The Mizen scam

[moonbegger]

Hello Fisherman ,

"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.
Thatīs 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.

There is also another explanation .. Let me run this scenario past you ..

"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.

OK , so what if he left home that morning and instead of heading straight to work .. he decides to make a quick detour to partake in a bit of extra marital rudeness with a willing prostitute .. He has a house full of kids , and probably a grumpy missus . he wouldn't be the first and most definitely not the last , to take advantage of his early morning surroundings and circumstances that offer themselves up ..

Unfortunately for him , once he is done , and on his jolly way to work , he happens upon poor ol Polly ..
Now he is in a street he wouldn't usually walk down , at a time he should not have been there . I think he would have been more concerned about the Wrath of his wife once she finds out he's been up to no good .. a police investigation would have been the least of his worries ...

So now we have a good reason for him not wanting to use his ( more familiar ) name ( if in fact it was )

Just another equally plausible and innocent scenario ..

cheers

moonbegger

[moonbegger]

Hi Sally

Yes , and it still goes unanswered , or ignored , no matter how many times it gets mentioned .. i think its such a big spanner in the works , certain posters try to brush over it ..

also the fact that police back then were mainly ex soldiers , and their backgrounds and friend history ran a lot deeper than it does today .

cheers

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

Absolutely true, Moonbegger. He may even have popped in at the old Jewish cemetery on Brady Street and dug up some skulls for souvenirs, and he may not have felt at ease to mention this to the police.

In fact, I bet you that we can come up with at least a hundred other things he may have done, wasting his time in the morning.

But as things stand, what he have is a man that claims to have left home at 3.20 or 3.30, and who should not have been outside Browns Stable yard at 3.45. We therefore have an anomaly and no explanation to it. That is all that counts. It is no stranger than that.

Incidentally, the same thing goes for the name thing - we have an anomaly and no explanation to it, although we may conjure up a good many such creatures.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Well Thomas cross was not an ex soldier as he joined the police young. I also told you there are no records for his period of service - there is a big gap in the existing police records for that period.
Also he had been dead 19 years.
In any case no policeman would enter his name as cross instead of Lechmere out of nostalgia for a dead colleague. What a ludicrous suggestion.

And it was suggested before and quickly dropped as a possibility.

[Bridewell]

Bucks Row

"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 .

Hi, Fisherman,

Absolutely true, as would have been the case with whoever found the body, of course.

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

I agree that the possibility remains much the same because, by his own admission, he had been close enough to see that what he originally thought was a tarpaulin was, in fact, a woman. I think a key issue here is just how wide Bucks Row was in 1888. Terms like "narrow", "very narrow" & "extremely narrow" have been used, but are too vague & subjective to be of much use. If Bucks Row was only about 14' wide, Cross could have been "standing in the middle of the road", whilst simultaneously within 6' of the body, but if it was significantly wider than that (20' or more say) he couldn't be both.
Does anyone (Monty perhaps?) know specifically (objectively measured) how wide Bucks Row really was, at the relevant point, geographically & historically?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Fisherman]

Colin:

"I agree that the possibility remains much the same because, by his own admission, he had been close enough to see that what he originally thought was a tarpaulin was, in fact, a woman. I think a key issue here is just how wide Bucks Row was in 1888. Terms like "narrow", "very narrow" & "extremely narrow" have been used, but are too vague & subjective to be of much use. If Bucks Row was only about 14' wide, Cross could have been "standing in the middle of the road", whilst simultaneously within 6' of the body, but if it was significantly wider than that (20' or more say) he couldn't be both."

What does it matter? Is there an established stretch, beyond which Lechmere is cleared from suspicion? Of course there is not.
If he was the killer - and I am suggesting that he was - then we must predispose that Lechmere had moved into the middle of the road after realizing that somebody (Paul) was coming down the street. And if he had to cover six or nine feet in order to do so is completely irrelevant, is it not?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

In any case no policeman would enter his name as cross instead of Lechmere out of nostalgia for a dead colleague. What a ludicrous suggestion.

Tetchy.

Who said anything about 'nostalgia'? The fact is, no matter how much you may want to point the finger of the suspicion at Crossmere at every given opportunity; you have no idea - because you cannot know - whether any policeman then serving knew of Thomas Cross. You have no idea what social connections Crossmere had. None.

No getting out of that one, I'm afraid. Oh well.

That he used the name Cross, quite legitimately, in some areas of his life; makes a damned sight more sense than the half-baked notion that he would give his correct name and workplace but a false name.

And it was suggested before and quickly dropped as a possibility.

Dropped by you, you mean?

Impressive.

[Lechmere]

No the ludicrous suggestion was dropped by shoved first raised it - but carry on if you wish.
We can fairly accurately gauge how many policemen would still be serving in the area after 19 years. The answer is very very few.

