The Mizen scam

[Lechmere]

Caz
For all we knew Cross/Lechmere gave his name as Cross and thought that would be it. Then they asked more questions and he felt it was safer to give his real home address in case they called (I am failry certain they didn't call). Then they asked for his workplace. Then before he knew it he was roped into attending the inquest. Then the inquest turned into a press event. How would he have predicted that? It was new territory for everyone.
And I doubt his step father copper told him about inquest procedures prior to his death some 19 years before.
In any case Cross/Lechmere's testimony was noit given star billing. He was an unnoticed grey man. Unnoticed by the Ripperological world as well. So it seems very likely that no one noticed his testimony.
If Cross was the culprit - he probably would have had in mind to use the Cross name if he thought it would get him out of a pickle I would guess. I would assuem that when he did the 'should I stay or should I go' routine he already knew that he would call himself Cross if necessary. That is my suposition of course.
But it is not supposition to say that when dealing with wide range of officialdom he always called himself Lechmere, except in this instance. That, quite simply, is why it is suspcious and that cold hard fact - which backs up the supposition that he was guilty - trumps your pure speculation.
And there isn't nay evidence that any of the suspects harmed a hair on any of the victins heads. That is the nature of Ripper suspectology!

And yes there would not have been policemen still serving who knew Thomas Cross.

[moonbegger]

Hello Retro ,

"And yes there would not have been policemen still serving who knew Thomas Cross" ( i know this is Lechmere's answer , but it was your point )
Kind of like Rod Hull and Emu

The Fact that no one possibly knew Thomas Cross , would not have prevented CrossMere giving out the information anyway ( like anyone in his shoes would have done ) it is always better to have a connection ( no matter how slim ) and use that connection to the best of your ability.. especially when you are standing in the unfavorable position of being murder witness #1

And once its in the mind of the interviewing officer he Is Cross , that's how they refer to him .. and why would he contend it .. after all he is cross !

moonbegger

[Bridewell]

And Bridewell... when discussing things said by other people it is common to render them in ones own words - hence "standing where the woman was" can legitimately become “Found over a Ripper victim”.

And when reporting actual inquest testimony it is customary to use the witness's own words - 'in the middle of the road'

Now in the inquest Paul could have said that Cross was 200 yards from Polly. That would still not make it illegitimate to contend that Paul actually saw Cross over Polly's body. Because that in essence is what he told the press on the day of the murder notwithstanding whatever he said at the inquest.

I have to wonder why you place a higher value on what he told a newspaper reporter than on what he told the coroner, on oath, at the inquest. Do you prefer the newspaper interview version because you genuinely think it's more likely to be reliable, or because it's a better fit for the theory of Cross/Lechmere as the Ripper?

If he was roughly half way across the road - he would have been maybe 5 feet from her body.

He would if Bucks Row was only 10' wide. If he had been 5' from the body, why would he need to say 'Come and look at this woman here' and why was it that Paul 'went with him and saw a woman lying right across the gateway'?

This really is immaterial to the case against Cross/Lechmere.

If he had been 'found over the body of a Ripper victim', as you claim, it would be highly relevant. The evidence, however, the sworn testimony of Robert Paul, is that he 'saw a man standing in the middle of the road'. You can make a case for Cross being a suspect, but that case cannot be based upon the claim that he was 'found over the body of a Ripper victim' because he wasn't.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Hello Retro ,

"And yes there would not have been policemen still serving who knew Thomas Cross" ( i know this is Lechmere's answer , but it was your point )
Kind of like Rod Hull and Emu

I have tried, but I cannot understand your reference to "Rod Hull and Emu"
-who exactly had which hand up who's arse ?

I trust that it did not involve PC Mizen.

[Lechmere]

Bridewell
Cross approached Paul as Paul approached Cross. Their 'meeting place' was further back up Bucks Row and effectively on the northern pavement as Pail tried to walk around Cross. That is why Cross said come and look at the woman over here.
The significance of Paul saying, in essence , that he saw Criss over the body is that this spooked Cross into appearing at a police station to give his side of the story and to then appear at the inquest. If Paul had said he saw someone in the middle of the road then cross may have not felf the need to come forward as it is a little less incriminating.
It is also significant that Paul did initially say he saw cross BY the body. You may chose to ignore this issue. It is easy to present a scenario that led Paul at the inquest to be economical with the actuality and revise this to 'middle of the road' .
I would suggest that if this were a modern police investigation then the police would take the press interview version of paul's placement of Cross seriously. It would be irresponsible not to do so. So yes I can very legitimately prefer what Paul said to the reporter to what Paul said at the inquest.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi again Caz,

You are most welcome, Mr Lucky. And thank you for all those press quotes. I think you are wise not to attach much importance to the name issue. We simply don't know enough to use it as evidence for or against the man.

