The Mizen scam

[Abby Normal]

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

I'd have to agree with the Lechmerians on this point, Caz. The evidence does emphatically point to him being known, and him using the last name Lechmere on a daily basis, officially and unoficially. And the question remains-why use Cross this one time.

Here I disagree with the Lechmerians though. I maintain its most likely for the totally innocent reason that he did not want the attention for himself and his family that being a witness would bring-and that would include possible reprisals from the killer(s). Remember that one of the main ideas at the time was that this was the work of a gang.

On the other hand I think the Lechmerians have done a good job in exemplfying all the things that COULD point to his guilt. Yes, They ALL could have innocent explanations, but at what point do you look at it all and realize-well OK there are alot of things then that you have to give an innocent explanation for. If there were only one or two things then OK well it does not tip the scale. But if there are more, well for me at least-it makes me go Hmmmmm?

I cant argue for Hutch being a legit suspect when one of my main arguments are that the descrepencies are too many and all them taken as a whole tilt the scale to legit suspician, and then when someone else does the same thing for their candidate, I shoot it down without consideration. Its somewhat Hypocritical IMHO. (However, i still think Hutch makes a far stronger suspect).

Anyway-There is another thread going on right now where alot of folks are lamenting the state of posting and discussion on casebook-Too much personal stuff, too much conspiracy nonsense and ridiculous theories/suspects (Van Gough anyone?) This Lechmere discussion/debate is the type of stuff that is needed more on Casebook. Eventhough I dont totally agree and think Lechmere is somewhat of a weak (but yes-valid)suspect-I commend Fish and Lech on there work/debate on this,

[Abby Normal]

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".

HaHA-now THATS funny!

[Fisherman]

Abby:

"Here I disagree with the Lechmerians though. I maintain its most likely for the totally innocent reason that he did not want the attention for himself and his family that being a witness would bring-and that would include possible reprisals from the killer(s). Remember that one of the main ideas at the time was that this was the work of a gang."

But why would a gang get back at Lechmere for not having seen a single thing? Or are you saying that he withheld information vital to the case?

"On the other hand I think the Lechmerians have done a good job in exemplfying all the things that COULD point to his guilt. Yes, They ALL could have innocent explanations, but at what point do you look at it all and realize-well OK there are alot of things then that you have to give an innocent explanation for. If there were only one or two things then OK well it does not tip the scale. But if there are more, well for me at least-it makes me go Hmmmmm?"

That´s a relief to hear! It´s exactly what I am getting at.

"I cant argue for Hutch being a legit suspect when one of my main arguments are that the descrepencies are too many and all them taken as a whole tilt the scale to legit suspician, and then when someone else does the same thing for their candidate, I shoot it down without consideration. Its somewhat Hypocritical IMHO. (However, i still think Hutch makes a far stronger suspect)."

And you are free to do so. But I make another call. And that relates to the "suspicious" things about the men.

Hutchinson:

Gave a description of a man that some think is over the top - ore even impossible.

Was outside a room where a murder was perpetrated, by his own admission. The timing of the slaying is unknown.

Lechmere:

Walked a path to job where the murders occurred, one by one.

Had a mother living in a place that potentially explains the only murdet that fell outside his working path and -time.

Gave a name to the police he did not use otherwise, dealing with the authorities.

Lied to a PC at the murder night, enabling him to pass the PC without being questioned or searched.

Arrive at the murder spot at a later stage that he ought to have done, given the time he left home, by his own admittance.

Chose the longer route to his job, in spite of claiming to be late.

Was alone with the victim in the first murder case, with the possibility of physical contact, at the established approximate time of her death.

When I add these things up, I have no trouble opting for Lechmere. It´s easy maths to me. But, like I say, if you prefer Hutch, then fine!

"Eventhough I dont totally agree and think Lechmere is somewhat of a weak (but yes-valid)suspect-I commend Fish and Lech on there work/debate on this"

Many thanks, Abby - much appreciated!

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Abby:

"Here I disagree with the Lechmerians though. I maintain its most likely for the totally innocent reason that he did not want the attention for himself and his family that being a witness would bring-and that would include possible reprisals from the killer(s). Remember that one of the main ideas at the time was that this was the work of a gang."

But why would a gang get back at Lechmere for not having seen a single thing? Or are you saying that he withheld information vital to the case?

"On the other hand I think the Lechmerians have done a good job in exemplfying all the things that COULD point to his guilt. Yes, They ALL could have innocent explanations, but at what point do you look at it all and realize-well OK there are alot of things then that you have to give an innocent explanation for. If there were only one or two things then OK well it does not tip the scale. But if there are more, well for me at least-it makes me go Hmmmmm?"

That´s a relief to hear! It´s exactly what I am getting at.

"I cant argue for Hutch being a legit suspect when one of my main arguments are that the descrepencies are too many and all them taken as a whole tilt the scale to legit suspician, and then when someone else does the same thing for their candidate, I shoot it down without consideration. Its somewhat Hypocritical IMHO. (However, i still think Hutch makes a far stronger suspect)."

And you are free to do so. But I make another call. And that relates to the "suspicious" things about the men.