[Lechmere]

That (above) should be 'whoever', not 'shoved'
Here are a few anomilies with respect to Cross/Lechmere.

He is the only person to be seen 'by' a Whitechapel murder victim by someone else, prior to his calling tha alarm.

This is the only victim with abdominal injuries where her skirt was half pulled down, which may be taken to suggest that the ritualistic display of these injuries was covered up due to the culprit being disturbed.

This was the only Whitechapel murder victim to be touched and manhandled by the people who found her

This was the only Whitechapel murder victim to be 'discovered' twice.

He lied to a policeman immediately after leaving this victim by claiming that PC Mizen was wanted by a policeman in Bucks Row.

His timings for when he left his house, to when he got to Bucks Row, to when he got to work, do not add up.

He claimed he was late for work yet did not take the quickest route to work.

He is the only witness known to have got away with giving a name to the police other than the name he usualy used when dealing with authority.

He almost certainly only appeared at a police station to giver this name after details of him being seen 'by' the victim appeared in the press.

Alone of any suspect he can be linked to all the murder scenes.

He seems to be the only witness at the Nichols inquest to appear in his work clothes.

He moved house to a location that meant he traversed the main killing field about 6 weeks before the killings started.

A genreous mind might want to find innocent explanations for all these things. Or someone who prefers another culprit of course!
The name swap is just one issue. It was the one that brought Cross/Lechmere into focus but I don't think it is the most significant indicator of guilt, and in many ways it is the accululation of questionable aspects which points to guilt rather than one single item.
However the name swap is hardly an indicator of innocence.

[Rubyretro]

Hello, moonbegger,

a willing prostitute

?

Your powers of deduction are amazing.

an 'unwilling prostitute' might consider a career change, I think. But I digress.

.. He has a house full of kids , and probably a grumpy missus . he wouldn't be the first and most definitely not the last , to take advantage of his early morning surroundings and circumstances that offer themselves up ..

A possibility. and if that prozzie were Polly, eh ?

Unfortunately for him , once he is done , and on his jolly way to work , he happens upon poor ol Polly

..

So many hookers on the same morning ? Why not be less complicated and consider that there was only one prostitute that can definitely be linked to Lechmere/Cross and that is Polly.

Now he is in a street he wouldn't usually walk down , at a time he should not have been there . I think he would have been more concerned about the Wrath of his wife once she finds out he's been up to no good .. a police investigation would have been the least of his worries ...

That's an easy sort of old fashioned comedian joke....wife with rolling pin haha.

the reality is that at the period in question, a woman (with a brood of kids, what's more) would have been extremely dependant on her husband and his wage -she would not have had much clout to cause him too much grief for long.

On the other hand, hanging was a reality -so a police investigation could hardly have been the least of Crossmere's worries.

Hang on a min ! This is totally made up -why am I bothering ?

innocent scenario ..

I am fascinated by your definition of 'innocence' now...

[moonbegger]

Hello Retro-Lech-Man ,

Retro - "Your powers of deduction are amazing. an "unwilling prostitute' might consider a career change, I think. But I digress"

Yes i Really Do need to Underline each point i make , because you and Lech always seem to miss my main point and argue some angle that i am not concerned with !

[ example ] I clearly made the point ..Iit doesn't really matter if anyone knew Thomas Cross [Or Didn't ]. It would not prevent Lechmere putting it out there anyway .. And once we accept this ( more than likely possibility ) then it is not too difficult to see how after talking about his Dad (stepdad) Thomas Cross , for a brief time , the interviewing officer my well have put him down as Cross , because he would naturally assume so ! and why wouldn't he , especially when cross doesn't challenge it .. And Why would He , He is also Cross ! NOTHING to do with Nostalgia there

Lechmere- "This was the only Whitechapel murder victim to be touched and manhandled by the people who found her
This was the only Whitechapel murder victim to be 'discovered' twice."

I Disagree . As was discussed at great length on the [ Cobblers thread] there is every possibility that Annie Chapman was discovered in the yard of 29 by an unknown couple , roughly an hour before her official discovery !

cheers

moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

Evening, Moonbegger!

You are missing two points this time.

The first one, I have already mentioned in an earlier post: we may argue as many potential causes as we want to for Lechmere calling himself Cross in other circumstances than official ones, but it still remains that the name swop is an unexplained anomaly.

The second one is related to the first: We may argue as many potential people as we wish having seen or handled any of the other victims before they were oficially discovered, but it still remains that we have no evidence of this having been the case. It therefore also remains that Nichols is the one and only case in which we KNOW that there were twin "discoveries".

It is dead simple, really. Weīve got what weīve got, and suggesting what might have been cannot change that.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Hello Fisherman ,

"What does it matter? Is there an established stretch, beyond which Lechmere is cleared from suspicion? Of course there is not."

