The Mizen scam

[Sally]

I wonder if it's ever occurred that Crossmere may simply not have wanted to be involved? Some of his known actions are consistent with such a wish. It has been seen as (further) indications of his guilt that he refused to touch Nichol's body; perhaps wanted to keep his family out of the public eye; and apparently didn't talk about the events of that morning in later years.

Yeah. Well, while its all very well to live in fantasy-speculator world where every action has an equal and opposite indication of guilt, in the REAL world, finding a dead body - that later turns out to be a victim of the Whitechapel Fiend - is not everybody's idea of a good time.

However we may wish to pick over the bones of these crimes, those who actually lived through them might very well not have had the same desire - and understandably so.

By the way, if any of the Cross-fanciers knew a thing about East End poverty, we wouldn't have been having this protracted 'Mizen Scam' debacle to begin with.

But why spoil the fun?

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"your excuse for his name swap is lame "

I could say derogatory things about your gifts of understanding too. But I think it is better to be factual.

Charles Lechmere did give a name to the police that he did not use otherwise in his contacts with the authorities.

There is nothing lame in recognizing that we have an anomaly here, I think you may have to accept that.

After that, we can look for an explanation to that anomaly. Since I think he may have been the Whitechapel killer, it goes without saying that I think that there may be some element coupled to his nameswop, with the aim of helping Lechmere in some manner.

Now, he gave his correct address and workplace to the police. We can therefore see that his aim was not to make them believe that he was somebody else than a Pickfords carman living in Doveton Street. Ergo, the benefit he was hoping to get from using the name Cross would reasonably be something else.

So, lets ask ourselves, Moonbegger, what is it he does, this man Lechmere, if I am correct? He kills women, yes. And why does he do so? Presumably because he WANTS to do so. And do you want to quit doing what you enjoy? No, you donīt.
Then which precautions do you need to apply in order to be able to keep on killing? Exactly - you must stay undetected, because when detected, your killing comes to an end.

And is it only the police you need to stay away from? No, it is not - you need to keep all the people that would potentially report your killing to the authorities unknowing of your activities.

Am I making sense to you so far, Moonbegger?

Now, Charles Lechmere was married to Elizabeth Bostock. What was that marriage like? We donīt know. Lechmere may have been a good and caring husband. But he may likewise have tormented his wife.
He may have chit-chatted about everyday things with her on a daily basis. But he may likewise have told her that his ultimate dream was to clear the streets of Whitechapel from the scum that walked them.

The point being, Moonbegger, that we do not know to what degree Mrs Lechmere was aware of Mr Lechmereīs intents in life, his driving forces etcetera. But theoreticaly, she may have had very good reason to suspect that her husband would want to harm the prostitutes of Whitechapel, given the chance. We canīt tell. At any rate, he may well have recognized a dire need to keep her unknowing of what he did, if he was the killer.

Can you, Moonbegger, see that it would have benefited that cause immensely if Mrs Lechmere never found out that her husband had been the carman that found Polly Nichols dead body - by his own - unsubstantiated - admission?

Can you furthermore see that as he went in working clothes to the inquest, this fits in totally with such a suggestion?

Can you perhaps also see that if he had the double incentive of keeping both the police AND his wife and other aquaintances in the dark, then giving his real name to the police would be a stupid thing to do since it would entail his wife and aquaintances finding out, just as giving the wrong name, occupation and address would be potentially disastrous if the police did check him out? He must have known that this could happen - if he had been sure that they would not check him out, he could have given the name Donald Duck.

The only solution to this problem is to use a false name that your wife will not couple to you, enabling you to steer clear of that obstacle, but it must also be a name to which you have some sort of claim IF you are unlucky and the police check you out.

This is the ONLY solution that covers both aspects. To understand that, and to offer such a tailormade answer to a tricky riddle, is not lame - on the contrary, it is quite ingenious. It is a magic trick that seemingly was picked out of the same top hat as the Mizen scam, which is more of the exact same - you are faced with a riddle and you are given a limited amount of time to come up with an answer that maximizes your chances of staying undetected. The nameswop and the scam are in that respect very much related phenomenons.

"Just for one honest moment Fish.. take a step back , peel back a few of those layers of arrogance ( just a few , we've not got all day ) and ask yourself this question ...
When Lechmere does the math and adds up the weight of trouble and grief he could possibly be in by simply telling his wife that he found a dead body on his way to work ( she would have heard about it anyway from all number of folk , after all nothing suspicious there .. it was his route to work ) against the pandora's box of shite that could rain down upon him from high , by not telling her and, lying to the police , the newspapers ,everyone about his name !
Surely you must concede there is clearly a wealth of advantages in telling his wife, as opposed to not telling her and hoping she never finds out ."

