you suggest ) Why didn't he Suspect him as the killer or at the very least say so to the police ?

I actually suspect Pauls Lloyds press rant and the fact it was reported that he saw a man standing where the body was , was actually the reason the police dragged him out of bed .. At which point they got the whole story and not just the sensational press version .

moonbegger.

[Bridewell]

"Over" A Ripper Victim?

Ruby
I would hope you would use the same standards when discussing any possible suspect or indeed any aspect in this subject.
On which note isn't it interesting that those sceptical about Cross/Lechmere as a suspect use supposition to suggest innocent motives for using an alternative name?
Against that supposition we have an overwhelming list of instances when he used the name Lechmere when dealing with authority and not one single example if he himself using Cross - apart from when he was found over a Ripper victim. Nothing suspicious there - let's try and pin it on someone else.

Hi Lechmere,
If you're going to criticise supposition, should you not refrain from using the phrase 'found over a Ripper victim' for which, (without supposition as to the meaning of "I saw a man standing where the woman was") there is no basis whatsoever.

Regards, Bridewell.