I think it is of great importance . in fact i see this as the very fine thread that holds the majority of the weight of guilt in this accusation ..

If crossMere Was in close proximity of polly (ie) touching distance , when paul first notice's him (as some have sketched out the scene ) then i for one , would have no problem hailing him as a possible new suspect .

But If he was Stood in the middle of the road curiously eyeballing a discarded bundle .. When Paul first notice's him , as others have sketched out the scene .. ( of which i am one ) then that puts him as an innocent man who found a dead body , alongside another man !


[ "If he was the killer - and I am suggesting that he was - then we must predispose that Lechmere had moved into the middle of the road after realizing that somebody (Paul) was coming down the street. And if he had to cover six or nine feet in order to do so is completely irrelevant, is it not?"]

And now we are back to yo yo Jack ? and so too my boring unanswered questions ?

1) was CrossMere Fully aware Paul hadn't caught him in action ? NO

2) Was He Fully aware that No one had seen him from EWharf/Cottage ? NO

3) Was he Fully aware that a Copper wouldn't show up and search him ? NO

4) Was he Fully aware , that no one would call him out on his name change at the inquest ? NO

5) was he fully aware that police would visit his home or work place , and discover the fact that he wasn't using his usual name ( if in fact they didn't anyway ) ? NO

All of the above are facts .. no more , no less .

For a killer in total control , he seemed to leave a whole lot to chance ?

It would have made a lot more sense to just take your 40 yard advantage and be off .. Using his EARS and EYES he would have had no problem navigating his way around a policeman walking his early morning beat .

cheers

moonbegger .

[Rubyretro]

Moonbegger,

[ example ] I clearly made the point ..Iit doesn't really matter if anyone knew Thomas Cross [Or Didn't ]. It would not prevent Lechmere putting it out

An excellent point. I have been known to put it out also, without ever having known Thomas Cross.

[QUOTI Disagree . As was discussed at great length on the [ Cobblers thread]

[

Oh ? Isn't this the 'Cobblers' thread ? You must be confusing me again, Moonbegger...

[Fisherman]

Wow, Moonbegger - you are really on the bite tonight!

"I think it is of great importance . in fact i see this as the very fine thread that holds the majority of the weight of guilt in this accusation .. "

Then we are in different clubs. Like I said before, it is not any crime to stand fifteen feet from a freshly killed woman. Interestingly, it is just as little of a crime to stand one feet from her!

In fact, I feel pretty certain that IF we had had evidence telling us that Lechmere actually DID stand straight over her, heaps of posters would argue that it would only have amounted to what any upright citizen would do; standing two feet away, how could he help her?

So no, Moonbegger, that particular detail is totally indifferent the way I see it. The time space BEFORE Paul spotted Lechmere in the street is what holds the key - did he arrive at the spot he stood on from the north or from the south? Both may apply, as you will appreciate.

To me, the clothes-pulling, the name-swop, the lie he served Mizen, the late arrival in Buckīs Row, the geographical correlation between the murder spots and his route/s to work are all very much more troublesome for him - and their combined weight is the clincher. But each to his own!

"For a killer in total control , he seemed to leave a whole lot to chance ? "

No, Moonbegger - for a killer BEREFT of control due to Paulīs arrival, he made all the right decisions to stay out of trouble and arouse no suspicion. That is a different thing. He could not know that Paul would arrive, and it was only his arrival that brought about the ensuing trouble and risks, all easily fended off by Lechmere.
As for the risk of being spotted by somebody in the street: can you supply a street where that risk was not imminent? How many times do you need to be told that Jack the Ripper was a RISKTAKER? Is it not blatantly obvious that he chose killing IN SPITE OF the risks it involved? It can even be suggested that he may have liked the adrenaline rush a street kill gave him. Not that we know it, but the possibility is surely there!

" Using his EARS and EYES he would have had no problem navigating his way around a policeman walking his early morning beat."

Says you, Monbegger. But I am of a different opinion. Letīs say that he ran for it, up Buckīs Row, in the darkness, only to notice that Mizen was coming down the street from the opposite direction. Then what? Would he turn and run back? Towards Paul? Or would he chance one of the side streets? Please note that by this time, Mizen would have seen and heard him - coppers have eyes and ears too! - and probably raised the alarm, alerting his fellow constables walking the adjoining streets.

What a rot, eh? But surely to be preferred to cooly and calmly collecting a fellow carman to use as an alibi, sussing out what he has seen, and then breezing past Mizen with a tailormade lie! That would have been very dangerous and so unlike the behaviour of a killer and a psychopath, right?

YOU, Moonbegger, would have run scared. And me too. But we are not killers and psychopaths, are we? No, we are just one guy asking repeated tiresome questions and ignoring the answers the other guy provides him with. Nothing like the Ripper at all if you ask me.

All the best,
Fisherman