The Mizen scam

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"the point I argue isn't strange or perverse as you seem intent on implying. "

Iīm implying no such thing. I have myself said that the position the clothing was in could have been below or over the pubic area, and it would have been possible to accept a description like "almost up at the stomach" just the same. At the end of the day, however, strictly factually, the stomach starts after the pelvic brim, and - once again strictly factually - it therefore applies that no positioning ABOVE the pelvic brim could be - strictly factually - be described as being "almost up at the stomach".
Likewise, even if (and thatīs an uncomfirmable "if") the clothing was not below but instead over the stomach to some extent as you suggest - and as I agree COULD have been the case - it STILL applies that the clothing would have been pulled down over the wounds, even if there is an outside chance that it (the clothing) did not cover them entirely. The better - and strictly factually grounded - view would be that the wounds to the abdomen WERE covered, though.

That does not make you strange or perverse, Dave - but it makes you most probably wrong.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"Frankly Christer, and it pains me to say so, if you're reduced to this kind of sarcasm and ridicule in order to support your case, I'm afraid it doesn't say much for the quality of your evidence."

I think you need to consider, Dave, that the sarcasm built into this post of mine was courtesy of the nay-sayers. I have used only alternative options to Lechmereīs behaviour that have been offered by that group of people, nothing else. Not only that, I have actually used the best suggestions they have been able to offer. And I have done so for a reason - to give perspective.

If you think that it is ridiculing, then ponder the fact that much as I pulled the trigger, you and the rest who have argued against the Lechmere proposition, are the ones who supplied the powder and the bullets.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"Why .. thank you Much Mr Fisherman ,
Perhaps you would be so good as to shine a little light on this also .
Lechmere :
"I do believe I was the first to raise the prospect that it was slightly possible that Cross may have called himself Cross when he started at Pickfords in 1868, However I then thought that he had given his name to Mizen and was possibly in 'work mode' - but now we know he gave his name at a later date when he wasn't in 'work mode'.
I am failing to see the significance in ( in work mode ) as opposed to ( out of work mode ) When he openly informs them anyway he was in work mode on the morning in question . "

It does not revolve around any "morning in question", Moonbegger - it revovles around an EVENING in question. And it is not about Friday, it is about SUNDAY.

Lechmere (the poster) is trying to get across to you that he was ORIGINALLY of the meaning that Lechmere (the purported killer) gave the name "Cross" to Mizen on Friday morning - when being in "work mode". But after that, it has surfaced - courtesy of the Echo - that Mizen did NOT take the names on Friday morning, believing that another copper had already taken care of this.

Instead, Lechmere (the purported killer) did not give his name until on Sunday evening, when he reported in to the cop shop. And at that stage, he would no longer be in any "work mode".

I hope that this clears away the fog, Moonbegger.

All the best,
Fisherman

[caz]

Surely if he was known as Lechmere at work .. he would not have given his name as Cross ( unless he was just asking to be suspected ) it makes no sense whatsoever

Spot on, moonbegger.

In short, if this is what he did, in the hope of 'misleading' the police (still don't know how that works - it would only have misled them about what he usually called himself, not who he was, or where he could be found if needed), then he got away with murder despite 'just asking to be suspected' and clearly not because he was Brain of Britain.

It would be funny if it wasn't quite so scary that a case is being made against someone for a whole series of ghastly murders, using a whole series of assumptions. The whole house of cards falls down if he was ever known at work as Cross, therefore the assumption has to be that he was always known at work as Lechmere - which makes the sudden change to Cross when dealing with the police truly and utterly senseless. This in turn makes it essential to assume that he did it, not for fear of the cops suspecting him and watching him day and night (silly me, serial killers have no such fears), but for fear of his wife suspecting him. Bizarre.

.. I think the very fact that Thomas Cross was a Bobby on the beat would have meant he could have landed his step son a job in a whole variety of businesses and work opportunities .. not just limited to one trade . In fact Thomas cross would have been in the perfect position to tout his step son to local business traders who he would have conversed with on a daily basis .

Makes total sense to me, moonbegger.

Love,

Caz
X

[Rubyretro]

Oh contraire .. I think the very fact that Thomas Cross was a Bobby on the beat would have meant he could have landed his step son a job in a whole variety of businesses and work opportunities .. not just limited to one trade . In fact Thomas cross would have been in the perfect position to tout his step son to local business traders who he would have conversed with on a daily basis .

moonbegger[/QUOTE]

I think that I shall answer this one in 'Moonbegger Mode' -
-but he might well have been mute or horribly unfriendly or have suffered from depression, or have had such bad b.o. that no one would speak to him.
So many people in the East End were/did (it makes perfect sense !).

