The Mizen scam

[Monty]

Yes Phil,

I had confused you with another, sorry.

Monty

[Lechmere]

Monty
Don't be so quick on the draw!

Sally
It has been mused several times before that perhaps Cross/Lechmere just wanted a quiet life.
Maybe that explains why he was ready to abandon a woman who he thought may have just been unconscious after having been raped.
Maybe that's why he may have misled Mizen. Or was that because he was poor? Actually what we know of him and of Paul suggests that neither were 'poor'. They were solid working class people.
But if he wanted to keep out of it why attend the inquest - if innocent why not lie low like Paul tried to do?
By the way he did touch Polly's body - he just refused to prop he up - maybe because he didn't want to get involved? Or because he was worried the wounds would become apparent?

Moonbeggar
We can deduce that the Lechmere children didn't know their dad was involved in the case, so why would the children in Doveton Street know?
And to prick your **** sparrer cozy East End image, in 1888 most East Enders were first generation - like Charlie Lechmere. Very few were East End born and bred. It was a new community that had just experienced a phenomenal population growth. In such circumstances many districts of the East End were very anonymous then.
On top of that there were large newly arrived immigrant groups who stood out like sore thumbs as being 'alien'.
It was a transient place.
The East End of folklore had yet to be established in most districts that made up the 'East End'.

[Lechmere]

That should be cocksparrer - that c word is always rendered ****

[Phil Carter]

That should be cocksparrer - that c word is always rendered ****

Well now me old china,

speaking in reference to 'most East Enders being 1st generation', in my particular case, of the two grandparents on my mother's side, my gran's family tree down to her 4 grandparents all were East Enders, 3 of which all follow back at least one and up to 3 more generations back in the East End.
On Grandad's(Mum's Dad) side two of his 4 grandparents are of East End stock and both go back at least 2 more generations.

i have lines going back to the early to mid 1700's of East Enders on grans father's side and late 1700's on grandads father's side.
East End being, in my case, Whitechapel, Shoreditch, Hoxton, Haggerston, Spitalfiekds, Bow, Hackney, Bethnal Green,
Another line are firmly ensconsed in Southwark before mixing with those from Shoreditch.

It wasnt before my Gran and some of her siblings were grown up that they moved away from the area as grown ups. 2 of her siblings never moved out of the area even when the 2nd World War caused so much havoc. Gran was the youngest of 9 chìldren, born in 1888.

Im sure that many families were like this.
The fabric weavers and the furniture makers of the 1700's made the East End very popular.
But you are quite correct that there were many 1st generation families in the area in 1888.

Best wishes

Phil

[Sally]

Phil -

I know all about 'glass barriers' as you so charmingly put it. I don't see any here.

I don't think the reluctance of many contributing to this thread has much to do with pre-conceived notions or with them having their own favourite suspect.

I fear it has more to do with there being no evidence of guilt. The Crossmere 'theory' relies entirely on their being a fundamental assumption of guilt in order to carry any weight. This is why the arguments in favour of Cross The Ripper must naturally tend to be circular in nature.

If you start with the conclusion, what good is any theory?

In response to your post I would also add that:

The 'newness' of an idea doesn't necessarily give it any merit (in this case the idea is not new in any case)

Revisionism is a natural response to a failure to obtain answers, but is treacherous ground. Unless one has new data with which to support the reinterpretation, its a fool's game.

Nice to see you here Phil, I hope you are well

[Lechmere]

Need I mention this?
Unfortunately yes!

There is no 'evidence of guilt' against a single Jack the Ripper suspect or to stretch that further, no 'evidence of guilt' against any single individual for any one of the 'Whitechapel Murders'.
Does that mean that discussion about potential suspects is an illegitimate exercise?
I would say no.
As for Cross/Lechmere - in my opinion a compelling rounded case can be made against him Utilising every known fact that we have at our disposal.

[Phil Carter]

'There is no 'evidence of guilt' against a single Jack the Ripper suspect or to stretch that further, no 'evidence of guilt' against any single individual for any one of the 'Whitechapel Murders'.
Does that mean that discussion about potential suspects is an illegitimate exercise?
I would say no. '

Hello Lechmere,

Like this, and parts of Phil H's post too. Both show an open view.

Best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

Discussion and accusation are two differing beasts.

The case against Cross does indeed rely on assumption, which has been admitted.

Discussion about potential suspects is fine, and progressive. I find that is only the case amongst students who have no suspect to promote, otherwise it falls off the cliff, rapidly.

Monty

[Lechmere]

Human nature is such that the motivation to delve into someone's background is usually motivated by the desire to catch them out and prove a point.
Without that desire most of 'Ripperology' wouldn't exist.

[moonbegger]

Lechmere

We can deduce that the Lechmere children didn't know their dad was involved in the case

How can We ? A considerably large chunk of time has elapsed , four or five generations on , just because some children choose not to carry with them things they may or may not have heard when they was very young and passed it on through the generations i don't think we can discount what they may or may not have experienced .. Especially if their dad Charles wished to put it firmly behind him as there is every indication that he did .

so why would the children in Doveton Street know

Because their folks would have read the papers .. The address would have stood out to all in Doveton street and the surrounding area.

