The Mizen scam

[moonbegger]

Ok .. Let me run this one up the pole , as a possible and again equally plausible explanation for a deliberate name change ..

We Know cross had a family he was willing to protect from danger.

What if the killer was disturbed ( literally as well as mentally )

So as CrossMere approaches from a distance .. The killer(s) up and vacate .

Remember , there have already been a couple of murders that have been rightly or wrongly attributed to different street Gangs ..

So what if Crossmere did actually see more than he admitted .. but fearing for his own safety, and the safety of his family opted for the safest option . Use His lesser Known name ?

But Like you suggest Fisherman , The Ocean of conjecture is indeed a wide and futile ocean , and it's peppered with many a wonderful Island to dwell upon . these Islands that i may draw your attention to, are no Less an Island or indeed no great an island than your own .. we are all afloat in a sea of conjecture .

" It is dead simple, really. We've got what we've got, and suggesting what might have been cannot change that"

But to criticize conjecture , and claim it has no place for a defence i find is a little hypercritical , when your offence is built mainly of that same Conjecture .

cheers

moonbegger .

[moonbegger]

Hello Fisherman ,

i only bite when the Bait is right, said the bear to the salmon

" Says you, Monbegger. But I am of a different opinion. Let´s say that he ran for it, up Buck´s Row, in the darkness, only to notice that Mizen was coming down the street from the opposite direction. Then what? Would he turn and run back? Towards Paul? Or would he chance one of the side streets? Please note that by this time, Mizen would have seen and heard him - coppers have eyes and ears too! - and probably raised the alarm, alerting his fellow constables walking the adjoining streets."

Why would he Run ? , His Eyes and his Ears , his cunning would have given hin no cause to run ! this whole Casebook is littered with examples of how everyone could easily decipher the plod of a police boot from quite a distance away . all he would have had to do was listen , look and walk . and this particular route would have had many an alternative route if he needed it .

"YOU, Moonbegger, would have run scared. And me too. But we are not killers and psychopaths, are we? No, we are just one guy asking repeated tiresome questions and ignoring the answers the other guy provides him with"

Now i think your being a little hard on yourself , i don't find your questions tiresome in the slightest

cheers

moonbegger .

[Rubyretro]

up the pole

,..

I'm with you thus far...

safest option . Use His lesser Known name ?

A notion that you agree with......?

But Fisherman is indeed a wide and futile ocean

!

with many a wonderful Island to dwell upon .

Whew !, then.

these Islands that i may draw your attention to, are no Less an Island or indeed no great an island than your own

Hari Krishna to you too...

we are all afloat in a sea of conjecture .

with an owl and a pussycat ?

" It is dead simple, really. We've got what we've got, and suggesting what might have been cannot change that"

But we can shift our perception of the past from subjective to objective. And ?

[moonbegger]

Moonbegger,


An excellent point. I have been known to put it out also, without ever having known Thomas Cross.

[

Oh ? Isn't this the 'Cobblers' thread ? You must be confusing me again, Moonbegger...

Hi RubyRetrout , (sorry that was an actual typo ! -but I left it in...it might be freudian ) Howzat for bonding

Have you been in the LSD tin again ?

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

" to criticize conjecture , and claim it has no place for a defence i find is a little hypercritical , when your offence is built mainly of that same Conjecture."

Only I don´t claim that conjecture has no place, do I? What I do is to point out that there is a BASIS in for example the name-swop matter and the tampering with victims matter, as discussed before. And that basis is that we have a nam-swop but no reason, just as we have only one corroborated tampering with a victim whereas the rest of these "cases" are uncorroborated.

This is what is reoccurring in the Lechmere matter - a large number of potentially incriminating details are met with conjecture. Just like you say, I too use conjecture, but if we peel away all the layers of conjecture we are STILL left with a number of anomalies that spell trouble for Lechmere - although they MAY have never ending alternative explanations.

I will list them again, this time as a sort of proposal for the police, just for the sake of change.

Let´s - theoretically - feed the 1888 police with added information about that guy they let walk in September! Hey, constables and detectives, that Cross guy, the carman you know...? Did you know that he gave you the wrong name? He is christianed Lechmere, and goes by that name in all registers and listings, just as his wife and kids are called Lechmere!

And do you realize that we only have his own words for how close he had been to the Nichols woman?

Have you realized that he lied his way past PC Mizen on the murder night?

Still gonna let him go? Then you may want to know that he will choose either Hanbury Street or Old Montague Street, walking to work tomorrow. In fact, the slayings all took place along his work route! Plus he only moved into the area some six weeks before the slayings started.

What? The Stride case deviates? Yep - but he had lived in them exact quarters before and he has his mother living in 147 Cable Street, together with his daughter. And Stride died on a Saturday night, ideal for visiting, perhaps?

