The Mizen scam

[Fisherman]

Frank:

"From Mizen’s testimony alone it may seem that way, yes, but not from those of Cross and Paul. Cross stated they both spoke to Mizen and that’s what Paul states as well. "

Robert Paul delivered a newspaper interview in which he forgot to mention Lechmere beyond the touching of the body. After that he awarded himself the main role, leading on that he had taken all the decisions and that he alone had spoken to Mizen. At the inquest, he was somewhat humbled by the present authorities and told another story in many a way. There goes his credibility!

Lechmere was a liar, who gave the police an alias. There HIS credibility joins that of Robert Paul.

Mizen was a policeman, who had devoted himself to serving society. No matter how ambitious that sounds, this is what policemen are normally about. He had no reason at all to lie as far as we can tell, and he would probably not have misheard things to such an extent as to in retrospect award Lechmere the honour of having provided the Buck´s Row PC. Even if he did, it remains that Lechmere, if innocent, would have had absolutely no reason to speak in a passive manner about the woman HE had found, leading on that somebody else had done so. The clincher is that Mizen remarks, at the inquest, that "Cross" had not told him that it was a murder or a suicide.
Why was Mizen consternated by this? Lechmere told the inquest that it was too dark to see the blood, and so how could he have told Mizen? Exactly, he could not. But Mizen was of the meaning that Lechmere had told him that a PC awaited his help in Buck´s Row, and that PC would NOT have been oblivious of what had struck Nichols down! Therefore, Mizen points out that it was a strange thing that the carman did not alert him to the nature of the errand, probably to defend why he did not rush to the scene as fast as he could.

The devil is in the details, Frank!

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

candidacy

Hello Christer. Thanks.

“And I do see what you are getting at with the reciprocal medicine distribution! It has had me at some unease at times, because no matter how we look upon things, there are some major points of agreement in between the Hutchinson bid and the Lechmere ditto.”

Completely agree. And whilst I think that anything even approximating suspicious behaviour should be further investigated, I don’t see either man as very suspicious.

“If you had told me a year ago that I would spend my future arguing that a man went to the police by his own free will in order to save his behind, well, then I very much doubt that there would be a Lynn Cates posting on Casebook today. Ryanair is cheap and vengeance can be quick.”

Well, that makes two of us.

“But the fact of the matter is that I have very little doubt that Lechmere was the Ripper. Take, to accord with the intentions of the thread, the scam - did Mizen get it right at the inquest? I have no doubts that he did”

Alright. Let’s say Mizen was correct. I can live with that.

“ . . . the lie as such was so elaborate and thought through that no mishearing would, by chance, produce it. The chances are - in my opinion - next to immaterial.”

But, once again, to call it a lie assumes too much and, in consequence, poisons the well. Would you be comfortable to call it “a misstatement”?

“Therefore, to my mind, the only question I have to settle is WHY Lechmere produced that lie.”

Or misstated facts. And NOW I agree. Why indeed?

“Did he do so in order to get to job less late than he would have anyway? Not very likely - he went out of his way to be a faithful civil servant in all other aspects, contacting the police himself, attending the inquest, seeking out a PC on the murder night. The picture he painted was not one that would easily accommodate a guy who scams the police elaborately.”

Well, as I have contended, getting to work on time was only a part of his concern. He seems eager NOT to be implicated any deeper than necessary. That would explain his use of “Cross.” (Incidentally, is it completely established that he NEVER used “Cross” at this time?)

“The other option is by far the better - to my mind (haven´t I said this before ...?) - he absolutely needed to bypass Mizen without being searched, without having his pockets, his sleeves checked. To me, this detail is what clinches an already strong case.”

But how could he be sure that Mizen would not have responded, “Oh, I’m wanted by another copper? A body? Have you seen it yourself? Let’s go ‘ave a Iook.”? Once there—“Who found her? Right. Let’s see those pockets, mate.” The simple fact is, if Cross is killing Polly and hears footsteps, he is much more likely to fling his knife over the stable fence and turn left and perhaps hide near Harrison and Barber or in some shadows.

“I have very little doubt that once we look closer at our carman, more will surface, pointing in his direction.”