I not sure how anyone could use this ‘as evidence for’ the man. I can except that he may have had an innocent reason for the name swap, but for anyone to use this as actual support for his innocence, surely that just cannot be done full stop, rather than cannot be done because ‘we simply don’t know enough’.

But I think if others are going to claim that calling himself Cross was motivated by a need to keep a low profile, they need to think it through from Cross's point of view. He went voluntarily to the police to give details that could very easily be checked and would now allow them to keep tabs on him.

But why would the police keep tabs on him, isn’t he just a innocent witness? , the police are already busy looking for ‘a maniac’ or a High Rip-type gang. If Cross’s actions are those of an innocent man on his way to work, as has been said before, then the police would have no reason to check him out or keep tabs on him.

Furthermore, he didn't know what would appear in the papers, so it's not what actually appeared that matters in this context; it's what he could expect to appear.

He can expect that the name of the man who found the body will be reported as Cross not Lechmere, that’s certain. Is this conclusive proof he is a murderer - well obviously not, but is it something that should be considered as suspicious? Clearly, there are two schools of thought on this one.

I think the fact we have learnt that the schools his children attended all registered his children as ‘Lechmere’ is actually quite significant, I would be surprised if he went around calling himself Cross, even if just socially, yet called all his children Lechmere. I would have thought that would be quite odd for a working class man in this time period to do that. But, just unusual, not impossible.

And he had given sufficient detail for any reader who knew him either as Charles Cross or Charles Lechmere, or were even vaguely aware of the couple living at 22 Doveton, to have been in no doubt that he had been with the murdered woman when Paul arrived.

Any reader of the Star, and only the Star, as that’s the only paper with all information needed to identify him, and rather than needing to be ‘vaguely aware of the couple’, they would have to know that the man claiming to be called Cross is actually called Lechmere, and know exactly where he worked and his address. Those who knew his address may not know where here worked and visa-versa. Again I’ll have to point out what poster Lechmere has told us, that Cross has only just moved in to that address.

Vaguely aware would mean that his neighbours may know the man at 22 was a carman, but why would this lead to the neighbours becoming so suspicious of what was in the press as to specifically alert Mrs Lechmere to the fact her husband had found the body and then furtively used a different name. wouldn’t they assume that she knew all about this?

The fact that none of his family seem to have been aware of his brief involvement in the case (or those who were aware at the time didn't make more of it) is neither here nor there, because there is no evidence that this was the desired outcome of Cross's actions, nor indeed could it have been the expected outcome, all things considered.

Mr Lechmere could have told his wife the press have just printed the wrong address. You could have tried this approach when your husband found out about your lap dancing!!

[Mr Lucky]

I have to wonder why you place a higher value on what he told a newspaper reporter than on what he told the coroner, on oath, at the inquest. Do you prefer the newspaper interview version because you genuinely think it's more likely to be reliable, or because it's a better fit for the theory of Cross/Lechmere as the Ripper?

Robert Paul's testimony, 'on oath, at the inquest' -

'He and the man examined the body, and he felt sure he detected faint indications of breathing. the body was partly warm, though it was a chilly morning.' Daily news 18th sept 1888

'Witness went with him, and saw a woman lying right across the gateway. Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach. Witness felt her hands and face, and they were cold. He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not, and he thought she was dead' the Times 18th sept 1888

The press reports of Robert Paul testimony are fine if you only stick to one version.

[Bridewell]

Adios

Just one more question before I leave this thread:

If (for the sake of argument) Paul was lying when he told the coroner that the man he saw was "standing in the middle of the road"; if he, in fact, found Cross "over the body of a Ripper victim", as Lechmere insists was the case, why did he not also see the Ripper victim whose body he found Cross standing over?

Goodnight All. Bridewell.

[Lechmere]

When Paul saw Cross/Lechmere it was at about 40 yards distance in a very dark street. It would actually almost certainly have been difficult to discern whether Cross/Lechmere was 'over the body', 'by the body' or 'half way across the road' - I strongly suspect.
But Cross/Lechmere was standing up. Polly was lying down. I guess that is why Paul didn't see her until he was taken over to the body by Paul. Paul doesn't suggest he saw the body until taken over to it.
Also I think you are overstating things in saying that Paul was lying when he said at the inquest that Cross was in the middle of the road. Incidenatlly is your position that he was lying to the press?
A liar is a liar is a liar - isn't he?
Polly's body will have taken up pretty much all the narrow pavement.
If Cross/Lechmere (innocent or guilty) was by the body he may have been one or two feet away, which would have placed him in the street.
If he was in the middle of the street he may have been another four feet further back.
To illustrate this I will go to the scene and measure it out and place objects at the various locations and take a picture to show you just how marginal this discussion is... soonish.