I very much despise that "honest moment" remark you made Moonbegger. I have been nothing but totally honest from day one, and I intend to stay that way.

And, given what I have said in this post, I think that it is quite impossible to say that there would have been any advantages in telling his wife - I instead think that is an ignorant position to hold. You work from the assumption that she would not have had any reason to suspect him since before, but you are totally, totally ignorant on that score - as are we all.

What if he came home on the 6:th of August with blood on his sleeves, after having killed Tabram? What if his wife had become very wary of him at that stage?

Didnīt think of that?

What if his name swop was due to him having been under suspicion for some sort of sexual assault or foul play under the name of Lechmere? In such a case, it would not be very wise to spill the beans at the cop shop, would it?

Didnīt think of that?

There are lots of parameters hidden to us, Moonbegger. Some of us recognize this, while others donīt and start calling propositions that they are not able to fully understand the implications of "lame".

But thatīs how it goes, eh?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"I wonder if it's ever occurred that Crossmere may simply not have wanted to be involved? "

No, the rest of us are not as richly equipped intellectually as you are, and so you are the only one who has the might to think thoughts like this.

"if any of the Cross-fanciers knew a thing about East End poverty, "

But then, we donīt, do we? We do not have your superior knowledge and insights. We have to make do with what little we have in that department. Which is why I fear that we may never fully understand how much better it would be if everybody listened to you instead - we simply cannot grasp your subtle and clearminded views on the case. Itīs a rot, I know, but there you are.

The best,
Fisherman

[Mr Lucky]

So why exactly did he take the enormous risk of using a false name , and instantly becoming suspect number 1 ?

If Like you said he wasn't scared of his wife finding out , what was the big incentive for him in using a false name ? but at the same time giving his right home address , and work address ?

Hi Moonbegger

That a very good question, and I quite like your earlier point that he’s may have chosen the name Cross as his old step dad was a policeman. If cross has only turned up after Robert Pauls remarkable statement, he would need a reason for not coming forward previously. Fake indignation at what Robert Paul had said in the article about the policeman carrying on knocking up ("that not what happened!, my old dad was a copper, that other blokes making that up, I’m not standing for that, ect") might be a better reason than just saying ‘I wasn’t near that corpse, honest, I was in the middle of the road’.

He would been expecting for certain that the Police would check up on him .. and by some miracle they didn't the the press hound sleuths most definitely would have .. And of course there is no proof that they didn't anyway .. either or both of them !

The Star reporter may have had reason to checked him out, that’s may be why he listened carefully enough to Cross’s testimony to note his address. However this journalist wouldn’t have suspected Cross himself as he had just been given the hot tip about ‘leather apron’ by the women hanging around the mortuary yard on Friday afternoon.

[moonbegger]

Fisherman,

What if his name swop was due to him having been under suspicion for some sort of sexual assault or foul play under the name of Lechmere? In such a case, it would not be very wise to spill the beans at the cop shop, would it?

Didnīt think of that?

Actually you know what Fish .. I did , and i mentioned it way back in this thread ! ( i dont want to appear to be tedious or repetitive ) but seeing as you bring it up again .

Why would not something like this be the sole reason for his using a lesser known name .. to be fair , i simply mentioned that he may not wish to give them his name because of other misdemeanors he may have been involved with that were outside of the law .. It seems a far stretch that a man under suspicion for a sexual assault would hang about at a fresh kill looking to bluff his way out ...

I meant its a far stretch for ME and most , that he would have waited about ! of course for Team Lechmere it is the smart thing to do

"Just for one honest moment Fish.. take a step back , peel back a few of those layers of arrogance ( just a few , we've not got all day ) and ask yourself this question ...

I very much despise that "honest moment" remark you made Moonbegger. I have been nothing but totally honest from day one, and I intend to stay that way.

I neither see , nor meant any detrimental inference towards your honesty here fish .. maybe your just a little paranoid ( An honest moment is exactly that .. (an unbiased overview of a situation by both parties) but i forgive your ignorance like i hope you forgive mine occasionally .

Maybe as it seems in your answer , the question may have been a little outside of your comfort zone .. because you really did not take on board the ethics of the question .. Maybe in the East End of [team Lechmere] gossip never happened , neighbours never spoke to neighbours , no one was the least bit curious about the the fellow that found the body living a few doors down, Charlie the next door neighbour , the new family opposite , the bloke down the street ? Lechmere's kids never played with other kids in the street ( and we know how delicate children can be when repeating grown up conversations ) in the East End of [Team Lechmere] none of this occurred !

