The Mizen scam

[Lechmere]

It was stated at the inquest that Cross was on the way to Pickfords.
The musing over whether he stopped off or otherwise zig-zagged his way to work is truly desperate stuff.
The attempt to equate the Cross/Lechmere culprit candidacy with Sickert is also risible. I personally don't like the fashion for denigrating Cornwell as she was no doubt well meaning and popularised this field of study and brought in a wider audience.
All Cog has done us throw up dome disjointed innocent conjecture, that contrasts to the 'guilty' conjecture which is 'joined up' in the sense that it all has the same underlying explanation - he was guilty - rather than forgetful about time, late for work, had only one set of clothes, got in a muddle with Muzen, Mizen was lazy, the dress just fell down that way, he liked the sights and sounds of scenic Hanbury Street etc etc etc

[Fisherman]

... aaaaand a very good morning to YOU, Ruby!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"Go and re read my original post Christer. I did not state you were lazy, I stated the Cornwellian approach is."

Don´t be silly, Monty. Here´s that post:

"You stated there are facts condeming Cross as a murderer. I merely question if they are facts or acts of deception that dress Cross up as the killer.
I am not accusing Cross of murder. This Cornwellian approach of picking a suspect and fitting them up is unproductive and lazy."

Right, then. You say that you don´t accuse Cross of murder, but I do (which is wrong, by the way - more on that later). You furthermore state that doing so amounts to a Cornwellian approach, which is unproductive and lazy. Therefore, by implication, you state that I am the very same.

But sweet Jesus, Monty - speaking about being improductive, surely we can do better things with our time than to quibble over something like this? "I didn´t" "You DID" "No, I didn´t" "Yes, you DID".

As I´ve understood things, you have a desire not to be liked but to make progress. I very much applaud such a stance (although I would have preferred not to be chosen as a target for your efforts not to be liked), and suggest that you return to that purpose.

Finally, I left one thing hanging - you wrote in that initial post that I "stated there are facts condeming Cross as a murderer."
Honestly, Monty, when did I do that?
I have, over and over again, written that there are very many details that potentially speak of guilt on his behalf. I stand by that. Moreover, I have said that if I have to make a choice between guilty or not guilty, then I would opt for guilty. There are just too many bits and pieces pointing to guilt for me not to make that call.
That, though, does not in any way add up to my having stated that there are facts that condemn Lechmere as a murderer. There are no such facts about. There are only indications, circumstancial evidence, nothing more.
To me, that is enough, as it stands. If something surfaces to speak of innocence on behalf of Lechmere, I will weigh that in. I am no more of a manic Lechmereian than that.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

‘Charles Allen Cross, a carman, in the employ of Messrs. Pickford, said - On Friday morning I left home at half past three. I went down Parson street, crossed Brady street, and through Buck's row. I was alone. As I got up Buck's row’ - The Morning Advertiser 4th Sept. 1888

See, no mention of other errands/distractions. That is what Cross has said himself at the inquest. So that isn't really 'wildly' conjecturing at all, not by any usual standards.

There you go, I hope that's helped you a little, the rest of your post I'll leave for the moment, thanks

Before I respond to Lechmere,

The purpose of an inquest is to establish course of events relating to a death. Therefore information regarding those events specifically will be raised and recorded.

What Cross did after meeting Mizen is, on the whole, irrelevant, unless it had any impact upon the death and its aftermath.

So, as that passage does not state where he was heading (work or otherwise), it is conjecture.

Monty

[Rubyretro]

Good Morning, Fisherman !

[Monty]

Hi Monty!

"I was merely listing off my work. You stated I was lazy, I pointed out what I have done. "

Well, to be perfectly honest, YOU stated I was lazy. And that was when I replied saying that I thought your attitude when debating with me pointing to you beings lazy, since you could not be bothered to expand on your hints.

That, as you may realize, has nothing at all to do with what kind of work you have done over the years. I know full well that it is a lot, and I have already said that I have nothing but respect for it. But it was not that I was speaking of.

"Where's your list, what have you done? Don't be shy."

Aha, so you can say that you have done more work than me, and is therefore the better guy? I really did not think that you would resort to such argumentation, Monty.

"Not fight picking, stating it as it is."