[Fisherman]

So, that was Madeira - nice, on the whole! And we managed to squeeze our fortnight in when there was only perpetual rain to be had back in Sweden, which was very lucky!

Arriving home, I notice that nothing much has happened on this thread. The same old objections are still around, much of it in a not very fruitful manner. Of course, some new thoughts have been brought up, on the matter of what side of the street Paul walked on initially, for instance, but since there has never been more than one way to interpret this, it has added nothing to the thread.

A matter much discussed has been whether Lechmere stood "over the body" or not. At the end of the day, this matters very little, I would say. Standing over a body is as little of a crime it is as to stand three or five feet from it. The one and only thing that truly mattars in the context we are speaking of is that we can establish that Charles Lechmere was alone with Polly Nichols, and that the only information we have as to how long he spent with her and how close he was to her, is information deriving from Charles Lechmere himself. Nobody else can confirm or disconfirm what he has to say on the matter.
Robert Paul corroborated at the inquest that as he noticed Lechmere, the latter was in the middle of the street, but this is no indication whatsoever as to where Lechmere had been and what he had done BEFORE Paul noticed him.

The "standing-where-the-body-was"-thing may indicate one of a number of things: just as it may point to Lechmere having stood over the body, it may equally have been a rough estimation, telling us that Paul simply laid down that Lechmere was in the vicinity of the Browns Stable Yard doors - where the body was.

In all fairness, since some heat has gone into that particular issue, it should be said that first-hand evidence normally takes precedence over second-hand ditto, and Pauls first-hand evidence DOES open up for the possibility that Lechmere stood over the body - but like I said, the only thing that carries importance here is that apart from Lechmere´s own testimony, nobody and nothing corroborates his claim not to have been closer to the body than halfways across the street before Paul arrived on the scene.

The possibility that Cross could have been the killer remains totally open, whether he was one, two, three or six feet from the body.

Instead of trying to use an extra feet like some sort of alibi for him, I think it is wiser to accept that he was found by Nichols´dead body and that this alone is something that calls for further investigation. And what do we have in that department? Well, we have the fact that if Lechmere left his home in 3.30 - or at 3.20 even, as recorded in some sources - then he should NOT have been outside Browns Stable Yard at 3.45, but instead some way down Hanbury Street or Old Montague Street.
That´s the next point to weigh in. Why would he have taken that long to reach the point where he "found" Nichols?
Of course, if he wanted to obscure things, he could have said that he started out at 3.40-ish that morning, which was what got him late in the first place.
So why did he not do this, if he was the killer? Maybe perhaps because his wife had seen him off in the morning, KNOWING that he left at 3.25? Or maybe he met with a neighbour? That is one useful explanation at any rate; if he knew that there was a witness to his departure time, then he would be in trouble not recognizing this.
So, we can see that our first checking point pans out badly for Lechmere. He was inexplicably late in arriving at Browns Stable Yards.
And then what happens? Correct, he suddenly claims that he is late - but makes a choice of route that will make him even later. More oddities, thus - they keep piling up when we deal with Charles Lechmere, for some reason, and this is, in the end, what presents us with a very good case against the man. It is not the singled-out detail, it is the combined weight of them all.

One of these details is the name swop. It is suggested here that Charles Lechmere wed a woman to be named Elizabeth Lechmere and that he sired nigh on a dozen children who would ALL go by the name of Lechmere - owing, arguably, to their proud father´s wish to represent the family name he habitually signed all his dealings with the authorities with. This aside, it is clung on to the notion that he - in spite of all of this - called himself Cross in informal circumstances.

This is not an impossibility. It MAY have been the case, technically and theoretically. And conveniently, informal circumstances do not set themselves off on paper, meaning that anybody claiming this to be a useful suggestion cannot be challenged - it would take a find of a Charles Lechmere signature, written under informal circumstances - circumstances when you don´t sign things at all, that is ...

What the ones who speak for this interpretation of things need to do - or at least what I would welcome - would be to present parallel cases, where somebody who signed all formal contacts with one name and married a woman by that same name and baptized all his kids by the same name too, used ANOTHER name altogether in his everyday life - and who was a man with a clean sheet.
If somebody undertakes this task and finds a parallel, then he or she will still be called upon to answer the remaining question why such a man, charading under another name than his true one, actually would give the charade name to the police - typical authorities, as it were - in combination with a murder case where he by his own admittance had been alone with the murder victim for an unestablishable amount of time.

Much as we may shape and present alternative explanations to things like Lechmere´s having been found alone with the dead body of Polly Nichols and his use of an alternative name, it remains that in both cases, these details add to the usefulness of the case against him. And since these are only two out of many more details, my belief is that the donkey´s back has been broken: more speaks to us of Lechmere being the Ripper than the things that speak against it. In spite of the people out here volunteering to find excuses for him - and they are many, both posters and excuses - the combined weight of the evidence has grown far too telling to be ignored.