There is not proof that words were said to the effect of ( Oi was it your ol man Charlie what found the body ) or ( your dad found a body La,La,La,La)and so on , and so on .. the mere fact that these incidents were not chronicled does not mean they would not have happened. In the streets of East London or any other poor community in any other town for that matter.

But there is no documented evidence .. so we choose to look the other way and ignore it all together .. is that really the best option ?

you really have no understanding of how real people in a real city interact .. you would really do your case no harm at all by taking a trip to the East End and sitting down and chatting with some of the old folk over a cup of rosie lee.. there are still a few about who could shed a great deal of light on how East End folk interacted back in the day .

And, given what I have said in this post, I think that it is quite impossible to say that there would have been any advantages in telling his wife - I instead think that is an ignorant position to hold.

Now forgive me again !! but who is the Ignorant one here ?

cheers

moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

Monbegger:

"Why would not something like this be the sole reason for his using a lesser known name .."

It could be. Of course. And he could have scammed Mizen in order not to get to work too late. There could be a good explanation to his tardiness in getting to Buckīs Row. He could have gone to the inquest in working clothes because his wife was easily upset. He could have felt Nichols for warmth but denied to prop her up because he thought that he had done enough good as it was, for the moment, you know. And the clothes, having been pulled down over Nichols - that could have been the killer, somebody else than Lechmere, who just thought he ought to tidy things up before he scuttled off like a scared rabbit. First things first.

Actually, I have been saying this all along - each and every small detail that potentially points to foul play on his behalf could have benevolent explanations.
I have also been saying that the details are too many for me to accept that we should opt for him being a good guy just the same. My call is that he was probably NOT a good guy. And I stand by that.

"I neither see , nor meant any detrimental inference towards your honesty here fish .. maybe your just a little paranoid "

Oh no, Iīm not paranoid. I just think that asking me for honesty is uncalled for.

"Maybe in the East End of [team Lechmere] gossip never happened , neighbours never spoke to neighbours , no one was the least bit curious about the the fellow that found the body living a few doors down, Charlie the next door neighbour , the new family opposite , the bloke down the street ? Lechmere's kids never played with other kids in the street ( and we know how delicate children can be when repeating grown up conversations ) in the East End of [Team Lechmere] none of this occurred !"

You think so? I donīt. I think that the East End would have been the part of London where people knew more about each other than anywhere else. How that would ensure that each and everyone knew all the details of Lechmereīs behaviour and what he said to the police etcera, I donīt know. Arguably, the East End was also the part of London where you ran the greatest risk, statistically, to become a drunkenbolt - but not everybody did.
Outside my comfort zone? Laughable.

"There is not proof that words were said to the effect of ( Oi was it your ol man Charlie what found the body ) or ( your dad found a body La,La,La,La)and so on , and so on .. the mere fact that these incidents were not chronicled does not mean they would not have happened."

Have you noticed, Moonbegger, that we have no record of an orangutang learning to speak Swiss in Heneage Street that very autumn? Does not prove that it did not happen, though...
Iīm sorry, Moonbegger, but we need to be a bit realistic.

"you really have no understanding of how real people in a real city interact .. "

And that is strange, given that I have spent my entire life living in cities, just as I have spent a lot of time travelling to cities all over the world, London not least.

"You would really do your case no harm at all by taking a trip to the East End and sitting down and chatting with some of the old folk over a cup of rosie lee.. there are still a few about who could shed a great deal of light on how East End folk interacted back in the day . "

And better still, there are even books written on the subject. And not only have I read such books, but I have in fact also travelled to the East End on many occasions - last time over in November last year - and spoken to people there, old and young. It has not, however, convinced me that Lechmere could not have kept things secret. Sorry.

"Now forgive me again !! but who is the Ignorant one here ? "

Trust me, Moonbegger - you donīt want me to answer that one for you.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Phil Carter]

Hello Christer,

You wrote,
'I think the East End would be thd part of London where people knew more about each other more than anywhere else'

I would agree with this with perhaps one exception- namely outlying areas of Greater London that were rural and almost village like. The local church, the local market and the beer establishments being the central meeting points. I could mention outer West London in particular, being of this like.

The East End always had its own traditional way though. And people DID know about each other.

Best wishes

Phil

[moonbegger]

Fisherman ,

"There is not proof that words were said to the effect of ( Oi was it your ol man Charlie what found the body ) or ( your dad found a body La,La,La,La)and so on , and so on .. the mere fact that these incidents were not chronicled does not mean they would not have happened."

Have you noticed, Moonbegger, that we have no record of an orangutan learning to speak Swiss in Heneage Street that very autumn? Does not prove that it did not happen, though...
Iīm sorry, Moonbegger, but we need to be a bit realistic.