Meaning that it is OK to claim that I am about false pandering, about looking for your attention, about creating dung heaps and about bollocks, since that it is only "stating things as they are"?
You know, Monty, I would say that you are entitled to your own opinions about me and my work - but what you are not entitled to is to peddle them as anything else but opinions.
I have opinions about you too, for that matter. I think you are one of the best researchers of the case and that you have contributed lots of material that have made the developments of 1888 easier to understand. No vomiting on your behalf over others will change that, and that´s as it should be. Just keep in mind that no matter how highly you think of yourself and your work, and no matter what you believe this allows you to do, these are official boards on which more people than you meet to share their work and interest in the case, some of them very much engaged, others simply with some sort of random interest. Only the fewest will have gone to Swallow Gardens on a freezing cold day to create history. Incidentally, if you want to impress a Swede, Monty (but of course, you don´t, do you?), then you may want to choose other aspects of martyrdom than having felt cold...

"My style may not suit everyone, however I remain ban free since I joined in 1999. Have you?"

No, I have not. And you are very welcome to explain what that has to do with the issue we are discussing. How does it affect the validity of the Lechmere bid, Monty?

I can answer that for you. It does not do so in the least. You are welcome to think what you want of it – but interestingly, so am I. And I can say with absolute certainty that reacting to all the bits and pieces that potentially point to him being guilty with a "It´s probably nothing" - THAT would be lazy in the extreme.

All the best,
Fisherman

Go and re read my original post Christer. I did not state you were lazy, I stated the Cornwellian approach is.

And yep, no wish to impress a Swede. Glenn Anderson gave up on that long ago.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Hi Monty!

"I was merely listing off my work. You stated I was lazy, I pointed out what I have done. "

Well, to be perfectly honest, YOU stated I was lazy. And that was when I replied saying that I thought your attitude when debating with me pointing to you beings lazy, since you could not be bothered to expand on your hints.

That, as you may realize, has nothing at all to do with what kind of work you have done over the years. I know full well that it is a lot, and I have already said that I have nothing but respect for it. But it was not that I was speaking of.

"Where's your list, what have you done? Don't be shy."

Aha, so you can say that you have done more work than me, and is therefore the better guy? I really did not think that you would resort to such argumentation, Monty.

"Not fight picking, stating it as it is."

Meaning that it is OK to claim that I am about false pandering, about looking for your attention, about creating dung heaps and about bollocks, since that it is only "stating things as they are"?
You know, Monty, I would say that you are entitled to your own opinions about me and my work - but what you are not entitled to is to peddle them as anything else but opinions.
I have opinions about you too, for that matter. I think you are one of the best researchers of the case and that you have contributed lots of material that have made the developments of 1888 easier to understand. No vomiting on your behalf over others will change that, and that´s as it should be. Just keep in mind that no matter how highly you think of yourself and your work, and no matter what you believe this allows you to do, these are official boards on which more people than you meet to share their work and interest in the case, some of them very much engaged, others simply with some sort of random interest. Only the fewest will have gone to Swallow Gardens on a freezing cold day to create history. Incidentally, if you want to impress a Swede, Monty (but of course, you don´t, do you?), then you may want to choose other aspects of martyrdom than having felt cold...

"My style may not suit everyone, however I remain ban free since I joined in 1999. Have you?"

No, I have not. And you are very welcome to explain what that has to do with the issue we are discussing. How does it affect the validity of the Lechmere bid, Monty?

I can answer that for you. It does not do so in the least. You are welcome to think what you want of it – but interestingly, so am I. And I can say with absolute certainty that reacting to all the bits and pieces that potentially point to him being guilty with a "It´s probably nothing" - THAT would be lazy in the extreme.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

This discussion seems to have gotten all very heated, and my breakfast 'green tea' makes me very calm in the morning, so maybe it is worth pointing out the central point of the case against Lechmere/Cross again : You can argue any one of the individual question marks raised against him, and speculate innocent reasons for his behaviour, but the combined weight of the
facts raised against him mean that he just has to be good suspect.

I will say quite honestly that I'm not 100% certain that Lechmere/Cross was the killer.( I still suspect Hutch, as well ). I am 100% convinced that the killer was an ordinary working class East End man, who appeared to be perfectly normal to people around him, and thus was never suspected. It could be that it was some one unknown to us, but with such short timings and witnesses passing the crime scenes, it is very probable that the killer was seen and does appear in the 'story'. It is very reasonable to consider the witnesses themselves as possible suspects, since we now know by experience that serial killers have involved themselves in their own cases instead of running.

