The Mizen scam

[Lechmere]

I dread to think what other miniscule issue will have to be discussed to death before it is discarded as untenable.

Lynn - When Cross/Lechmere went to the police (almost certainly on the Sunday evening) he could not have known that Paul hadn't come forward, and therefore the prospect of a dragnet being set up fort Paul would not have occurred. Furthermore individuals usually consider what a particular situation means for themselves first. Also it wasn't for Cross/Lechmere to determine whether the Yard would have dedicated resources into finding him as well as Paul. Actually given the nature of Pauls' testimony with respect to Cross/Lechmere I suspect that the police would have puled out all the stops to find him had he not come forward.

[IchabodCrane]

I still don't get it, what does the sentence 'Just then they heard a policeman coming' in the press transription of Cross' inquest statement mean exactly?

And why didn't Cross and Paul come across PC Neil who was walking up Bucks Row in the opposite direction? From where did he turn into Buck's Row?

Thanks for the help & clarification
IchabodCrane

[caz]

Hi Caz,

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

Thanks in advance

Hi Mr Lucky,

All I meant was that the home address of the man who discovered Nichols was as much an identifier of the man as giving the surname he was ordinarily known by. I submit that if I were to give my name as Caroline Alice Floozie of 13 Letsby Avenue, secret lap dancer, it wouldn't matter if my husband couldn't read, because it would be blindingly obvious to anyone who knew us at that address that I was that lap dancer, whether I was known as Caroline Alice Floozie, Caroline Alice Fortescue-Smythe or Caroline Alice Morris, and word could just as easily get back to hubby in any case.

Therefore the argument that Charles Allen Lechmere gave the name Charles Allen Cross (when giving his real home address) to keep his illiterate wife in the dark doesn't really work, does it?

If she was effectively left in the dark, it had nothing to do with the details Cross/Lechmere chose to give the police.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

sleeping dogs

Hello Lechmere. Thanks.

"When Cross/Lechmere went to the police (almost certainly on the Sunday evening) he could not have known that Paul hadn't come forward, and therefore the prospect of a dragnet being set up fort Paul would not have occurred."

Indeed. And so why is Cross there at all?

"Furthermore individuals usually consider what a particular situation means for themselves first.'

Quite.

"Also it wasn't for Cross/Lechmere to determine whether the Yard would have dedicated resources into finding him as well as Paul."

Agreed. But that is not my main point.

"Actually given the nature of Paul's testimony with respect to Cross/Lechmere I suspect that the police would have pulled out all the stops to find him had he not come forward."

But did Cross know that?

Here's what I am thinking. What are the results of his NOT coming forward? You suggest a dragnet. Very well.

Let us posit a dragnet extending for 2-4 blocks either side of Bucks Row.

1. If he notices such, surely he can avoid it.

2. If he is stopped, would they recognise him? Well, surely either Mizen or Paul would need to be there. Else, he is just a face in the crowd.

3. Let's say that he IS stopped/recognised. Where's the difficulty? "Yes, I found Polly--along with that other chap. You were looking for me? Well, well--I never knew. If I had, I would have popped round to the station. You see, I have been VERY busy. So sorry."

What's the penalty?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Lapp dancer

Hello Caroline. Not sure why a person from Finland would dance? To promote warmth perhaps? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

the home address of the man who discovered Nichols was as much an identifier of the man as giving the surname he was ordinarily known by

Yes.

Not to mention his work place. He gave these details voluntarily. Once his address was known, anybody could have identified him, including the press. So no, it doesn't make any sense to use a 'false' name at the same time.

Although I do hate to repeat myself (really, its utterly tedious) he gave a statement to the police under the name Cross; he appeared at the inquest - so effectively in the public eye - under the name Cross; and at the same time he gave the police his real address and his real workplace.

If using the name Cross was an attempt by him to pull the wool over the eyes of the hapless cops, it was the attempt of a man so intellectually challenged that it wouldn't be surprising if he didn't remember his own name.

