The Mizen scam

[richardnunweek]

Hi.Lechmere
I have never drank barley wine since that unfortunate night
Richard

[Lechmere]

A few more:
Paul in his newspaper story says he saw the man later identified as Cross over the body of Nichols.
Cross although he is late for work choses to walk a route that is five minutes longer than the shortest available and also avoids the Tabram murder scene of 3 weeks before. The route he choses to take also takes him past the murder scene of Chapman 8 days later - just 100 yards from Paul's workplace.
He moved into a house that meant his likely route to work took him down these streets in mid June 1888.
He is the only witness to turn ip at the inquest in his work clothes.
Nichols is the only victim where the abdominal injuries are hidden by the dress not being left up.
The direct route from Mitre Square to Doveton Street takes you past Wentworth Model Dwellings.
Berner Street is on the route home from Cross's mother's house (where his daughter also lived) to Doveton Street.
These are facts which can be interpreted in a variety of ways - and there are more.
One fairly straightforward interpretation is that they point to Cross' s guilt.

[Lechmere]

Richard - wise move - it is disgusting stuff anyway.

I will add that Cross lived in Pinchin Street in 1861 (then called Thomas Street) and his mother lived there in 1881.
The build up of connections is in my opinion overwhelming. Most suspect cases are built on one or two tangental connections

[moonbegger]

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.

Hello,Hello,Hello

Very good .. But isn't there 31 days in October .

moonbegger.

[lynn cates]

further qualifications

Hello Sally. Thanks. And no untoward culinary or recreational habits? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

interpretation

Hello Lechmere. Thanks.

"These are facts which can be interpreted in a variety of ways."

Indeed!

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Lynn:

"I am not convinced that he lied."

Fair enough. I am, though, based on the shape of the lie. But you know that by now.

"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."

What, Lynn, happens if you add: "Another police awaits you there", in spite of your own knowledge that this is not so?
Why change the bets, Lynn? The fake PC is the real give-away in Lechmere´s case, even if the passive wording does a lot to add to things. And actually, if you said "You are wanted back there", you would give an impression that somebody (but the dog) WAS there. "You are needed back there" would be a less strange wording.

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

Oh no - a good deal more, actually. So you may want to abandon that fear, Lynn...? Post 240 will enlighten you further, though I cannot give the exact number myself. The poster Lechmere is a better source here.

"Hyperbole aside, I agree that we cannot possibly know what he called himself when speaking to others"

That´s fine, then, since I think that the discussions that arise from questions like these are extremely improductive.

"You might think about Domenico Theotokopoulis here"

Sorry - that´s all greek to me. But should it not be Theotokopoulou...?

"Vague."

Pretty exact, actually. Exceptions will have been there, but only rarely.

"Pure speculation."

Absolutely not.

"Certainly. But how much of a head start would Cross have"

How much would be enough? And how would Lechmere know that it was? Had he checked out behind which corners danger in the shape of PC:s, watchmen, civilians lurched?

"Would not agree that it entailed much less risk."

Much less risk to "be caught running", Lynn - that´s what I wrote. And Lechmere chose not to run at all, wherefore he could not be caught running.

"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!”

If so, then Ripperology is the fine art of dissing first and perhaps thinking later - but only perhaps. And I suspect you know this, Lynn.

"I don’t see sinister"

It lies in my perception of Lechmere, Lynn. I think he was the killer, and I think killing is a sinister business. You´re LEFT with that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"What month was he born ? all I have is 1849"

I think October 5 is what applies, Richard. Not a 100 per cent sure, though, but as he married in July 1870, he gave his age as 20, strengthening that he celebrated his birthday on the second part of the year.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

Poquito mas.

Hello Christer. Thanks.

“What, Lynn, happens if you add: "Another police awaits you there", in spite of your own knowledge that this is not so?”

It would be anticipation. Simple.

“Why change the bets, Lynn? The fake PC is the real give-away in Lechmere´s case, even if the passive wording does a lot to add to things.”