Therefore, there would have been no conversation and nobody would have ever employed his step son on his say so.

(Gosh ! that was easy ! I think that I'll just argue like you, more often ! Why stick to boring old facts when you have a creative imagination , eh ?).

ps I will try to answer your other point now..

[Rubyretro]

"they were baptised in the name of Lechmere after Thomas Cross married their mother"

Does this not fly in the face of your post to me ?

" I think that illegitimacy carried a stigma at the time, and it would have been (as Lechmere -the Rottweiler) pointed out, extremely embarrassing for those children to be known as Lechmere at school, if the man that their mother was living with was known as Cross."

moonbegger .[/QUOTE]

[Rubyretro]

"they were baptised in the name of Lechmere after Thomas Cross married their mother"

Does this not fly in the face of your post to me ?

" I think that illegitimacy carried a stigma at the time, and it would have been (as Lechmere -the Rottweiler) pointed out, extremely embarrassing for those children to be known as Lechmere at school, if the man that their mother was living with was known as Cross."

moonbegger .

[/QUOTE]

Yes, of course this sounds a bit confused, superficially. However, (you knew this was coming, didn't you...), it is actually quite different.

Chas clearly wasn't illigetimate, since his parents were married, and all the neighbours of the address where he was born, and during his mother's preganancy , would know that the father was Lechmere. Therefore it is obvious that Mum was going to baptise baby Chas as Lechmere..even if Dad had slung his hook ; she would hardly want to appear a slut, would she ? -most especially if she wasn't.

The baby Serial Killer must have been known as ‘baby Lechmere ‘from the off. The neighbours knew that Cross wasn’t the progenitor, and Mum had a legal right to call her son by his father’s name, and protect her honour, and her son’s.

Lechmere (the ferocious canine), says that Pater Lechmere would have had his name down at the christening, even if he wasn't there (even if he were dead).

So would she have sent Chas to school as Cross , when he was known everywhere as Lechmere , even if she was now known to be ‘married’ to Thomas Cross ? Actually, probably not.

If Lechmere ( the killer) had been known his whole life as Lechmere (even at school), it really makes it so much more likelier that he used the name Lechmere all his life, and sent his kids to school as ‘Lechmere’ (for the reasons that I’ve stated –and more so if he rejected his stepfather and so unreasonably idealised his real father in rebellion), even if the name ‘Cross’ had been foisted upon him at an age where he had no control over what was written down.

I have to say, Moonbegger, that I have had doubts about Crossmere –and have not been hung up on the name change …but you are convincing me that there really was something nefarious about him choosing to give the police that name –that simply wasn’t his..

[caz]

"Again, you use this circular argument..."

Again, you bring criticism up that has been answered. What is this???

Hi Fishy,

Hmmm, so you think you have 'answered' anything by simply repeating the same old circular argument? Every time you do it, you must expect to be criticised. It doesn't help the case against Cross; it merely shows how little you have to throw at him by way of actual evidence.

You see, I can say exactly the same thing: if Cross was the killer everything worked for him like clockwork because the police apparently never suspected him and the killer was never caught. Wow. No shi* Sherlock. Must have been him then.

But wait - it works for every man under the sun you care to name, who was never suspected and had no alibi.

Watch and learn:

If A, B, C, X, Y or Z was the killer everything worked for him like clockwork because the police apparently never suspected him and the killer was never caught. Must have been A, B, C, X, Y or Z then.

Now do you see the true value of your circular argument? And will it stop you repeating it?

By making them believe that the man they spoke to was called Cross, whereas he was in fact no such thing. Coupled with a hope not to be checked out and a decision that if this failed, he would have had some sort of a coupling to that name just the same, it adds up to misleading.

Yes, but to what end?

What was the benefit of misleading the police into thinking he was Cross, if he was Lechmere to everyone else under the sun? He was still known to the police as the man who 'discovered' the murder victim, so why give himself the possible grief of having to explain where Cross came from, and then having to come up with an innocent explanation for concealing his real name from the police?

"Why on earth would I have meant that ‘people in general’ would make themselves scarce if they stumbled across a murder victim? "

What I was discussion was whether MURDERERS in general would make themselves scarce in a situation like this. You should read more slowly and with a bit more common sense.