Very well. I long to see more in this direction. But tell me, if you were to find a use of “Cross” that were contemporary with this time, would that diminish his candidacy?

Cheers.
LC

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
For years I have looked for a suspect[ any] that was 39 years old, and according to the records, one Cross/lechmere was born in 1849, which ticks the right box. was this the individual ,that stabbed 39 year old Tabram, 39 times, that killed Nichols on the 31ST of the 8TH month[39], Chapman 8 days later 31+8[39], and waited until the 30TH of the 9TH month [39] until the next despatches.then missed a entire month until the 9TH of November 30+9.
Did Cross have a fixation with that number?
Find that link guys and we would indeed have a serious contender,it would not be the first serial killer with a date fixation..
I have not mentioned my 39 theory for years...I feel better now.HA
Regards Richard.

[Lechmere]

Richardi think you have solved the case.
Either that or you have been back on the barley wine.

[Mr Lucky]

(Incidentally, is it completely established that he NEVER used “Cross” at this time?)

But tell me, if you were to find a use of “Cross” that were contemporary with this time, would that diminish his candidacy?

Hi Lynn

So far, I haven't used the fact that he was usually called Lechmere, or make any reference to this name swap, in any of my investigations at all, other than in the introduction. From my perspective it's not part of the 'narrative' connected to the case. I always call him "Charles Cross".

[Fisherman]

Lynn:

"I don’t see either man as very suspicious."

Surely, Lynn, if you accept that he lied to Mizen, then you must see Lechmere as potentially extremely suspicious?

"once again, to call it a lie assumes too much and, in consequence, poisons the well. Would you be comfortable to call it “a misstatement”?"

No , I would not. If Mizen was on the money, and if you accept that, then whatever the aim was in Lechmere´s case, it WAS a lie he produced. A misstatement would be something quite different in my eyes, entailing perhaps a totally innocent guess. And that is effectively sunk to the bottom of the ocean when we realize that Lechmere also spoke in a passive voice, something that was quite unneccesary, if not ...!
He lied, end of story. And consciously so, as far as I can see. And I can see very far, being 193 centimeters tall ...

"He seems eager NOT to be implicated any deeper than necessary. That would explain his use of “Cross.”

It would. But doing so if you are completely innocent entails risks aplenty if the coppers make you out, right? Why would he take that risk, if he didn´t want to get involved, Lynn? It would get him involved up over his ears.
And, like I keep saying, over and over again, it tallies NOT with the upright, honest citizen that most out here think he was.

"(Incidentally, is it completely established that he NEVER used “Cross” at this time?)"

It is completely established, beyond doubt, pinned, nailed and hammered that we have no other name attaching to him than Lechmere, but for the census record taken when he was eleven, 27 years before the Nichols murder and at a stage when he had a stepfather called Cross - who undoubtedly was the one who filled in young Charles´name on the form.
Apart from that, we cannot possibly know if he called himself Cross when meeting people whose surnames began with an X, a D or an R. Likewise, he may have done so when exchanging punches with zulu warriors and/or lerprechaun-like midgets clad in green.
No, Lynn, we cannot tell WHAT name he used in any everyday exchange. I can´t tell if you call yourself Pickwick at times. It is hidden to me if you do, and 124 years from now it will be even more hidden to those who follow us. It is not possible to know, and it never will be. All we can tell is that
A/ He signed himself Lehmere habitually
B/ He married as Lechmere
C/ He named his kids Lechmere
D/ People who were completely honest normally had no reason at all to use aliases
and
E/ When we have this knowledge, the more reasonable guess would be that he used the alias Cross with some sort of malicious intent.

"But how could he be sure that Mizen would not have responded, “Oh, I’m wanted by another copper? A body? Have you seen it yourself? Let’s go ‘ave a Iook.”"

He could not be sure. The only thing he could be sure of is that he had done his outmost to con Mizen and optimize his chances of getting let loose. His plan B, if there was such a thing, may have been to cut the throats of both Mizen and Paul. We can´t tell that either.

"The simple fact is, if Cross is killing Polly and hears footsteps, he is much more likely to fling his knife over the stable fence and turn left and perhaps hide near Harrison and Barber or in some shadows."