Just as Hutch has to be of interest if he really did stand for 3/4 of an hour
outside Miller's Court just before MJK was murdered, so Lechmere/Cross must be of interest since he was seen alone by Polly's body immediately after she was murdered -the first person with the corpse. Then if you look at all the other strange facts surrounding him, then I repeat, it is the combined weight of them that makes Lechmere a very good suspect indeed.

ps: If you don't think that there are suspicious points, then you might ask yourself how come it is possible to argue each point back and forth for such a long time, and be reduced to answering ' maybe he stopped off for a spot of shopping' or 'maybe he called himself Cross
to the police for some mundane reason, even though there are around 60 examples that are evidence that he always called himself Lechmere when dealing with authority'. It seems that people will just bend over backwards to find innocent reasons for each of Lechmere's actions, and won't concede that he is a good suspect simply because of obstinacy or a refusal to say to Fisherman and Lechmere that they may well be right; well, that won't change facts -Lechmere/Cross is still a good suspect.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

‘Charles Allen Cross, a carman, in the employ of Messrs. Pickford, said - On Friday morning I left home at half past three. I went down Parson street, crossed Brady street, and through Buck's row. I was alone. As I got up Buck's row’ - The Morning Advertiser 4th Sept. 1888

See, no mention of other errands/distractions. That is what Cross has said himself at the inquest. So that isn't really 'wildly' conjecturing at all, not by any usual standards.

Exactly, Mr Lucky.

[Cogidubnus]

See, no mention of other errands/distractions. That is what Cross has said himself at the inquest. So that isn't really 'wildly' conjecturing at all, not by any usual standards.

And your grand point is? Your piece de resistance is? Oh...I'm so sorry...nothing...No there's no mention of anywhere else he might've been, or whatever...or not...but that IS the point...there might've been a distraction...we just don't know...

All the best

Dave

[Lechmere]

Monty
No - I just didn't have a spell checker!
Simple explanations usually work best.

[Mr Lucky]

How do you know...how do you know what other errands/distractions he might've had on his way to work...Regardless of likelihood or not, you don't know...you're conjecturing...so wildly in fact you can't even spell your own nom de guerre...

‘Charles Allen Cross, a carman, in the employ of Messrs. Pickford, said - On Friday morning I left home at half past three. I went down Parson street, crossed Brady street, and through Buck's row. I was alone. As I got up Buck's row’ - The Morning Advertiser 4th Sept. 1888

See, no mention of other errands/distractions. That is what Cross has said himself at the inquest. So that isn't really 'wildly' conjecturing at all, not by any usual standards.

There you go, I hope that's helped you a little, the rest of your post I'll leave for the moment, thanks

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Lechmere...hope it won't unduly upset Monty if I partially preempt his reply

If Lechmeer left home at 3.30 he wpould have passed the murder scene at about 3.37 and been well down Old Montague Street (or Hanbury Street) by the time Paul apeared at Brown's Stable Yard.
That is not conjecture.

How do you know...how do you know what other errands/distractions he might've had on his way to work...Regardless of likelihood or not, you don't know...you're conjecturing...so wildly in fact you can't even spell your own nom de guerre...

You say we don't now how long he took to walk, whether he had ailments or whether he wanted to stop off on the way. Maybe he liked zig-zagging down te road - eh?

Maybe he did...maybe he skipped like an infant...most likely not...but we don't 100% for sure know... so stop pretending we do...

We know that Cross kept up with Paul when he walked from Brown's Stable Yard to where they met Mizen which took four minutes including the time they spent over Polly's body.

We don't know that either...we only have Paul's estimate of the time...and if it was a three minute walk to Bakers Row/Old Montague Street (a more than reasonable estimate for 0.25 of a mile, as my very fast 0.5 of a mile used to daily take me 7 minutes) then that only leaves Cross/Paul ONE minute over the body, discussing what to do, touching her breast and re-arranging her clothing...and you have the nerve to pick up Monty on the relevance or otherwise of timings?

We know he kept up with Paul up to Corbett's Court.
He claims he was in work by 4 am.
I think Monty your conuecture's in answer to Fisherman's point about timings are utterly baseless.

If the distances I've seen quoted are correct then I could (and do) do it in the time...and I've a dicky heart...get real!

You think the timings aren't relevant? Are you being serious? Having the opportunity to commit the crime due to the timings is quite obviously relevant.

Suit yourself...

You then seem to completely miss the point about the Tabram, Chapman and Eddowes reference with regard to the positioning of Polly's garments. With the three aforementioned victims, the garments were left 'up' displaying the abdominal wounds. In the case of Nichols, the garments were left 'down' hiding the abdominal injuries. This difference can be explained by the cuplrit being disburbed and wishing to disguise somewhat what had transpired.

Utter crap...It's clear the body could well have been posed as the others and subsequently disturbed by Paul's efforts to render the poor woman decent...and Fisherman has already conceded that the clothing COULD have been so positioned...pity you haven't had the honesty to do likewise...