Maybe the time has come, gentlemen, to haul that carman in again and ask him a question or two...?

You do realize, Moonbegger, don´t you, that a rap sheet like this would have been a red cloth to the police? You do appreciate that all alarm bells would have sounded within them? You surely cannot have missed that ALL of these ingredients would have ensured a massive interest on behalf of the police - if they had only found them out? And, finally, you can surely see that if presented with this information, it would be a very odd thing if the police said "Wow, what a good guy!". That is effectively NOT the implication presented. They may - and should - have asked themselves if there was a common explanation to it all. But the BASIS of the material burdens Lechmere all the way, from beginning to end. And THAT is not conjecture!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Hari Krishna to you too..."

Line of the evening, Ruby - thanks for that one. My eyes are still watering

And so to bed.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Moonbegger -

Have you been in the LSD tin again ?

[/QUOTE]

Well, I do have that impression when conversing with you (and, to think ! other people pay for that feeling!. can't be all bad then).

[Bridewell]

Relevance

Colin:

"I agree that the possibility remains much the same because, by his own admission, he had been close enough to see that what he originally thought was a tarpaulin was, in fact, a woman. I think a key issue here is just how wide Bucks Row was in 1888. Terms like "narrow", "very narrow" & "extremely narrow" have been used, but are too vague & subjective to be of much use. If Bucks Row was only about 14' wide, Cross could have been "standing in the middle of the road", whilst simultaneously within 6' of the body, but if it was significantly wider than that (20' or more say) he couldn't be both."

What does it matter? Is there an established stretch, beyond which Lechmere is cleared from suspicion? Of course there is not.
If he was the killer - and I am suggesting that he was - then we must predispose that Lechmere had moved into the middle of the road after realizing that somebody (Paul) was coming down the street. And if he had to cover six or nine feet in order to do so is completely irrelevant, is it not?

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

It is indeed irrelevant. I have pursued the argument at such length only because of Lechmere's earlier claim that he was "found over the body of a Ripper victim". He wasn't, but clearly he must have been close to the body at some point in order to identify that it was not the tarpaulin he first took it to be. I'm sure that he (Cross / Lechmere) moved into the middle of the street when he heard Paul approach. The only issue is why. It's something an innocent body-finder would have done, and a guilty killer might, if he thought he had no choice.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Fisherman]

Colin:

"It is indeed irrelevant. I have pursued the argument at such length only because of Lechmere's earlier claim that he was "found over the body of a Ripper victim". "

Aha. Thanks for clearing that up. Maybe we should just say that he was found with a Ripper victim - just as damning (or innocent) but technically a more sustainable wording.

"I'm sure that he (Cross / Lechmere) moved into the middle of the street when he heard Paul approach. The only issue is why."

If he was innocent, I can certainly imagine a scenario where he merrily set out to pick up what he thought may have been a free tarpaulin, only to freeze instantly when he realized what it actually was, only then hearing Paul approaching. So much as you may be right about him being nearer to the body than halfways over the street at some stage, I don´t regard it as any absolutely certain thing. It´s hard to say what he could make out from a position out in the street.
On the question you raise in relation to him having potentially been close to the body - why - I would repeat that the only chances we have to form an opinion about that, rest on the surrounding material. It must be scrutinized with the object of finding out whether there are elements involved that point to either innocence or guilt. And for Lechmere, it would have been far better if he had told the police that he was christianed Charles Allen Lechmere, just as it would have done his case a world of good if he had NOT lied to Mizen. And if he felt he really wanted to lie to Jonas Mizen at any rate, it would have been better if he had not employed a lie that was so neatly shaped to pass Mizen by without being questioned or searched.

The devil is in the details. But you know that already!

All the best,
Fisherman

[caz]

I don't suppose that Mizen would have been able to identify 'Cross' ever again..but Paul could, and Paul was putting his story out in the public domaim via the Press.

Hi Ruby,

But so what? If Lechy hadn't come forward when he did, and Paul had subsequently bumped into him, recognised him as his fellow witness and alerted the police, Lechy would have been in no worse a position than Paul had been, when the latter had had to be found and dragged to the inquest. They were, to all intents and purposes, two witnesses who had innocently come across a murder victim on their way to work. It had still been Mizen's responsibility to take their details, and his failure to do so, regardless of what they told him.

Since neither of us knows what name Lechy used at home and work, the supposition ball is no more firmly in my court than yours.

The bottom line is this: if he was always known as Lechmere, and never Cross, then he was an idiot for giving the police enough rope to check him out and discover that he had given them as good as a false name - and for absolutely no benefit, killer or not.