You should have written MURDERERS IN GENERAL then, instead of PEOPLE IN GENERAL, because PEOPLE IN GENERAL are not MURDERERS, are they? You were saying that not being a serial killer, I couldn't possibly imagine what one would do. Well I'm happy to inform you that I'm not a murderer in general either, so presumably I can't imagine what they would do either.

"Incidentally, if you are right about Cross conning Paul into going on to work so he could spin Mizen a line and not be overheard doing it (because Paul would know he was lying, right?), why would he have reported a woman lying in Buck’s Row at all, knowing he had just murdered and mutilated her there?"

Because Paul had met him, walked with him, talked to him - and would be able to point him out. If he had lied totally to Mizen ABOUT SOMETHING PAULD COULD CONFIRM OR DENY, he would have been in a jam when the police got wind of it.

Like the fact that Paul COULD DENY that he and Cross had been sent to fetch Mizen by a policeman at the scene? How much of a jam was Cross in when the police got wind of that bare-faced lie to Mizen?

"What was the worst that Paul could have done if he found out later? He apparently found out anyway that Cross had told the copper a bare-faced lie, so what was the difference? "

If Paul took any interest at all in Lechmereīs and Mizenīs testimony, how would he know that a lie had been produced? If, as I presume, he was not close enough to hear what Lechmere told Mizen, how would he know that Lechmere had spoken of another PC? Why would he not - as did all the people at the inquest - just surmise that Mizen had gotten it wrong?

Will your "common sense" produce a good answer to that point, I wonder, Caz?

In that case, my point remains. If Paul just surmised that Mizen was mistaken, Cross could have said whatever he liked to Mizen and Paul would have been even less likely to cause him any problems. Mizen need never have been told about Nichols, and Paul would then have had the devil's own job if he was bothered enough to try and find out what Cross had really said to the copper.

Love,

Caz
X

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

We can parse the Mizen encounter a simpler way, and all without implicating Cross/Lechmere.

After finding Polly Nichols, Cross and Paul "passed on with the intention of informing the first constable they met . . ." That constable was PC Mizen, who was "at the corner of Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street . . ." [Abberline, 19th September report].

Cross and Paul did not encounter PC Neil. Had they done so, there would have been no reason for PC Neil not to report the incident.

Lloyds Weekly News, 2nd September 1888—

"Despite the policeman's [PC Neil] assertion that he was the first to discover the body, Mr. Paul last night [Saturday] repeated the statement made to our representative on Friday evening that he and another man found the corpse long before the police. He says the policeman he spoke to [PC Mizen] was not belonging to that beat. Every word he had said was true."

At 3.45 am, the time at which PC Neil claimed to have discovered the body of Polly Nichols, Robert Paul was walking up Bucks Row and Charles Cross was standing by the body.

The two scenarios are incompatible.

All things considered, PC Neil appears to have been elsewhere at this crucial time, perhaps enjoying a cup of tea with PC Thain and the slaughtermen at Harrison Barber, two of whom "were first to arrive on the scene after I had discovered the body . . ." yet strangely " . . . knew nothing of the affair" [PC Neil, inquest testimony].

However, PC Mizen's story about being told he was "wanted by a policeman in Bucks Row" and PC Thain's story about being signalled by a police lantern at exactly 3.45 am put PC Neil in the right place at the right time.

Were the cops covering for one another in this murderous embarrassment? Perhaps. It stacks up, and sure beats trying to accuse an innocent man of multiple murder.

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"Spot on, moonbegger."

Spot off, actually.

Surely if he was known as Cross at his job, Caz, that would be because he called himself Cross. And surely a man that calls himself Cross would not sign himself Lechmere.

Now, THAT is spot on!

"In short, if this is what he did, in the hope of 'misleading' the police (still don't know how that works - it would only have misled them about what he usually called himself, not who he was, or where he could be found if needed), then he got away with murder despite 'just asking to be suspected' and clearly not because he was Brain of Britain."

How is calling yourself Cross "asking to be suspected"? And no matter how he would fare in a "Brain of Britain"-competition, we can see that he was apparently NOT suspected. Meaning that in the choice of "yes" or "no" to the question "Will calling myself Cross have me suspected", "no" was the correct answer.
Would have earned him a useful point in that brain-competition, thus!