As Cross seen by Paul very close to the body prior to Cross raising the alarm, this should be a matter of interest and would be I am sure to any half efficient police force today - were this case to be tranported 124 years into the future.

I'd be surprised if the police didn't think this way initially...you posit convincingly on the Hanbury Street thread that they felt this way about Richardson, and investigated him thoroughly. Have you any evidence they treated Cross differently? No...only the usual "I think there'd be some evidence if they did"...most of the evidence in this case has gone walkies...get real...accept it...

Then you say that Hanbury Street is the natural direction for Broad Street. Hmmm. I rather think the 'natural' direction is the shortest route - don't you?
You say the time difference is minimal. It isn't excessive but it is sevral minutes amndf if you ar elkate for work the presumption would be to take the shortest and quickest route.
Let me also tell you that a carman of twnety years local expirence would absolutely certainly have known the shortest and quickest routes. It was their job to know such things.

No the shortest route isn't necessarily the one you'd take...I've spent twenty five years walking a particular route to my bus stop, when there's a very slightly shorter route to an alternative bus stop I might've taken...I don't take that route for two reasons...firstly it passes through a known rough area in which I was once threateningly accosted, secondly, the route I do take is pleasant and more interesting...

I think we can assume Cross was headed for Broad Street as he worked there and that is where he said he was going.
Again you conjecture that Cross may have had other tasks to perform in the market (Spitalfields I pressume) or may have stopped off for sustainence.
Again - Cross himself claimed to have got to work by 4 am . This actiually was impossible unless he sprinted but if he stopped off after leaving Paul he would have been even later. In other words Cross's own testimony makes your conjecture unfounded.

So Cross wouldn't have perhaps called in at a particular shop on his way to work to get some shopping for his wife, or a snack for himself? And the timing of his journey is far from impossible...less than four miles per hour...

The relevance to Cross as the culprit is that by going down Hanbury Street he discovered where Paul worked and the next body appeared 100 yards from Paul's workplace. By going down Hanbury Street Cross also avoided going down Old Montague Street when he left Mizen - in the direction where Tabram's body had been found a few weeks before. I will spell out the implication here. It could have lit a little light in Mizen's mind if he had walked off in that direction and Mizen may have thought afterwards - 'hold on a minute...'

Total bloody surmise...I'm sorry but that's the only way I can describe this...

Lechmere is an anglicised name. The family name is as old as the Norman Conquest. There is a saying that when there are no more Lechmere in Worcestershire, there will be no more apples in Worcestershire.

Good for you...Pity he's not called Orange Pippin...or Pearmain...

You then seem to say that giving a fake name to the police doesn't matter so long as the police don't find out about it. A novel approach.

That's not actually what Monty said...and you know it...

One extra factlet for you - Mizen referred to him as 'Cross' at the inquest but Mizen also said he only found out his name was Cross that morning... at the inquest...
No doubt that is of no significance.

You say you have no idea why the following implicate Cross:
"Mizen testified that Lechmere had claimed that another policeman awaited him in Buck´s Row.
" He also claimed that Lechmere had worded this in a passive mode, not giving away that Lechmere himself had found Nichols.

"Lechmere himself said that he and Paul had felt Nichols hands and face for warmth, but that he had rejected to help prop her up. "
By saying another policeman wanted him, Mizen did not feel the need to take Cross's name and address. If you cannot see that this would be to the advantage of a murderer, well what can one say?
By implying that he did npt find the body himself would again defuse any possible reason for Mizen to take his details.

No...all this only proves that Mizen was a thick and thoroughly inefficient plonker who should've stirred himself from "knocking up" and taken down the proper bloody details in the first place...

By avoiding propping Polly up, Cross ensured that Paul did not see the massive neck injury that would have immediately become apparent and the fact of Polly's grusome death would have been obvious, which was not the case up to then. If it did become obvious, then Paul might insist on knocking neighbours up and making an immediate fuss. A murderer would want to avodi that possibility.

Surmise...yet again...

What you have actually done is come up with some innocent explanations for Cross/Lechmere's behaviour - but interpretations that are mostly based on factual falsehoods or extremnely unlikley possibilities that dramatically fail the 'reasonableness' test.

And why not...innocent interpretations abound...evidence of guilt, alas, is sadly lacking on this thread...

I know some of this duplicates Fisherman's post.

Quelle surprise...

Dave

[Monty]

Lechmere,

Its late and I'm too tired to wade through your post.