If he was known as Cross at all in his personal, social or working life at that time, then there was no suspicious name change, no anomaly, and he came forward with all the information they needed to identify him, despite the fact that he could have waited, as Paul did, for them to track him down.

If he was not ordinarily known as Lechmere, I can understand why he didn't give that name to the police. Guilty or otherwise, it would have been simpler, and invited fewer questions, to stick to the one name that his boss, for example, could confirm.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Hi Caz!

If I may?

"If Lechy hadn't come forward when he did, and Paul had subsequently bumped into him, recognised him as his fellow witness and alerted the police, Lechy would have been in no worse a position than Paul had been, when the latter had had to be found and dragged to the inquest."

Are you not forgetting a smallish detail here, Caz? Whatever nuisance Pauls views on the police procedures caused the Met, and no matter how much trouble they had hauling him in, it still remains that there was corroboration for him NOT having been the man who found the body of Nichols. No filibustering or accusations in the world would thus make him a viable suspect for the crime as such.
Lechmere? Another story, that! For HE had been fingered as the man who was found by the victim, and correct or not, the police would have been very interested to lay their hands on him - had he not appeared by his own free will. And by doing so, he would actually have put one nagging suspicion to rest at the Met, for what they had been told at that stage by PC Mizen was that a carman had informed him that a PC had been present by Nichols´ body. They of course had the paper article from the 2:nd to go by, but they did NOT have Paul, since he avoided the police and proved a hard catch.

So, Caz, there they were, sitting on information that a PC had possibly been at the murder spot, and after having spoken to Neil, they knew that he was not that PC. Ouch! Ergo, it must have been a relief to them to have Lechmere standing on their doorstep, effectively laying to rest that one of their own could have been involved in the slaying. Moreover, Lechmere confirmed to a large extent what his fellow carman had told the press, meaning that the police had good reason to believe that this story was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. All they needed to do was to haul Paul in, and have official confirmation, something they eventually managed to do.

All of this would have been another story totally if Lechmere had NOT emerged out of the blue. If so, they would have been left with the PC trail and the Paul trail to follow, and it would have become a top priority to find carman number two, who would attract much attention and growing suspicion as the hunt went on. That goes without saying.

"Since neither of us knows what name Lechy used at home and work, the supposition ball is no more firmly in my court than yours."

I´m afraid that Ruby´s right - she is correct in pointing out that Lechmere called himself Lechmere at every checkpoint we have to go by, whereas we have no evidence at all that he called himself Cross when drinking with his pals. Therefore she is not supposing anything. You are, though.

"The bottom line is this: if he was always known as Lechmere, and never Cross, then he was an idiot for giving the police enough rope to check him out and discover that he had given them as good as a false name - and for absolutely no benefit, killer or not."

That would depend. And what it would depend on is what Lechmere would regard as a benefit. If we work from the assumption that he was the killer and wanted to extend his killing carreer, then we may safely deduct that the fewer people that had the double knowledge of his name and his involvement in the case, the better it would be for him. If all his working mates and his wife knew that he had found Nichols, and if they noticed that the rest of the victims all fell prey on occasions and at times when Lechmere had reason to be around, then he would be at a disadvantage.
If none of these people knew that their carman was the carman Cross of Nichols fame, however, then that risk would disappear.

What does that do to your "for no benefit at all" suggestion, Caz?

"If he was known as Cross at all in his personal, social or working life at that time, then there was no suspicious name change, no anomaly, and he came forward with all the information they needed to identify him..."

Seeing as it took more than a hundred years to make that ID, I´d say you are a bit off the mark. But I realize that you are speaking of a contemporary identification, of course! Any which way, I am as unimpressed as I have ever been. We KNOW that once the authorities handed him a piece of paper and a pen, he used these items to scribble "Lechmere". Why, Caz, did he NOT do so this - and only this - time?

We KNOW that he called his kids Lechmere. Why not call them Cross, if he felt he WAS Cross? Why propose to a woman and give her the name Lechmere if you are and feel like a Cross, and prefer being called that in your everyday life? And if you prefer being called that, if you actively choose that name - why sign all papers with another name..?

I know your answer, Caz - I have seen the suggestions a thousand times. I still say give me one single parallel example of an honest man who did such a thing! Aliases were used by shady existances, first and foremost. The local grocer was not Brown in one street and Higgins in another - unless he had a REASON for it. Mrs Leach, the housewife, did not turn into Mrs Micklewhite depending on who she spoke to - unless she had a reason to. And honest men give their real names to the police, especially those of whom it can be effectively proven that they KNEW their real names - and Lechmere belonged to that exact category.

"If he was not ordinarily known as Lechmere, I can understand why he didn't give that name to the police."

