The Mizen scam

[moonbegger]

[ originally posted by Caz ]
Thomas Cross died 19 years previously and his step-son Charles had been at Pickfords for 20 years, the latter may have used the name Cross when he started working for them and simply carried on doing so for the convenience.


[Posted by Lechmere]
"I do believe that the first person to raise the possibility that Cross/Lechmere originally signed on as Cross at Pickfords around 1868 was... me! It was in another thread some months ago.
I believe in setting all likely possibilities out even when they do not necessarily help my case you see.
However at that time I was under the mistaken impression that Mizen took his details and that Cross/Lechmere may have been in ‘work mode’ at that moment. We now know that Cross/Lechmere bluffed his way past Mizen and appeared at a police station almost certainly in response to Paul’s newspaper story appearing on the Sunday. This makes the use of the name Cross more perplexing.
Having said that I do not believe Cross/Lechmere kept his involvement in the inquest a secret from his work colleagues as he will have to have booked a day off to attend. The whole reason for the name swap and for attending the inquest in his work clothes was to avert his wife’s potential suspicions.
He took a risk in giving a false name, but it was not a massive risk and rather obviously it most certainly was not as risky as using a name to which he had no connection (Brown, Jones etc) – even though some people are now contending that this would have been the case."

Hello Lechsmear

[I think i still missed your answer Leech ,

Caz posts a great question , as did yourself at one time apparently ..

so it would be great to know the answer ]

Without proof either way , it would surely make most sense that he started as Cross and continued as cross ?

cheers

Lets all laugh at Tottenham

moonGOONER

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"Hello Fisherman ,

DEAD or drunk , from Crossmere .. " i think she IS DEAD " from Paul ..

Can we spot the common denominator here , the KEY word ?"

Oh yes! We can furthermore spot that Mizen said that it was ONE, not two, men that spoke to him. In no version of the event does he say anything about Paul speaking to him. He says that ONE man passed him by and told him about Buck´s Row.

Can you appreciate what happens when we accept that this was so? Yes? Correct - one of your "DEAD" goes away.

Please do not rely to much on what Lechmere says. If he was a killer, he would have lied. They do, in order to save their necks. And we KNOW that Lechmere lied, if Mizen is on the money, just as we KNOW that he used a fake name. The indications ARE and REMAIN there.

If you had read up on this, you would have been in the know too.

My wording:

"Are we on the clear with this now? On the night of the 31:st, as Lechmere spoke to Mizen, the PC was NOT informed that the woman in Buck´s Row had been murdered!"

Yours (surprise!):

"Actually i was referring to Pauls Claim in Lloyds that polly had been murdered "

But that alters NOT that Paul DID NOT KNOW THIS ON THE MURDER MORNING!!!!!! Use some sense, Moonbegger. Dig deep and use some sense!

"I can understand how frustrating it must be for you and the Leech , to feel that you have finally made progress , only for everyone to pull the rug from under your feet "

Yes, that would have been frustrating and disappointing. If it ever happens, I will grieve - and get back to business.

Til then!

Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Fish -I agree with your very well thought out reply (above).

[moonbegger]

[ originally posted by Caz ]
Thomas Cross died 19 years previously and his step-son Charles had been at Pickfords for 20 years, the latter may have used the name Cross when he started working for them and simply carried on doing so for the convenience.

Hello Lechsmear ,

"I do believe that the first person to raise the possibility that Cross/Lechmere originally signed on as Cross at Pickfords around 1868 was... me! It was in another thread some months ago.
I believe in setting all likely possibilities out even when they do not necessarily help my case you see.
However at that time I was under the mistaken impression that Mizen took his details and that Cross/Lechmere may have been in ‘work mode’ at that moment. We now know that Cross/Lechmere bluffed his way past Mizen and appeared at a police station almost certainly in response to Paul’s newspaper story appearing on the Sunday. This makes the use of the name Cross more perplexing.
Having said that I do not believe Cross/Lechmere kept his involvement in the inquest a secret from his work colleagues as he will have to have booked a day off to attend. The whole reason for the name swap and for attending the inquest in his work clothes was to avert his wife’s potential suspicions.
He took a risk in giving a false name, but it was not a massive risk and rather obviously it most certainly was not as risky as using a name to which he had no connection (Brown, Jones etc) – even though some people are now contending that this would have been the case."

[I think i still missed your answer Leech ,

Caz posts a great question , as did yourself at one time apparently ..

so it would be great to know the answer ]

Without proof either way , it would surely make most sense that he started as Cross and continued as cross ?

cheers

Lets all laugh at Tottenham

moonGOONER

[moonbegger]

[ originally posted by Caz ]
Thomas Cross died 19 years previously and his step-son Charles had been at Pickfords for 20 years, the latter may have used the name Cross when he started working for them and simply carried on doing so for the convenience.