Hutchinson:

Gave a description of a man that some think is over the top - ore even impossible.

Was outside a room where a murder was perpetrated, by his own admission. The timing of the slaying is unknown.

Lechmere:

Walked a path to job where the murders occurred, one by one.

Had a mother living in a place that potentially explains the only murdet that fell outside his working path and -time.

Gave a name to the police he did not use otherwise, dealing with the authorities.

Lied to a PC at the murder night, enabling him to pass the PC without being questioned or searched.

Arrive at the murder spot at a later stage that he ought to have done, given the time he left home, by his own admittance.

Chose the longer route to his job, in spite of claiming to be late.

Was alone with the victim in the first murder case, with the possibility of physical contact, at the established approximate time of her death.

When I add these things up, I have no trouble opting for Lechmere. It´s easy maths to me. But, like I say, if you prefer Hutch, then fine!

"Eventhough I dont totally agree and think Lechmere is somewhat of a weak (but yes-valid)suspect-I commend Fish and Lech on there work/debate on this"

Many thanks, Abby - much appreciated!

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish

But why would a gang get back at Lechmere for not having seen a single thing?

Thats a good point. OK-scratch the gang reason. The other still holds though-not wanting the attention and/or to worry his family.

I would just add to The Hutch list: Missing the inquest. These, to me anyway, are thre BIG red flags.

Lechmere:

Walked a path to job where the murders occurred, one by one.

Had a mother living in a place that potentially explains the only murdet that fell outside his working path and -time.

Gave a name to the police he did not use otherwise, dealing with the authorities.

Lied to a PC at the murder night, enabling him to pass the PC without being questioned or searched.

Arrive at the murder spot at a later stage that he ought to have done, given the time he left home, by his own admittance.

Chose the longer route to his job, in spite of claiming to be late.

Was alone with the victim in the first murder case, with the possibility of physical contact, at the established approximate time of her death.

Good summary Fish. Like I said-Makes me go Hmmmm?

[caz]

Hi All,

The thing is, Lustmore - sorry, Lechmore the lust murderer - could so easily have avoided the difficult situation Ruby claims Paul put him in by blabbing to the papers, simply by not hanging around to 'bluff it out' with this unknown quantity right at the start. He then chose to alert a policeman - PC Mizen - about the woman he had supposedly just murdered, when he could have told Paul he was late for work, and left him to do it instead.

Then, when he thought it likely that the police would want to speak to him again on a much more formal basis, instead of letting them seek him out (assuming they even had the means, given that he had been a stranger to Paul and nobody had asked for any identifying details) he went to them and supposedly volunteered a name that none of his associates would have recognised.

It's a circular and pointless argument to say that Lechy was no idiot because the police never had a clue about him and the case remained unsolved. You could say as much for virtually anyone without a cast-iron alibi who had the vaguest of connections to the case. Each of those women was killed by someone who managed to avoid the consequences. Queen Victoria 'got away with it' too, because she was clever enough to ward off suspicion by being old and female, and she was also known as Mrs. Brown. Hmmm indeed.

Lechy makes for a poor suspect in my view, because all the speculation about his actions, and the motivation behind them, that is employed to make him look guilty, also makes him look like the kind of idiot who should never have got away with it, and arguably wouldn't have got away with it. So for me, the fact that the killer did get away with it only throws doubt on Lechy as that killer.

Love,

Caz
X

[Rubyretro]

The thing is, Lustmore - sorry, Lechmore the lust murderer - could so easily have avoided the difficult situation Ruby claims Paul put him in by blabbing to the papers, simply by not hanging around to 'bluff it out' with this unknown quantity right at the start.

but, but...he would have had to have had a crystal ball to forsee that Paul would blab in the Press...

I think that people, even if they are 'planners' by nature, are obliged to make snap descisions when confronted with pressing situations.

If Lechmere were the murderer of Polly, then what more pressing situation could there be than Paul imminently arriving on the spot ? I can imagine that his mind would be taken up with the immediate descision whether to turn or run...and during that time Paul was growing closer (we're talking about seconds, here).

How could he possibly have had the time to ponder on all the possible ramifications of that descision, further than taking control of the situation that he was in at that instant?

He then chose to alert a policeman - PC Mizen - about the woman he had supposedly just murdered, when he could have told Paul he was late for work, and left him to do it instead.

But to have control, he would badly want to make sure that Paul didn't meet the Policeman alone and say the 'wrong' thing. Also being two men walking along the street, when coming from the direction where a body was found, would be rather less suspicious than being one lone man scurrying away.
Paul would appear to be an alibi. Even if Mizen had stopped to take details, there might be an assumption that the two men had discovered the body together, and generally avoid the issue that Paul had infact found a stranger alone with the body. It makes total sense.

Then, when he thought it likely that the police would want to speak to him again on a much more formal basis, instead of letting them seek him out (assuming they even had the means, given that he had been a stranger to Paul and nobody had asked for any identifying details) he went to them and supposedly volunteered a name that none of his associates would have recognised.

This has been dealt with at length and shown that a) he had little choice but to go to the Police and b) if he had to go to the Police, then a half truth about his name would be preferable to a straight lie, or the straight truth.