"It would be funny if it wasn't quite so scary that a case is being made against someone for a whole series of ghastly murders, using a whole series of assumptions. "

The only scary thing about that is the suggestions for alternative explanations - they would keep a brave man awake at nights. By the bye, it is not "assumed" that there was a name confusion. It is not "assumed" that he was in Buckīs Row too late. It is not "assumed" that he lied to Mizen. It is not "assumed" that he refused to prop Nichols up. It is not "assumed" that her clothes were pulled dow. These are all realities. Assuming anything else is wrong.

"The whole house of cards falls down if he was ever known at work as Cross"

Excuse me? Would you not agree that the name swop suggestion falls down if this was the case - but nothing else? The Mizen scam, the pulled down clothing, the late arrival in Buckīs Row, the choice to take the long road in spite of his professed lateness - surely you donīt believe that they will go away if it was confirmed that he called himself Cross when speaking to some people but not to others...? Woukld the geographical connection between him and the murder sites somehow change? Donīt think so.

Oh, and by the way: Can we wait until we get that confirmation before we start speaking of falling card-houses? You see, so far not a single card has even trembled in the faint wind. It is as if them cards are tightly glued together, growing stronger and more durable with every failed objection, for some reason.

All the best, Caz!
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Hi Caz ,

" If A, B, C, X, Y or Z was the killer everything worked for him like clockwork because the police apparently never suspected him and the killer was never caught. Must have been A, B, C, X, Y or Z then "

I think we you on to something here , especially if we can find out if this
A,B,C,X,Y,Z fellow had an alternative name .. something like ALPHABET !

Those Pesky A,B,C's or as they sometimes call themselves ALPHABET , surely deserve a place on the suspect list

moonbegger .

[moonbegger]

Hello Fisherman ,

"ponder the fact that much as I pulled the trigger, you and the rest who have argued against the Lechmere proposition, are the ones who supplied the powder and the bullets"

Sounds alot like the excuse the SS concentration camp officers gave to the World in 1945 ..

Or to quote a leading Colorado newspaper .. " all we need is another trigger happy fool pointing his gun at innocent people "

Before you pull any trigger Fish , be certain of your target and aim well .

I'm still not convinced you should even have a gun licence


moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

Caz:

" it works for every man under the sun you care to name, who was never suspected and had no alibi."

Brilliant, Caz! The only catch is that not every man under the sun had stood alone by the body, had lied about his name, had lied to a PC, etcetera. And that is precisely why Lechmere fits that bill better than the rest. All of them, actually.

But this you fail to see. You keep speaking of theoretically circular arguments and present theoretical models that have no bearing on the case. If that is all you have to bring to the table, then enjoy your fifteen minutes of Kindergarten fame - and then try and discuss the SPECIFIC case at hand! For in that case, we KNOW that he used a name when speaking to the police that he never used in other contacts with the authorities, and we KNOW that he lied to Mizen, if the latter was spot on. We likewise KNOW that the police did not suspect him and we have the best indications possible that he was never checked out. We therefore KNOW that - much as you call him an idiot - NO MATTER IF THESE DETAILS WERE NEFARIOUS OR NOT, they STILL did not make the police pick up on them.

That is what I am saying, and I am saying it from a strictly case-related perspective, nothing else. To say that all killers that have slipped away throughout history have acted in a smart manner would be another thing altogether, since THAT would be a circular argument, owing to the fact that we would not be going by the case-specific details when saying a generalized thing like that.

Now, Caz, you may grasp this or you may not. I really donīt care much, although I would prefer option 1. In any case it still applies that it has no bearing at all on the overall question - it is just a tedious, tiresome, useless way to disrupt what has all the makings of a useful discussion. Make of that what you want.

"What was the benefit of misleading the police into thinking he was Cross, if he was Lechmere to everyone else under the sun?"

The benefit would be that his wife ALSO had him down as Lechmere - as has been stated over and over and over and over again. But feel free to ask again!

There could actually also be other benefits - but marketing them involves a good deal of conjecture, and that really is more your department than mine. Give it some afterthought and you may get what I am pondering. Riddle of the week!

"You should have written MURDERERS IN GENERAL then"

But I WAS discussing murderers, Caz - and I suggested that it was useless to try and apply our own thought processes on a serial killer, since it would lead us to believe that they would react like we would. Donīt confuse things - read once more and THEN comment when you are clear on the matter.