Hello Lechsmear ,

"I do believe that the first person to raise the possibility that Cross/Lechmere originally signed on as Cross at Pickfords around 1868 was... me! It was in another thread some months ago.
I believe in setting all likely possibilities out even when they do not necessarily help my case you see.
However at that time I was under the mistaken impression that Mizen took his details and that Cross/Lechmere may have been in ‘work mode’ at that moment. We now know that Cross/Lechmere bluffed his way past Mizen and appeared at a police station almost certainly in response to Paul’s newspaper story appearing on the Sunday. This makes the use of the name Cross more perplexing.
Having said that I do not believe Cross/Lechmere kept his involvement in the inquest a secret from his work colleagues as he will have to have booked a day off to attend. The whole reason for the name swap and for attending the inquest in his work clothes was to avert his wife’s potential suspicions.
He took a risk in giving a false name, but it was not a massive risk and rather obviously it most certainly was not as risky as using a name to which he had no connection (Brown, Jones etc) – even though some people are now contending that this would have been the case."

[I think i still missed your answer Leech ,

Caz posts a great question , as did yourself at one time apparently ..

so it would be great to know the answer ]

Without proof either way , it would surely make most sense that he started as Cross and continued as cross ?

cheers

Lets all laugh at Tottenham

moonGOONER

[Rubyretro]

Moonumpty, whilst I would still defend our boys in blue against your accusations of rife corruption, your apparent rank of 'Detective' has given me pause for thought...

[moonbegger]

Fisherman .

"Please do not rely to much on what Lechmere says. If he was a killer, he would have lied. They do, in order to save their necks. And we KNOW that Lechmere lied, if Mizen is on the money, just as we KNOW that he used a fake name. The indications ARE and REMAIN there."

We do not know this fisherman .. Cross used one of his two names he may have been known by .. Until the time you can prove that he was not known by the name Cross at work , or friends didn't know him as Cross . all you can do is speculate and surmise .. And there is a monumental difference between a known fact and supposition .. you must realize that fisherman !

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"We do not know this fisherman .. "

There is a lot we will never know. But the fact that he for once in communication with the authorities used a name he never used otherwise in that communication, does not belong to the things we will never know. And we do know that he lied to Mizen, if Mizen´s recollections were true.

"Until the time you can prove that he was not known by the name Cross at work , or friends didn't know him as Cross . all you can do is speculate and surmise .. "

Once again, no. I have already proven MY point - that as far as we can tell, he called himself Lechmere, he was born Lechmere, he named his wife Lechmere, he named his children Lechmere, the mailman delivered his post to a box with "Lechmere" on it, etcetera. So I have nothing to prove - instead the onus of proof lies firmly on you and your so far totally unsubstantiated claim that he called himself Cross in some walks of life. Let me say that I think you will come up empty-handed.

"there is a monumental difference between a known fact and supposition"

Absolutely! I will exemplify:

He called himself Lechmere whenever signing official papers. Fact.

He may have called himself Cross otherwise. Surmise.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

Dave -I found this document on another thread, a few weeks ago..

(DF]
The Jack the Ripper murders: a modus operandi and signature ...
angela1simpson.galeon.com/jack.pdf

(copy & paste it -you can download the pdf)

I think that it is stated somewhere that this analysis would be admissible in a court of law in the States.

It clearly has Jack down as 'organised'. It seems pretty on the button to me.

Thanks for that Ruby...clearly the two sources disagree...though as you suggest, the one you link to does appear to make a lot of sense...

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

"There is simply too much going on at 3.45...I'm sorry but this is truly the case..."

... and nothing at all at 3.31. That´s my point. If Lechmere came upon the body at 3.31, and Paul arrived at 3.31, then they met Mizen at around 3.36. That´s close to ten minutes BEFORE the 3.45 the men all spoke about.
The chance that they all spoke of 3.45 whereas it was in fact 3.35 is not a very large one. It is practically impossible.

Hi Christer...But of course you're totally ignoring the evidence of Harriet Lilley who (if I recall correctly from earlier in the thread) reported hearing what could well've been the killing as the goods train passed at 3.30 approx. This would fit in spot-on with my surmise of 3.31 roughly for the initial discovery by Cross. And, yes, I admit it's surmise...but as a timetable it squares all the obvious contradictions in the evidence.

Nope - you are instead one of the posters who deperately try to defend Lechmere, and who is ready to go as far as to throw out four mens´unanimous time estimations in doing so. Desperation comes in many forms, Dave.

I'm not "throwing out four men's unanimous time estimations" at all Christer...Simply trying to reconcile them with the facts...If you take all the timing estimates as 100% gospel, the whole thing simply doesn't work...so someone's estimates must be out...that's not desperation Christer, (It's not me who has a cherished theory to defend here after all), just an attempt to apply some common sense...

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Lechmere is right in saying that the knees weren’t bent but stretched out (when found by Neil, as stated by Dr Llewellyn). However, as Jon suggested, Paul may have caused this when trying to pull down Polly’s skirts.