Neill a fake? Don’t think so.

“Oh no - a good deal more, actually. So you may want to abandon that fear, Lynn...? Post 240 will enlighten you further, though I cannot give the exact number myself. The poster Lechmere is a better source here.”

Alright. But how many are unofficial; how many official?

“That´s fine, then, since I think that the discussions that arise from questions like these are extremely unproductive.”

Hey!

“And actually, if you said "You are wanted back there", you would give an impression that somebody (but the dog) WAS there. "You are needed back there" would be a less strange wording.”

Very well. But hardly a lie.



“Sorry - that´s all Greek to me. But should it not be Theotocopoulou...?”

How about, El Greco?

“Absolutely not. “

Sorry. Absolutely so.

“How much would be enough? And how would Lechmere know?”

Well, how would he know he could brasen it out successfully?

“Much less risk to be caught running, Lynn - that´s what I wrote. And Lechmere chose not to run at all, wherefore he could not be caught running.”

In my mind, no reason to run.

“If so, then Ripperology is the fine art of dissing first and perhaps thinking later - but only perhaps.”

No such intended. Thinking later? Well, this is relatively new for you, nicht wahr? At any rate, this is my remark on how weak I see this case to be. So sorry.

“It lies in my perception of Lechmere, Lynn. I think he was the killer, and I think killing is a sinister business. You´re LEFT ): with that.”

Bravo! (I suppose you thought I’d say, “Right.” No, my mind is too dexterous for that. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Lynn!

Since you clearly did not know about how many times we have him down as Lechmere, I dived into the older posts and found this:

"We have numerous records for Cross’s life. He was very punctilious about this. He is on every electoral register from 1890 until his death despite five address changes. We have his children’s school records. We have his own christening – which took place after his mother had remarried Cross. He is always listed as Lechmere."

As you will note, this does not include the census listings, and there are a number of those too, signed Lechmere. So it´s not "one or two" times.

"It would be anticipation. Simple."

Anything but, I´m afraid. Why would you anticipate that another policeman was standing by the dog? It´s completely irrational to suggest this, I´m afraid.

"Neill a fake? Don’t think so."

Oh, come on, Lynn. You KNOW that there was no PC in Buck´s Row when Lechmere left, and suggesting that Mizen got it wrong is very unlikely.

"how many are unofficial; how many official?"

See above. And my feeling - the very official one - is that this is quite enough.

"But hardly a lie."

Only an intentional misleading.

"Absolutely so."

Absolutely not. And that is my final bid.

"how would he know he could brasen it out successfully?"

Simple answer - he just knew. It´s about self-confidence.

"At any rate, this is my remark on how weak I see this case to be. So sorry."

Don´t be. ALL information has it´s use.

"I suppose you thought I’d say, “Right.”"

In an answer to me, on Lechmere...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Anyway, Lynn, since this discussion is leading absolutely nowhere - your chosen destination, I believe? - I think it pretty much suffices to say what has already been said. Any suspect can be dissed by anybody who feels like it, for thinking it is a good idea or just for the fun.

What tells Lechmere apart from all the other suspects, though, is that it takes very much longer to diss him, due to the sheer amount of details that are potentially incriminating. No other suspect comes even remotely close to him in that respect (we may take a look at Issenschmidt in this context, and ask ourselves how many potentially incriminating acts on his behalf we have ...), and if you want to think that this is just coincindental, by all means do so.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

not only, . . . , but also

Hello Christer. Thanks.

“"We have numerous records for Cross’s life. He was very punctilious about this. He is on every electoral register from 1890 until his death despite five address changes. We have his children’s school records. We have his own christening – which took place after his mother had remarried Cross. He is always listed as Lechmere."

As you will note, this does not include the census listings, and there are a number of those too, signed Lechmere. So it´s not "one or two" times."

Splendid. But how many are 1888 or before?