The best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

Hi Lechmere,

Incidentally is your position that he was lying to the press?

My position is that the report of his inquest testimony is the more likely of the two newspaper accounts to be reliable. I also think it unlikely that he lied to the coroner.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Lechmere]

So he lied to the press then?

[moonbegger]

Hello,Hello,Hello

Was he lying to the press ?

Not necessarily , maybe the press just didn't bother printing the whole story , perhaps they just used the provocative , sensational soundbites , not unlike today ?
Also .. Standing where the body was , is a fair description in so far as the point which he was standing , even if he was on the kerb opposite Polly .. from 40 yards away , he would have still been standing where the body was .

The biggest lie here ( perjury in fact ) is the one team Lechmere would have us believe that Paul ( being scared of CrossMere ) failed to inform Police that he did indeed see CrossMere for the very first time over Polly's body .. i am pretty sure the Police would have ironed this out as soon as they pulled him from his bed . The fact that they didn't pull CrossMere in tells me that Pauls full explanation of how it all unfolded that morning , painted CrossMere as a man Far away enough from polly's body not to arouse suspicion .


I also posed the question "What if Lechmere forwarded the information to the officer taking his statement that his Dad (stepdad) was also a copper ?"
The Fact that no one possibly knew Thomas Cross , would not have prevented CrossMere giving out the information anyway ( like anyone in his shoes would have done ) it is always better to have a connection ( no matter how slim ) and use that connection to the best of your ability.. especially when you are standing in the unfavorable position of being murder witness #1
And once its in the mind of the interviewing officer he Is Cross , that's how they refer to him .. and why would he contend it .. after all he is also cross !

cheers

moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"The biggest lie here ( perjury in fact ) is the one team Lechmere would have us believe that Paul ( being scared of CrossMere ) failed to inform Police that he did indeed see CrossMere for the very first time over Polly's body..."

I suspect you count me in when speaking of "Team Lechmere", and if this is so, then I would like you to read my post 535 on this thread - as it happens it is on the very same page as your post - where I write "The "standing-where-the-body-was"-thing may indicate one of a number of things: just as it may point to Lechmere having stood over the body, it may equally have been a rough estimation, telling us that Paul simply laid down that Lechmere was in the vicinity of the Browns Stable Yard doors - where the body was."

"The fact that they didn't pull CrossMere in tells me that Pauls full explanation of how it all unfolded that morning , painted CrossMere as a man Far away enough from polly's body not to arouse suspicion . "

U-huh. So being found three or five feet away from Polly´s body automatically exonerated him from any possibility of being her killer as far as the police were concerned? In spite of the fact that Lechmere himself was the only source claiming that he had never been closer to her body before Paul arrived?

I suppose that if it had been a well-known criminal, rumoured to be a very useful knifewielder, that had stood there, the same would have applied: over her body - distincly suspicious, but five feet away - in the clear?

The police certainly made a grave mistake when they omitted to follow up on the "Cross" track, but this would arguably not have owed to any established amount of feet that automatically put people alongside murder victims in the clear, but instead to a combination of circumstances, involving their focus being on another type of killer than the one offered in the shape of a seemingly upright, hard-working carman and a household keeper.

In my post 535 you seemingly also missed out on another point I made. If you find the post too long to read, I post the relevant part again: "The one and only thing that truly matters in the context we are speaking of is that we can establish that Charles Lechmere was alone with Polly Nichols, and that the only information we have as to how long he spent with her and how close he was to her, is information deriving from Charles Lechmere himself ...
The possibility that Cross could have been the killer remains totally open, whether he was one, two, three or six feet from the body."

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Moonbeggar -

I also posed the question "What if Lechmere forwarded the information to the officer taking his statement that his Dad (stepdad) was also a copper ?"
The Fact that no one possibly knew Thomas Cross , would not have prevented CrossMere giving out the information anyway ( like anyone in his shoes would have done ) it is always better to have a connection ( no matter how slim ) and use that connection to the best of your ability.. especially when you are standing in the unfavorable position of being murder witness #1
And once its in the mind of the interviewing officer he Is Cross , that's how they refer to him .. and why would he contend it .. after all he is also cross !

I had wondered about this very thing - I may even have mentioned it at some point.

My observation at this time (now that I'm thoroughly Crossmered ad nauseum) would be that without a considerable amount of research it is not possible to say with any degree of certainty whether any policeman serving would have remembered Thomas Cross - and perhaps not even with that research.

To state it as a near certainty is an ill-conceived (that's putting it nicely) nonsense. Social connections might well have existed which meant that many serving policemen knew who Thomas Cross was - we can't possibly know for sure.

It would certainly explain the change of name in this instance; which still makes no sense to me in a 'suspicious' context.