And to prick your **** sparrer cozy East End image, in 1888 most East Enders were first generation - like Charlie Lechmere. Very few were East End born and bred. It was a new community that had just experienced a phenomenal population growth. In such circumstances many districts of the East End were very anonymous then.

And was Doveton street one of these streets mainly populated by new immigrants ? or was it a street with a strong back bone and a sense of East End community yet to come ? As far back as my ol great gran dad's stories go the East End has always had the tradition of welcoming folk into a new street . when you moved into a new street you automatically became part of the community , a community that all looked out for each other . there was very few secrets , especially if your name and address ( Charles ? of 22 Doveton street ) is splashed all over the local paper and linked to a major murder inquiry !

On top of that there were large newly arrived immigrant groups who stood out like sore thumbs as being 'alien'.
It was a transient place.
The East End of folklore had yet to be established in most districts that made up the 'East End'.

Fair point .. i agree the early East End was an immigration melting pot .

cheers ,

Moonbegger

[Mr Lucky]

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.]

Hi Moonbegger

A few? you've given us one, The Star of the 3rd, Have you got any more ?

Thanks in advance

[Rubyretro]

Human nature is such that the motivation to delve into someone's background is usually motivated by the desire to catch them out and prove a point.
Without that desire most of 'Ripperology' wouldn't exist.

I am actually interested in the people involved in the case, and their backgrounds, whether or not they were a victim or the potential killer. I think that it is because of an amalgam of being interested in people in general and also being interested in social history (it probably ties in with my love of traditional English folk music ). I would be fascinated to read all the details about any of the characters that we meet in this case (the 'back stories').

I wouldn't be as interested in people that I hadn't 'met', but because they were involved in this case they have at least one thing to interest me in their lives before discovering anything else.

However, there are two other considerations :

-the first is that when reading around the Ripper history, I think that it is impossible not to start to form opinions and have suspects that we favour above others; That's ' human nature'. I would think that the person that claims to be 'neutral' and not favour one suspect above another is just plain lying -if only to themselves. Unless we have no personality or character, we know what colours we prefer, what food, what films etc etc -we make preferences, and 'neutral' when we come to suspects is a load of baloney.

-the second is that whilst I'm not a researcher (*yet* she said ominously), if I were going to spend time and money, my interest would rather be in the main protagonists (for me) than in a backwater (unless I were seriously rich and had all my time to spend). It's like thinking that you may discover the Holy Grail rather than another bit of clay pipe (interesting as that is).

I think that suspectology is when you actually dig up something/someone which/who looks like the Holy Grail. It's exciting (well -to Me. My friends find it 'sad'). It is obvious that there needs to be much debate.

Obviously there is rivalry when two researchers are both convinced that they have the true Grail...but that rivalry to go one better is what ultimately drives the field forward. Competition is a motivation.

...and feisty debates are entertainment. They are like logic puzzles to participate in, and more fun to read rather than something neutral and polite.

I am certain that suspectology and competiton may well yield the most interesting new research yet.

Is that agreeing with you, or not Lechmere ? I don't know. It's probably more nuanced. Or else I'm less concise and more of a waffler !

(yes, well it was a bit garbled..and I'm too lazy to rewrite..I hope that my meaning came across).

[Fisherman]

I think that all we have to do is to ask ourselves what the reactions of a modern police force would be, if they were faced with a parallel situation to the one the Met had with Lechmere.

They have a guy, Mr X, on record who they know has been alone with a murdered woman, but they do not know for how long. They therefore try to establish this.

First, they find out that Mr X seemingly has a period of time unaccounted for, enough to have commited the murder. In such a case, they will ask the man about this discrepancy, and put him under pressure to find out exactly what he has done during the crucial minutes.

If it transpires under the research the police does on Mr X, that four other murder victims, who have been killed under very similar circumstances and in a manner that speaks of a connection inbetween the deeds, have actually fallen prey along routes the police know that Mr X have frequented on a regular basis, then the interest in the man will increase dramatically.

If we add to this that Mr X is suddenly found out to have lied about his name - his true identity is instead Mr Y - then we need to imagine a police force that starts regarding Mr Y as their main lead in the case.

And so the police delve deeper into their suspect, and what happens? It transpires that Mr Y has actually been in contact with the police on the murder night, on which occasion he has blatantly lied to them, and this lie has all the traits of a lie manufactured to steer any police interest away from his person. Not only that, the lie has also served to con the police to such an extent that Mr Y was not even searched for a weapon, in spite of his having been alone with a murder victim - but the police were not told this, since the lie he served them skilfully avoided mentioning the extent of his involvement, instead giving the impression that he had only played a very small and apparently innocent role.

Will anybody seriously claim that the police would not be very enthusiastic about the possibility that they had their killer under lock and bolt at that stage? Just as the case is with Lechmere, they would have no proof at all, and all of the factors pointing to Mr Y as the killer COULD have innocent explanations - but would that make the police less interested in Mr Y?

This is the kind of case we have against Lechmere - and I havent even used all the details invoilved in his case, leaving out the propping up business, the pulled down clothing etc.