He was never under suspicion so far as we know - but he certainly would have been if he'd been caught lying about his name. Why would he? It makes no sense. The answer must surely be that he didn't lie about his name at all.

[Mr Lucky]

I still don't get it, what does the sentence 'Just then they heard a policeman coming' in the press transription of Cross' inquest statement mean exactly?

Very interesting question. As far as I know this line only appears in the Daily Telegraph, or have you got another source? Personally, I can't explain it at all I'm afraid !

And why didn't Cross and Paul come across PC Neil who was walking up Bucks Row in the opposite direction? From where did he turn into Buck's Row?

Many of the press reports of Neils testimony state that he was travelling down Bucks row, from Thomas Street to Brady Street, so I have assumed that he turned on to Bucks Row from Thomas Street, rather than from Baker's Row.

[IchabodCrane]

Very interesting question. As far as I know this line only appears in the Daily Telegraph, or have you got another source? Personally, I can't explain it at all I'm afraid !

Many of the press reports of Neils testimony state that he was travelling down Bucks row, from Thomas Street to Brady Street, so I have assumed that he turned on to Bucks Row from Thomas Street, rather than from Baker's Row.

Yes if he was coming up from Thomas Street and turned right he may have missed them by one or two minutes. But then they definitely didn't hear a policeman coming if they didn't meet him.

[Bridewell]

Bucks Row

An exceedingly narrow street.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=61&page=311

Post 3107 among others

Modern view of Durward Street (formerly Bucks Row). Don't know if the building curtelage has altered at all.

Regards, Bridewell.

[caz]

Yes.

Not to mention his work place. He gave these details voluntarily. Once his address was known, anybody could have identified him, including the press. So no, it doesn't make any sense to use a 'false' name at the same time.

Although I do hate to repeat myself (really, its utterly tedious) he gave a statement to the police under the name Cross; he appeared at the inquest - so effectively in the public eye - under the name Cross; and at the same time he gave the police his real address and his real workplace.

If using the name Cross was an attempt by him to pull the wool over the eyes of the hapless cops, it was the attempt of a man so intellectually challenged that it wouldn't be surprising if he didn't remember his own name.

He was never under suspicion so far as we know - but he certainly would have been if he'd been caught lying about his name. Why would he? It makes no sense. The answer must surely be that he didn't lie about his name at all.

More than this, Sally, I see very little chance of nobody noticing the name change at the time and remarking upon it, if he was always Lechmere at home and at work. If it took later researchers to discover from official records that Lechmere was his real name, surely that's a fair indication that he was Cross to those who knew him, when giving the police that name in 1888, and nobody knew any different.

So if he kills Nichols and wants to remain free to kill again, first he hangs around the scene for no good reason and is forced to excuse his presence to Paul and then PC Mizen, and then he comes forward to volunteer identifying details that he initially got away without having to supply. I really don't get it - unless he had a peg leg and was 7 foot 6.

Love,

Caz
X

[Bridewell]

Translation?

Bridewell

The report said -
“Standing where the woman was”

Which I translated as -
“Found over a Ripper victim”.

Big difference.
As a line of criticism I have to say that is somewhat desperate.

Where was the need for translation?

His press interview (the account given to a journalist) says, "standing where the woman was"
His inquest testimony, (the account given to the coroner - as reported in The Times): "standing in the middle of the road".

Polly Nichols was found lying "right across the gateway". The gateway was not in the middle of the road. Therefore Cross was not "found over a Ripper victim".

There is a big difference, yes. A man standing in the middle of the road cannot be standing over the body of a woman lying across a gateway at the side of the road. It's not possible.

Regards Bridewell.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

I still don't get it, what does the sentence 'Just then they heard a policeman coming' in the press transription of Cross' inquest statement mean exactly?

I would translate that as meaning 'Just then they heard a policeman coming' ?

(at that moment they earwigged a rozzer arriving ?)

And why didn't Cross and Paul come across PC Neil who was walking up Bucks Row in the opposite direction?

Um, presumably they had left Buck's Row before Neil got to it ?