Would you agree that such a thing could potentially could have Paul hearing/seeing the man that fled? Would you agree that such a thing would potentially produce a metallic sound, leading Paul to deduct that a metal object had been thrown to the ground? Would you agree that such a thing could have Paul raising the alarm, as he came upon Nichols? Would you agree that anybody, a PC a watchman, a third carman as it were could potantially respond to that alarm, and take up the hunt? Would you agree that we don´t know how close Paul was as Lechmere took his decision? And finally, if any of the things I mention above applied, would you agree that the path Lechmere chose, if he was the killer, was one that produced very much less commotion and very much less risk to get caught running? Then there you are, Lynn!

"I long to see more in this direction."

You already have. You have seen the Mizebn scam, the find of his mother´s address, the name swop ... Add this to the rest, and there´s the Ripper for you.

"But tell me, if you were to find a use of “Cross” that were contemporary with this time, would that diminish his candidacy?"

Of course it would. Unless it could be proven that it was used in an equally sinister context as the Nichols murder, any revelation of Lechmere using the name Cross would of course deduct from the line of accusations.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"I feel better now."

I´m afraid I have him down as 38, going on 39, Richard. Sorry to crash the party.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

"Cross" purposes

Hello Lucky. Thanks. So, from your point of view, his giving of "Cross" is not part of the "scam"?

Helpful to know.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

next verse

Hello Christer. Thanks.

“Surely, Lynn, if you accept that he lied to Mizen, then you must see Lechmere as potentially extremely suspicious?’

Well, IF I accept that he lied, I’d want to know why. So, yes, THAT might count as suspicious. But that is PRECISELY what I do NOT accept. I am not convinced that he lied.

“If Mizen was on the money, and if you accept that, then whatever the aim was in Lechmere´s case, it WAS a lie he produced. A misstatement would be something quite different in my eyes, entailing perhaps a totally innocent guess. And that is effectively sunk to the bottom of the ocean when we realize that Lechmere also spoke in a passive voice, something that was quite unnecessary, if not ...!
He lied, end of story. And consciously so, as far as I can see. And I can see very far, being 193 centimeters ...”

Then we simply must agree to disagree here. Consider the following. I run over a dog on the way to work. I summon an animal ambulance and am convinced that it is en route. I drive about a half mile and see a police officer parked. He sees me driving a bit erratically (in fact, due to nervousness) and steps out and motions for me to stop. I roll down the window. He asks, “Is something wrong?” To avoid giving details a second time (first time was to ambulance), I might say, “Officer, you are wanted about a half mile back. An animal was run over.” Did I lie? I don’t think so. If you think otherwise, then sorry, we can make no progress here.

“It would. But doing so if you are completely innocent entails risks aplenty if the coppers make you out, right? Why would he take that risk, if he didn´t want to get involved. It would get him involved up over his ears.”

But then, why brasen it out in the first place? Have you not argued that Cross got a thrill from such? But given he is innocent, I see a person who must get involved but who wishes to cut his losses to a bare bones.

“And, like I keep saying, over and over again, it tallies NOT with the upright, honest citizen that most out here thinks he was.”

Again, we must disagree.

“It is completely established, beyond doubt, pinned, nailed and hammered that we have no other name attaching to him than Lechmere, but for the census record taken when he was eleven, 27 years before the Nichols murder and at a stage when he had a stepfather called Cross - who undoubtedly was the one who filled in young Charles´name on the form.”

I fear hyperbole here, Christer. How many uses of the name have we on file? One? Two?

“Apart from that, we cannot possibly know if he called himself Cross when meeting people whose surnames began with an X, a D or an R. Likewise, he may have done so when exchanging punches with zulu warriors and/or lerprechaun-like midgets clad in green.”

Hyperbole aside, I agree that we cannot possibly know what he called himself when speaking to others—whether coppers or Scots chieftains.

“No, Lynn, we cannot tell WHAT name he used in any everyday exchange. It is not possible to do so, and it never will be.”

Now, you’re talking!

“All we can tell is that
A/ He signed himself Lehmere habitually”

Whoa! Habitually? I hope you are thinking of Aristotelian “habit" here. Once or twice is not habitual.