“Anything but, I´m afraid. Why would you anticipate that another policeman was standing by the dog? It´s completely irrational to suggest this, I´m afraid.”

Because I understand how the world operates. Irrational? I? Maybe not. The world? No comment.

“Oh, come on, Lynn. You KNOW that there was no PC in Buck´s Row when Lechmere left . . . “

Agreed. But I’m not saying that.

“ . . and suggesting that Mizen got it wrong is very unlikely.”

Nor yet that.

“Only an intentional misleading.”

Very well. I agree. Are you married? How about, “Say, that supper was not too bad!” Lie? No. Misleading? Well, . . .

“Simple answer - he just knew. It´s about self-confidence.”

Well, IF he were “Jack” and IF “Jack” were monomaniacal . . .

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Wiedersehen?

Hello (again) Christer.

"Anyway, Lynn, since this discussion is leading absolutely nowhere - your chosen destination, I believe?"

Not at all. I would be delighted to be shown some evidence for Cross. But I've seen none--except his story at inquest. And it has a natural interpretation.

"I think it pretty much suffices to say what has already been said."

Very well. It's good bye, then? (sniff)

"Any suspect can be dissed by anybody who feels like it . . . "

No offense, but you know I dislike Americanisms in language.

" . . . for thinking it is a good idea or just for the fun."

Neither. I seek evidence--a knife, a blood spot--something. Pero no tengo.

"What tells Lechmere apart from all the other suspects, though, is that it takes very much longer to diss him, due to the sheer amount of details that are potentially incriminating. No other suspect comes even remotely close to him in that respect (we may take a look at Issenschmidt in this context, and ask ourselves how many potentially incriminating acts on his behalf we have ...), and if you want to think that this is just coincindental, by all means do so."

I thought is was rather short.

At any rate, you know me. I am ALL for research. If something tangible turns up, I'll listen.

Cheers.
LC

[moonbegger]

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 ,

Ok , so here is Stupid question time , and i apologize if this is obvious to all but me ! But as you clearly point out ..

"A/ He signed himself Lehmere habitually
B/ He married as Lechmere
C/ He named his kids Lechmere"

So this chap is Lechmere ( baring in mind he that he was briefly and coincidentally called Cross when he was seven ) the Fella who discovered Polly was Cross .. Is it ridiculous to assume that they were two different people ( Literally )

"The 1891 census, however, notes that a Charles Cross was married, aged 45 employed as a labourer, and born at “Cambridge West Beach and lived on the whitechapel rd .. ( it also goes on to say )
Charles Cross has not been identified in other census records because there are so many people with that name that it has proved impossible, so far, to positively identify the correct man"

So how can we be certain that Cross and Lechmere are in fact , one and the same person ? if as you say there is no record of Lechmere using the name Cross ..

Like i said probably a stupid question

cheers ,

moonbegger .

[Rubyretro]

No other suspect comes even remotely close to him in that respect (we may take a look at Issenschmidt in this context, and ask ourselves how many potentially incriminating acts on his behalf we have

...)

Don't you know, Fisherman that Issenschmidt was supposed to imagine that he was in fact dispatching a sheep ?

I always thought that the Ripper lifting women's skirts and attacking the bits in a very speedy and precise way showed that he was particularly interested in women and had noticed that a ewe wasn't built the same way, had four legs, didn't wear a dress, and nor would she conveniently lead the way to a private dark spot and handily be au fait with police beats.

But what do I know ?

Let's get back to facts and logic...

The fact that the Ripper was never caught despite all the effort at the time and all our efforts now , points to a bright, manipulative, scheming and crafty man, who knew exactly what he was doing...and that it was deemed wrong by society, and the price that society would exact if he were caught.

He didn't have any wish (even subconscious) to be caught -if he had of , then he would have been caught.

That sort of man would be daring and secretive and tell outrageous lies, and pass for 'normal' for people around him.

Lechmere/Cross is certainly a far worthier candidate for study/reflection than Issy.