Any police force worth their salt would subject a suspect like Mr Y to very harsh interrogations, and any police force worth their salt would do so because the circumstances would imply to them that they had found their killer - or a man in dire need of some very good alternative explanations.

This is all very basic, very simple - and still it is regarded as extremely provocative by a number of posters. It is like swearing in the church, for some reason.

One cannot help but to wonder why.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Unfortunately a modern police force may well ignore such a suspect. And rue the consequences.
The staggering thing is that some posters on here refuse to admit that there is anything remotely suspcious about Cross/Lechmere.

Frau Retro
Cut through the waffle and you are agreeing with everything I said - as usual.

[Phil Carter]

I think that all we have to do is to ask ourselves what the reactions of a modern police force would be, if they were faced with a parallel situation to the one the Met had with Lechmere.

They have a guy, Mr X, on record who they know has been alone with a murdered woman, but they do not know for how long. They therefore try to establish this.

First, they find out that Mr X seemingly has a period of time unaccounted for, enough to have commited the murder. In such a case, they will ask the man about this discrepancy, and put him under pressure to find out exactly what he has done during the crucial minutes.

If it transpires under the research the police does on Mr X, that four other murder victims, who have been killed under very similar circumstances and in a manner that speaks of a connection inbetween the deeds, have actually fallen prey along routes the police know that Mr X have frequented on a regular basis, then the interest in the man will increase dramatically.

If we add to this that Mr X is suddenly found out to have lied about his name - his true identity is instead Mr Y - then we need to imagine a police force that starts regarding Mr Y as their main lead in the case.

And so the police delve deeper into their suspect, and what happens? It transpires that Mr Y has actually been in contact with the police on the murder night, on which occasion he has blatantly lied to them, and this lie has all the traits of a lie manufactured to steer any police interest away from his person. Not only that, the lie has also served to con the police to such an extent that Mr Y was not even searched for a weapon, in spite of his having been alone with a murder victim - but the police were not told this, since the lie he served them skilfully avoided mentioning the extent of his involvement, instead giving the impression that he had only played a very small and apparently innocent role.

Will anybody seriously claim that the police would not be very enthusiastic about the possibility that they had their killer under lock and bolt at that stage? Just as the case is with Lechmere, they would have no proof at all, and all of the factors pointing to Mr Y as the killer COULD have innocent explanations - but would that make the police less interested in Mr Y?

This is the kind of case we have against Lechmere - and I havent even used all the details invoilved in his case, leaving out the propping up business, the pulled down clothing etc.

Any police force worth their salt would subject a suspect like Mr Y to very harsh interrogations, and any police force worth their salt would do so because the circumstances would imply to them that they had found their killer - or a man in dire need of some very good alternative explanations.

This is all very basic, very simple - and still it is regarded as extremely provocative by a number of posters. It is like swearing in the church, for some reason.

One cannot help but to wonder why.

All the best,
Fisherman

Hello Christer,

As you know I try to hold an open mind. This post is, to me, excellent. It won't wash in some quarters of course for varying reasons depending on the poster.

Your frustration shown by the 'swearing in church' comment I, and no doubt some others, can relate to. For some, nothing is allowed to change the accepted way of things because presented and well defined logical presentation can never be allowed to outpoint 'the facts as we have them', the 'lack of evidential factual official paper material' and the conclusions of those deamed most worthy of keeping Ripperology going on in the same old way.
And God forbid you suggest that any policeman MAY have dropped a major clanger on duty!

A modern case in point. A 12 year old girl went missing whilst visiting her gran a èw days ago. The police diverted many from Olympic duty to deal with the case.
Having searched the grandmother's home, enormous resources are set in motion to find the girl.

A few days later the grans boyfriend goes missing and the police decide to search the house again. Whereupon a body is found in the loft, wrapped up.
All hell breaks loose in the media asking how the body could have been missed the first time around. The reason given for this lapse?
' Human Error'....
The man who went awol has fortunately been located, arrested and charged.
Now, policemen are indeed human. They do indeed make seemingly simple mistakes. Throughout history there have been such examples. But, woe betide you if you suggest it in the case of Jack the Ripper! Swearing in church indeed!

It even spreads to EX policemen writing memoirs. They cannot lie, and can always be assumed to have told us the honest truth without embellishment. If Walter Dew was pivotal in supporting a surpect theory, as well as his writings we know of, faulty or not, then Walter Dew's writings would be another sacred cow and the mistakes and faulty facts in the rest of his book would be pooh poohed away with any number of excuses and reasons. But Walter Dew's recollections are today considered as poor quality, if only he'd have said that it was a Polish Jew called Mr ??????ski.

Yes. You can only wonder why.
The methodology of study in this case must never be allowed to change, Christer. It would do way too much damage- both to the genre and some suspect posssibly a few reputations and egos.
But should you even suggest that, well, that would only be classed as being 'disrespectful'. imagine if you had actually unequivicably nailed Cross as a killer? Even if it were just Polly! Chaos would ensue!
Carry on Christer young man. Great post.

Best wishes

Phil