“B/ He married as Lechmere
C/ He named his kids Lechmere”

And these acts would require the legal name. To give an example. I have a professor whose first name (that he goes by) is Ignacio. But when he signs my check for yard work, it is Ignazio. I asked him, “Why the difference?” He gave me to understand that he was born in Rome of Italian parents. His baptismal name was the Italian, Ignazio. But, when young, his family moved to Argentina. Now, Spanish is his first language and he goes by Ignacio. (You might think about Domenico Theotokopoulis here.)

“D/ People who were completely honest normally had no reason at all to use aliases”

Vague.

“and
E/ When we have this knowledge, the more reasonable guess would be that he used the alias Cross with some sort of malicious intent.”

Pure speculation. And I see you have a colleague who discounts this line as well.

“He could not be sure. The only thing he could be sure of is that he had done his outmost to con Mizen and optimize his chances of getting let loose. His plan B, if there was such a thing, may have been to cut the throats of both Mizen and Paul.”

No reply here. Instead, like Graham Chapman, I will avert my eyes.

“Would you agree that such a thing could potentially have Paul hearing/seeing the man that fled?”

Yes. He could hear retreating footsteps—as in the Coles case, if I recall properly.

“Would you agree that such a thing would potentially produce a metallic sound, leading Paul to deduct that a metal object had been thrown to the ground?”

Yes. Better: he might INDUCE it.

“Would you agree that such a thing could have Paul raising the alarm, as he came upon Nichols?”

Indeed. It would be odd if he did not.

“Would you agree that anybody, a PC, a watchman, a third carman as it were could potentially respond to that alarm, and take up the hunt?”

Certainly. But how much of a head start would Cross have? And if he plotted this event, surely he considered such a possibility?

“Would you agree that we don´t know how close Paul was as Lechmere took his decision?”

I can live with that.

“ And finally, if any of the things I mention above applied, would you agree that the path Lechmere chose, if he was the killer, was one that produced very much less commotion and very much less risk to be caught running?”

Would not agree that it entailed much less risk.

“Then there you are, Lynn!”

And where is that? Perhaps with yet another witness jacked up to suspect level?

“You already have.”

Hmm, I have been in towns like that. You are through them before evincing perceptual awareness. (heh-heh)

“You have seen the Mizen scam, the find of his mother´s address, the name swap ... “

All of which I find about as impressive as if you were to announce, “Ah ha! I just discovered that Cross sported a black moustache. Case closed!”

“Of course it would. Unless it could be proven that it was used in an equally sinister context as the Nichols murder, any revelation of Lechmere using the name Cross would of course deduct from the line of accusations.”

Very well. But sinister? I don’t see sinister—unless, you refer to the original Latin meaning. Wait! Didn’t Llewellyn claim that Polly’s attacker was left-handed? Hmmm!

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

Hmm..

..Perhaps its time for an opinion poll....

[lynn cates]

No low classed polls allowed.

Hello Sally. Well, if it's a HIGH-CLASSED one. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

Hello Sally. Well, if it's a HIGH-CLASSED one. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

Certainly not Lynn - only the most respectable and sober polls allowed..

[Lechmere]

The accepted myth in the Ripperologist world is that Cross and Paul raised the alarm with Mizen.
What actually happened is that Paul said nothing and Cross misled Mizen by saying he was wanted by a policeman already on site in Bucks Row and by use of this subterfuge got away without having to give his name and address - as did Paul - and Mizen continued knocking up. He did not think it was urgent . Cross also did not make it clear whether or not they were dealiing with a death or a drunken collapse.

I trust these basic facts can be accepted.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Fisherman.
What month was he born ? all I have is 1849
Regards Richard

[Lechmere]

Other facts that I hope can be established.
Cross gave as his name Cross rather than Lechmere. He is never known to have used Cross on any birth death or marriage form, including as a witness , never on a census , never on an electoral roll, never on a school form or baptismal reCord.
The only time it was used in respect of this individual as in the 1861 census when his then step father will have cOmPleted the return.
Oh the other time was in the Nichols case when he reported to a police station.
It is also clear that he reported to a police station sometime between the Friday morning and the Sunday evening.
It is also the case that Paul identified himself via a newspaper interview conducted on the Friday that appeared on the Sunday.