I think there is nothing laughable or unrealistic about my conjecture here , it seems perfectly within the realms of possibility .. on the other hand , you seem to throw in the same old ridiculous counter claim , probably a lame attempt at misdirection ..

And why would an Orangutan wish to learn to speak Swiss anyway .. i thought Darwin's evolutionary scale was all about taking the species forward ?

Cheers

moonbegger .

[Rubyretro]

Moonbegger,

I think there is nothing laughable or unrealistic about my conjecture here , it seems perfectly within the realms of possibility

.

But I am just wondering how the children would know that Lechmere/Cross had found the body, since the name Cross which appeared in the papers had nothing to do with the Lechmere children ? I shouldn't think that children would read many newspapers. Nor attend inquests.

As Lechmere's family didn't infact know that 'Charlie' had found the body, I assume that those gossipy children were too busy playing conkers to have passed anything on at all.

[moonbegger]

Hi Retro

A few leading London papers printed Crossmere's home address ..

The Star [Carmen Cross was the the next witness. He lived at 22 Doveton street, Cambridge-road. He was employed by Pickfords.]

Which would have been a main focal point for anyone living in and around Doveton street .. like i already mentioned everyone would have had something to say about it .. his next door neighbour , his neighbour's neighbour .. the people across the street .. the kids in the street .

It would not necessarily be his name Cross or Lechmere that would have been of interest.. it would have been the address in their very street that would have drawn the attention . and the passing remarks . That's the wife of Charles of 22 Doveton street who found the body .. or that's him , or that's the fella that found the body's kids .. people would have had something to say regardless .

cheers

moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"I think there is nothing laughable or unrealistic about my conjecture here , it seems perfectly within the realms of possibility .. "

It IS realistic, Moonbegger. That was not what I meant saying that we need to be realistic. That was directed to the suggestion that most people would have known all about what happened to Lechmere, not because this could not be so, but because we have no way at all to prove that it would have been like that. That is where I think you need to accept that your conjecture is inadmissible as any useful evidence.

Also, when discussing to what degree the neighbours would know all about Lechmere, we need to weigh in thet he was actually new to the area, having spent only ten weeks or so in the neighbourhood. That may well have affected how much the surrounding people knew about him. But just like your suggestion, it is something we cannot use as any laid down proof to work from. When we accept this, we are realistic.

"why would an Orangutan wish to learn to speak Swiss anyway .. i thought Darwin's evolutionary scale was all about taking the species forward ? "

Right then, Swedish it is!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"As Lechmere's family didn't infact know that 'Charlie' had found the body, I assume that those gossipy children were too busy playing conkers to have passed anything on at all."

A very fair point.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

In my absence from these boards, I have pondered Lechmere/Cross long and hard.

The more I do so, the more I find him a "strong" potential suspect (given the evidence we now have), for many of the reasons fisherman has so ably expounded.

My interest in another field has suggested to me that the best of us can be guilty of erecting "glass barriers" in our minds which restrict innovative or alternative thinking. So it has been brought to my attention recently that even professional Egyptologists seem to have taken a view that the heirs of Pharoahs were only born after they came to the throne, making some rulers VERY young when they came to power. Actually, of course, children can be born to a man at any time after he reaches manhood and recognising that opens doors that were previously closed; means that evidence can be assessed in new ways.

So in ancient Egypt, surviving inscriptions that appeared to relate to (say) a ten year old taking part in wars or lion hunts might suggest those events were merely symbolic in some way. But assume that the same king was in his late teens or early 20s when he took part in those same events, and they take on a different perspective.

So with Lechmere/Cross:

our glass barriers to thought might include:

* the number of victims ascribed to the killer
* the number of killers

so, what if more than one killer was at work, and what if only some of the victims were the work of a single hand? this might, given the location of the crimes, make a suspect more or less likely. It implies that we should perhaps reassess the victims in terms of where they were killed, and not how. Or consider whether (say) Stride and Kelly were victims of the same hand, or others off the beaten track (as with Pinchin St) might be included.

I recognise of course, that this becomes difficult for those with vested interests in one theory, one suspect or who don't like conventional wisdoms challenged.

But as historians is in not our duty to assess evidence in different ways, challenge older views, sift the evidence through riddles/sieves of different hole-size? Given that we are no nearer a solution today than ten years ago, should we not actively challenge assumptions, if only to see what new perspectives they open for us.

On that basis, I now regard myself as much more strongly interested than ever before in our man Lechmere/Cross - if only as a strawman to open areas for discussion and research.

I urge others to have an open mind.

Phil

[Monty]

Deleted

[Phil H]

Monty - why on earth should you sound offensive?

I see you subsequently deleted your remark. Ok, whatever.

Phil