It's a circular and pointless argument to say that Lechy was no idiot because the police never had a clue about him and the case remained unsolved. You could say as much for virtually anyone without a cast-iron alibi who had the vaguest of connections to the case

.

Certainly -so why are you using that argument ? It is a fact about the Ripper that he outwitted the Police. Ergo, if Lechmere were the Ripper, it is one more fact about him.

Lechy makes for a poor suspect in my view, because all the speculation about his actions, and the motivation behind them, that is employed to make him look guilty, also makes him look like the kind of idiot who should never have got away with it,

Now that is getting a bit desperate, Caz (not up to your usual standard).

Either innocent or guilty, Lechmere doesn't come over as an 'idiot' in any way whatsoever.

[Fisherman]

Impressive stuff, Ruby - no need to add anything there!

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

I agree with virtually every word you have written here, Abby :

I'd have to agree with the Lechmerians on this point, Caz. The evidence does emphatically point to him being known, and him using the last name Lechmere on a daily basis, officially and unoficially. And the question remains-why use Cross this one time.

True.

Here I disagree with the Lechmerians though. I maintain its most likely for the totally innocent reason that he did not want the attention for himself and his family that being a witness would bring-and that would include possible reprisals from the killer(s). Remember that one of the main ideas at the time was that this was the work of a gang.

One exception that I don't agree with. Lechmere was either the killer himself, or, if innocent, never saw Polly's murderer(s) (to be a dangerous witness he would have to have witnessed something).
If he had come upon a gang murdering Polly, he would surely have been topped on the spot (I mean why put it off to come to his house, after he risked speaking out ? ). Or if he came upon a crazy desperate killer armed with a knife, who had just killed someone? -same thing.
I think that we often minimise the 'hanging' aspect for Jack, had he been cornered and caught.
Jack didn't want to be caught -not even subconciously (if he had wanted that, he would have been). He had a knife, he wasn't afraid to use it, and being cornered would have surely have made him very very defensive and dangerous.

On the other hand I think the Lechmerians have done a good job in exemplfying all the things that COULD point to his guilt. Yes, They ALL could have innocent explanations, but at what point do you look at it all and realize-well OK there are alot of things then that you have to give an innocent explanation for. If there were only one or two things then OK well it does not tip the scale. But if there are more, well for me at least-it makes me go Hmmmmm?

Yes, I am the same.

I cant argue for Hutch being a legit suspect when one of my main arguments are that the descrepencies are too many and all them taken as a whole tilt the scale to legit suspician, and then when someone else does the same thing for their candidate, I shoot it down without consideration. Its somewhat Hypocritical IMHO. (However, i still think Hutch makes a far stronger suspect).

This is where I, personally, am coming from.

I have not discounted Hutch as a prime suspect at all because I've been defending Lechmere as a suspect. They are both very good suspects, in my opinion.

I agree that it would be hypocrytical to refute Lechmere/Cross as a prime candidate for JTR, and talk up Hutch, when some of the arguments are the same.

I truly believe that Jack the Ripper was a local working class man, and passed as Mr Ordinary in the neighbourhood -that might mean that he was a complete unknown, but I also think for several reasons that it was someone known to the case. I can argue for Hutch or Lechmere, and if another suspect were put forward who fullfilled my criteria, I might argue for him too !

Anyway-There is another thread going on right now where alot of folks are lamenting the state of posting and discussion on casebook-Too much personal stuff, too much conspiracy nonsense and ridiculous theories/suspects (Van Gough anyone?) This Lechmere discussion/debate is the type of stuff that is needed more on Casebook.

I totally agree. I wish that there were more threads like this (start one, Abby !)

Eventhough I dont totally agree and think Lechmere is somewhat of a weak (but yes-valid)suspect-I commend Fish and Lech on there work/debate on this,

I totally agree again. Eddowes and MJK have always been discussed to death for obvious reasons -Polly was very much a less popular victim -it's been fabuous to learn all these new emerging details.

You're in the States, I believe ? It's a shame that you can't go to that event in St John's Church, Bethnal Green , on the anniversary of Polly's death (31st August) -I think that there might be some very interesting things to come out, and people present, that haven't been yet discussed here. It's bollloxx that I can't go..

[Rubyretro]

Impressive stuff, Ruby - no need to add anything there!

The best,
Fisherman

OMG OMG a first, from you ?

I never thought that I'd live to read that !

thank you.

(folks -fisherman has nothing to add I shall start calling you 'fishkin' if i'm not very very careful).

[curious]

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

maybe it was the signature. checking here

[Rubyretro]

maybe it was the signature. checking here

Maybe the dot, fullstop, Curious.

At anyrate, it means that it's difficult for Fish to say Yes.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"OMG OMG a first, from you ?

I never thought that I'd live to read that !"

Well, Ruby, I´m all sunshine - when somebody gives me a reason...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Curious:

"maybe it was the signature. checking here"

Thanks, Curious - keep me posted!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

" it's difficult for Fish to say Yes."

Oh no. No, no, no, no, no and NO again. That is NOT true.

Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Well, Ruby, I´m all sunshine

A suede ? Forgive me if I'm sceptical.