But he WAS known as Lechmere. None of his neighbours would have him down as Cross - it would make it incomprehensible that he was married to a Lechmere and sired Lechmere kids if this was the case. The father of a Lechmere household is not a Cross. Or are you saying that he was Lechmere at home, among his neighbours - but NOT among a small gang of old buddies who had known his father and refused to allow him to use any other name than Cross?
It does not add up, it won´t wash, it remains nothing but conjecture that he lived colloquially as Cross. If you want facts instead, there are 60 solid signatures around to provide that. And once upon a time, there would have been a postbox with the same name on it, at 22 Doveton Street. Letters adresses to Charles Cross would not go down that box, would they? Did the ones who sent mail to him, and who knew him colloquially as Cross, write "Lechmere" on the letters they sent him on occasion, to facilitate for the postman? Or was he too in on the name swop, accepting that the head of the Lechmere family was named Cross?

And, for the umpteenth time, the by far best solution to not coming clear about his name with the police, staying free to go on killing, would be to use a name that he could substantiate a right to use - IF the police came a-knocking, something he would have hoped they would not do. And as it turns out, he got that exactly right.
Is that why you call him an idiot - since he got all the details absolutely correct and managed to stay undetected? Because he pulled off the most infamous string of killings in the history, all the while being well known to the police? Is that where the idiocy lies...?

Of course, I am now predisposing that he WAS the killer, and not an idiot.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Hi Ruby,

But so what? If Lechy hadn't come forward when he did, and Paul had subsequently bumped into him, recognised him as his fellow witness and alerted the police, Lechy would have been in no worse a position than Paul had been, when the latter had had to be found and dragged to the inquest. They were, to all intents and purposes, two witnesses who had innocently come across a murder victim on their way to work. It had still been Mizen's responsibility to take their details, and his failure to do so, regardless of what they told him.

...I don't agree. Paul was obviously not trying to 'hide' his role in finding the body before Neil, and not reporting it -he was proclaiming it loud and clear in public via the Press, whether he wanted to go to the inquest or not (Lechmere was keeping it very quiet indeed).

Paul was also saying that there had been another man alone with the body, when he got there.

It seems absolutely certain to me that, had Lechmere/Cross not come forward, then we would have to have become suspect numero one.

The longer and more successful he would be at avoiding the police -then the guiltier he would look.

But he couldn't really hide anyway -he was obliged to carry on living in the area and going to work, and he knew that Paul could identify him.

I think that going to the Police willingly would be his only option. I can't think of a good enough excuse that he could have given, if the Police had gotten around to making him their favourite suspect (which as I've already said, they surely would of if he'd lain low).

Since neither of us knows what name Lechy used at home and work, the supposition ball is no more firmly in my court than yours.

No, it isn't. I know for a fact that Lechmere always used Lechmere officially, and that his children were all 'Lechmere'. You suppose that Lechmere might have used Cross at home and at work, but you have nothing to back it up.
I have no need of supposing anything about the name Lechmere used at home -in this instance he was dealing with authority, and it is the only one instant where he used 'Cross' in that circumstance.

The bottom line is this: if he was always known as Lechmere, and never Cross, then he was an idiot for giving the police enough rope to check him out and discover that he had given them as good as a false name - and for absolutely no benefit, killer or not.

The bottom line is that he would have been truly an idiot for letting himself become a suspect by avoiding the Police. Once he came forward he would have been even more of an idiot for giving a totally false name -how guilty would that have looked ? And ditto for a totally false address or job, if it were ever checked out. However, he seems to have baulked at giving the name that he demonstrably usually gave to the authorities probably so that his family would not be questioned about his comings and goings. A name that was a half truth that he might bluff his way out of, if caught out.
That seems like a very humanly believable thing to me, if he were guilty.
Well, visibly it worked since his family didn't know about his involvement in the case (really not an idiot at all then).

If he was known as Cross at all in his personal, social or working life at that time, then there was no suspicious name change, no anomaly, and he came forward with all the information they needed to identify him, despite the fact that he could have waited, as Paul did, for them to track him down.

We're back to if, if if if..........if....then. We don't know that he ever used Cross apart from this one time, and we do know that he usually used Lechmere when dealing with officialdom.

If he was not ordinarily known as Lechmere, I can understand why he didn't give that name to the police. Guilty or otherwise, it would have been simpler, and invited fewer questions, to stick to the one name that his boss, for example, could confirm.

I have already dealt with this in this post.

[Rubyretro]

Our posts crossed, Fishy...

ps I bet you've never got that message pop up when posting

"The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 5 characters".

pps glad we gave the same answers to Caz !

[Fisherman]

Nope.

Fisherman.

[Fisherman]

Nope, I´ve never gotten that message, I mean. Not even when I tried the four character word "Nope".

Was it the dot that did it? Or is it personal...?

Fisherman