"Like the fact that Paul COULD DENY that he and Cross had been sent to fetch Mizen by a policeman at the scene? How much of a jam was Cross in when the police got wind of that bare-faced lie to Mizen?"

That he could! Robert Paul would have been dead certain that no PC had sent him and Cross to fetch Mizen. That is the truth, Caz!

... but you are still not comprehending what I am saying, which is partly sad and partly tedious. It means that I need to explain it all over again.

Yes, Paul would be able to blow that lie at any time. But have you not noticed, Caz, has it escaped you, do you not see the implications of, can you not appreciate that Lechmere ALSO "blew" the lie, all by himself? Huh?

Therefore, if Paul had stood at Lechmereīs side at the inquest, he would have indignantly supported what LECHMERE said, and NOT what Mizen claimed. He would have been able to support Lechmere onehundred per cent - Lechmere would NOT have had any reason to say that a PC awaited Mizen, for there was effectively no PC in Buckīs Row as they left!!!
The key, Caz, is to realize that if Lechmere fed Mizen this lie, then it would have been of paramount essence to him that Paul was not around to hear it. And Mizen tells us VERY clearly that it was not two, but ONE man that spoke to him, just as the Echo strengthens this scenario by telling us that "the other man" walked down Hanbury Street - no mentioning of the two carmen travelling together at that stage!

Do you follow what I am suggesting here, Caz? Do you realize why I donīt think that Paul would be of any value here - because he had not heard what Lechmere told Mizen. Do you?

"If Paul just surmised that Mizen was mistaken, Cross could have said whatever he liked to Mizen and Paul would have been even less likely to cause him any problems. Mizen need never have been told about Nichols"

You are letting yourself down badly, Caz. Lechmere could NOT say what he wanted to Mizen, since he and Paul had agreed to tell a PC of their find. Therefore Lechmere needed to con Mizen to get past him, and he needed to con him in a manner that he could not allow Paul to take part of. But as for the rest, he needed to be as true to the agreement he had made with Paul as possible.
Have as look, if you will, at the propping up business. It was a thing that did not speak favourably of Lechmere, and still he chose to tell about it at the inquest. And why? Exactly - because he thought that Paul would tell the story when he witnessed, and thus it was better to take care of that part himself.

He needed to carefully weigh all the pros and cons of mentioning, holding back, lying, changing, etcetera. He could afford to take some risks - he for example tells us that Paul had told Mizen that he was sure that the woman was dead, whereas I believe that we can bank on Paul having said nothing at all to Mizen. And, of course, if Paul had called his cards on that score, then he could just have said "But did you not..? Or was that by the body..? Maybe Iīm confusing things?", and nobody would have been any the wiser. And if this was a chosen tactic by Lechmeres, then it would serve pretty well to tell the inquest that Mizen had been informed about the potential severity of the case, whereas I think Lechmere would have played things down very much on Friday morning, when informing the PC, in order to allow for a smoother transit past him.

Give the implications some afterthought, Caz, and try to do so from an angle where you assume that Lechmere WAS the killer. Then you will see how things fit like a glove. Promise!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Simon:

"At 3.45 am, the time at which PC Neil claimed to have discovered the body of Polly Nichols, Robert Paul was walking up Bucks Row and Charles Cross was standing by the body.

The two scenarios are incompatible."

Yes. Which is why we must accept that it was not EXACTLY 3.45. one or more of the participators of the drama had the time a minute or two wrong, but that is all. Nothing more serious than that. A timetable can easily be made where it all pans out nicely, especially if we choose Thomas Street for Neil instead of Bakerīs Row.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

My words:

""ponder the fact that much as I pulled the trigger, you and the rest who have argued against the Lechmere proposition, are the ones who supplied the powder and the bullets"

Yours:

"Sounds alot like the excuse the SS concentration camp officers gave to the World in 1945 .. "

That was just about all you have lacked up til now - a direct comparison inbetween me and the nazis.

Apart from being somewhat unsavoury, it is of course not a good comparison at any rate. It was not as if the SS stated that the allies had supplies the powder and bullets they used, was it.

So please explain what it is you find compelling in this comparison - and then try to start fresh on another note, and we will both come away from this discussion in a far better manner.

"Before you pull any trigger Fish , be certain of your target and aim well ."

That has already been taken care of. The result has me thinking I hit the bullīs eye. The compiled list of attempts to rescue Lechmere is -and I am being restrictive here - utterly ridiculous.

All the best,
Fisherman