I mean, it doesn't make one iota of difference if Lechmere/cross was innocent or guilty -if he and Paul didn't meet Neil, then they didn't meet him
and that's all.

As to 'from where did Neil turn into Buck's row ?' -I don't know, but while searching for the answer, I came across a very interesting bit of information :

It concerns the press report on Mrs Lilley, who lived at No. 7 Buck's Row (so a couple of doors from the murder spot). She is confirmed in the census as a real person living at that address.

Mrs Harriet Lilley of Bucks Row had a restless night`s sleep and reported hearing at around 03.30 am ( she fixed the time by a luggage train that passed her house ) the sounds of a moan and gasps, followed by whispers.

(this was a post by Jon Guy, in the Casebook archive, but the references for the press reports are there).

It is utterly amazing that Mrs Lilley wasn't at the inquest.

Apparently there was a luggage train at the time concerned, and the time fits with Neil's beat.

It was assumed that the moans and gasps were from the dying Polly, and the whispers were from Cross and Paul. If so, Mrs Lilley obviously brackets all the sounds together at the same time, in the same sentence -making the whispers amost seamless to the murder.

That is a very good peg on which to argue Cross's guilt.

If this story was doing the rounds in the Press, it would have to make Cross come forward surely ? -knowing as he did that Paul would recognise himself as one of the whisperers and would identify Cross as the other ?

[Rubyretro]

I have been trying to find the time that Lechmere thinks that Cross and Paul left home, and lay my hand on it quickly...( ?)

I've seen the time '3.45' bandied about the archive, but Cross at the inquest said that he left home 'about' 3.30 am...give it a bit earlier, and the sounds to be heard by Mrs Lilley after the train had passed, and it it is quite compelling...

I'm surprised that Lechmere hasn't tried to hammer home this point before...this is the sort of thing that convinces me...

I remember the real distances involved from having visited the place....they are terribly short...

[Bridewell]

Slow Train Coming

[QUOTE=Rubyretro;229518]

As to 'from where did Neil turn into Buck's row ?' -I don't know, but while searching for the answer, I came across a very interesting bit of information :

It concerns the press report on Mrs Lilley, who lived at No. 7 Buck's Row (so a couple of doors from the murder spot).

Quote:
Mrs Harriet Lilley of Bucks Row had a restless night`s sleep and reported hearing at around 03.30 am ( she fixed the time by a luggage train that passed her house ) the sounds of a moan and gasps, followed by whispers.

(this was a post by Jon Guy, in the Casebook archive, but the references for the press reports are there).

It is utterly amazing that Mrs Lilley wasn't at the inquest.

Apparently there was a luggage train at the time concerned, and the time fits with Neil's beat.

Hi Ruby,
Very interesting. When I argued previously that approaching footsteps might have been drowned out by the sound of a passing train I was assured that there were no trains running at that time of night. Evidently that's not the case as goods trains were running - though presumably not timetabled. So the killer might not have heard Cross's approach or - if Cross was the killer - he might not have heard Paul.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE][QUOTE=Bridewell;229520]

Hi Ruby,
Very interesting. When I argued previously that approaching footsteps might have been drowned out by the sound of a passing train I was assured that there were no trains running at that time of night. Evidently that's not the case as goods trains were running - though presumably not timetabled. So the killer might not have heard Cross's approach or - if Cross was the killer - he might not have heard Paul.

Regards, Bridewell.

Hello, Colin !

('Slow Train Coming' ? -" Well I hear that hoot owl singin', as they were taking down the tents..." ? ).

Well, you were right. The railway was just behind Buck's Row, and a train regularly passed at 3.30 am -it seems obvious that the noise echoing through those narrow mineral streets would have been considerable, and to my mind the killer was familiar with the timing and took advantage of it. (He was not yet practised at killing and he minimised the risk of screaming).

It might certainly fit with the killer not hearing someone else approach.

After the sentence Mrs Lilley used to group the sounds...if it wasn't Cross, then you couldn't get a credit card between him and the killer timewise..