Judging by the spelling errors you are weary too, or writing with emotion.

Best wait till tomorrow. It'll keep.

Monty

[Lechmere]

Monty
You ask for facts and then answer with utter pie in the sky supposition, moulded byu a burning desire to find innocent explanations. I would suggest that a modren policeforce would not operate in such a manner or they would never apprehend, let alone suspect, anyone.

If Lechmeer left home at 3.30 he wpould have passed the murder scene at about 3.37 and been well down Old Montague Street (or Hanbury Street) by the time Paul apeared at Brown's Stable Yard.
That is not conjecture.
You say we don't now how long he took to walk, whether he had ailments or whether he wanted to stop off on the way. Maybe he liked zig-zagging down te road - eh?
We know that Cross kept up with Paul when he walked from Brown's Stable Yard to where they met Mizen which took four minutes including the time they spent over Polly's body.
We know he kept up with Paul up to Corbett's Court.
He claims he was in work by 4 am.
I think Monty your conuecture's in answer to Fisherman's point about timings are utterly baseless.
You think the timings aren't relevant? Are you being serious? Having the opportunity to commit the crime due to the timings is quite obviously relevant.

You then seem to completely miss the point about the Tabram, Chapman and Eddowes reference with regard to the positioning of Polly's garments. With the three aforementioned victims, the garments were left 'up' displaying the abdominal wounds. In the case of Nichols, the garments were left 'down' hiding the abdominal injuries. This difference can be explained by the cuplrit being disburbed and wishing to disguise somewhat what had transpired. As Cross seen by Paul very close to the body prior to Cross raising the alarm, this should be a matter of interest and would be I am sure to any half efficient police force today - were this case to be tranported 124 years into the future.

Then you say that Hanbury Street is the natural direction for Broad Street. Hmmm. I rather think the 'natural' direction is the shortest route - don't you?
You say the time difference is min imal. It isn't excessive but it is sevral minutes amndf if you ar elkate for work the presumption would be to take the shortest and quickest route.
Let me also tell you that a carman of twnety years local expirence would absolutely certainly have known the shortest and quickest routes. It was their job to know such things.

I think we can assume Cross was headed for Broad Street as he worked there and that is where he said he was going.
Again you conjecture that Cross may have had other tasks to perform in the market (Spitalfields I pressume) or may have stopped off for sustainence.
Again - Cross himself claimed to have got to work by 4 am . This actiually was impossible unless he sprinted but if he stopped off after leaving Paul he would have been even later. In other words Cross's own testimony makes your conjecture unfounded.
The relevance to Cross as the culprit is that by going down Hanbury Street he discovered where Paul worked and the next body appeared 100 yards from Paul's workplace. By going down Hanbury Street Cross also avoided going down Old Montague Street when he left Mizen - in the direction where Tabram's body had been found a few weeks before. I will spell out the implication here. It could have lit a little light in Mizen's mind if he had walked off in that direction and Mizen may have thought afterwards - 'hold on a minute...'

Lechmere is an anglicised name. The family name is as old as the Norman Conquest. There is a saying that when there are no more Lechmere in Worcestershire, there will be no more apples in Worcestershire.
You then seem to say that giving a fake name to the police doesn't matter so long as the police don't find out about it. A novel approach.
One extra factlet for you - Mizen referred to him as 'Cross' at the inquest but Mizen also said he only found out his name was Cross that morning... at the inquest...
No doubt that is of no significance.

You say you have no idea why the following implicate Cross:
"Mizen testified that Lechmere had claimed that another policeman awaited him in Buck´s Row.
" He also claimed that Lechmere had worded this in a passive mode, not giving away that Lechmere himself had found Nichols.

"Lechmere himself said that he and Paul had felt Nichols hands and face for warmth, but that he had rejected to help prop her up. "
By saying another policeman wanted him, Mizen did not feel the need to take Cross's name and address. If you cannot see that this would be to the advantage of a murderer, well what can one say?
By implying that he did npt find the body himself would again defuse any possible reason for Mizen to take his details.
By avoiding propping Polly up, Cross ensured that Paul did not see the massive neck injury that would have immediately become apparent and the fact of Polly's grusome death would have been obvious, which was not the case up to then. If it did become obvious, then Paul might insist on knocking neighbours up and making an immediate fuss. A murderer would want to avodi that possibility.

What you have actually done is come up with some innocent explanations for Cross/Lechmere's behaviour - but interpretations that are mostly based on factual falsehoods or extremnely unlikley possibilities that dramatically fail the 'reasonableness' test.
I know some of this duplicates Fisherman's post.