Having said that, I agree that it’s not a fact that the clothing covered the abdominal wounds. For if we are to believe they were ‘raised almost up to her stomach’, we may understand this to mean that the clothes had been worked up almost to the organ of that name, of which the lowest point is located perhaps a couple of inches above the navel. If this were actually where the clothes were at, the lower portion of the abdomen and pelvis were uncovered. As Paul didn’t notice the severe cuts to the throat either, there’s no particular reason to believe that he would have noticed the abdominal wounds.

Thanks for that Frank...and yes everyone has said how dark the night was...so dark the occupants of Bucks Row wouldn't have been able to I.D. the killer...easily dark enough, therefore, for Cross and Paul not to notice either the throat or abdomen wounds which Neill eventually noticed by the light of his bullseye lantern...

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Also, we don`t know if the body was "posed" by the killer because Cross and Paul later messed around with the body. They had trouble pulling her skirts down so may have straightened her legs trying.

Hi Jon

Yes that sounds sensible...even the link Ruby found picks up on the posing being a part of the killers signature, so it would be worrying if we couldn't explain it...to get the dress from just below the stomach to anything more respectable, Paul would've had to straighten the legs if they were bent...

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

If Mizen didn't take names and addresses then that act supports his version.

That is 2 men came up to him and stated he was needed in Bucks Row. No mention of murder or a crime, therefore no requirement to take details.

Hi Monty...do we actually know whether Mizen took their names and addresses or not?...not being funny, I've not as far as I can recall, actually seen anything one way or the other...just curious...

All the best

Dave

[Fisherman]

Dave (to Ruby):

" the one you link to does appear to make a lot of sense..."

It´s Robert Keppel that lies behind the material Ruby linked to. And he´s an authority, of course. But did you notice that the report said: "Her body was found between 3:40 and 3:45 a.m. on a secluded yard crossing/footway at Bucks Row, Whitechapel by two car-men."

!!!!! Once again; TWO carmen found her! That´s how a bad grip on historical facts tints your work in a not very becoming colour...

" of course you're totally ignoring the evidence of Harriet Lilley who (if I recall correctly from earlier in the thread) reported hearing what could well've been the killing as the goods train passed at 3.30 approx."

Ignoring? Who´s ignoring anything? The "Lilley train" passed the station well before the murder time, just like you say. It therefore tallies NOT with the given estimations of the participants of the drama - ergo it must be regarded as being of less value.

Look, Dave, we have three PC:s roughly corroborating each other, and that´s that, I should think. I am not sure what timekeeping facilities there were around, but perhaps all three PC:s had heard the same bell strike the quarter?

Does anybody know if this could have been it?

" I admit it's surmise...but as a timetable it squares all the obvious contradictions in the evidence."

But the PC:s and Paul do NOT contradict each other - they all speak of the same time, give or take the odd minute. So what contradictions are you speaking of, Dave?

"I'm not "throwing out four men's unanimous time estimations" at all Christer...Simply trying to reconcile them with the facts..."

So am I - but not to your liking. You prefer to insert a gap of ten or fifteen minutes that is not there.

"If you take all the timing estimates as 100% gospel, the whole thing simply doesn't work...so someone's estimates must be out..."

Let´s say, Dave, that Lechmere found (ehrm...!) Nichols at 3.41. Let´s say that Paul came up at 3.41.30. They walked off and found Mizen, and - like Paul said - it took four minutes at most. Say three and a half, and we arrive with Mizen at 3.45.
At that stage, Neil would have found Nichols, say at 3.44. He signals down Thain, and Mizen arrives two, three minutes after he spoke to Lechmere, at 3.47-3.48.

Neil said he found the body at 3.45, so in his case I´m one minute off.
Thain said he was signalled down at 3.45, so we may be spot on here.
Mizen said the carmen came to him at 3.45, so we are once again spot on.

What´s the problem with that, Dave? Thain would have had time to be informed and leave before Mizen reached Neil, a few minutes after 3.45.

We may move this a minute or two up or down the alley of time, but the corroboration is still there.

In what manner would shoving the timetable ten, fifteen minutes back "reconcile" this? I fail to see that it would - it would instead disrupt a nicely flowing timeline.

" just an attempt to apply some common sense..."

Why is it that everybody speak of common sense today - a rare and rightfully sought for commodity - only to serve a hearty helping of the exact opposite instead?

All the best, and goodnight, Dave!

Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

So you're quite happy to ditch some witness testimony (Lilley) and not others...ok...and you're quite happy about the time Paul left home...the same time Neil discovered the body...ok...you're happy that Mizen puts his encounter with the carmen at 4.15 not 3.45...and oh, just for good measure:

Why is it that everybody speak of common sense today - a rare and rightfully sought for commodity - only to serve a hearty helping of the exact opposite instead?

Sorry Christer...if raising reasonable queries about your cherished theory is to be seen as some sort of an abrogation of common sense, you're even more shot away than I thought...I've heard it referred to as suspect-blindness and I'm afraid this post leads me to believe you've got it.

Sorry mate

Dave