The Mizen scam

[Fisherman]

I am not a "suede", Ruby. Je suis desolée, mais ca, ce simplement Francais. I am a SWEDE!

And, weatherwise, I am quite content. I just arrived back from sunny Madeira, only to find Sweden basking in sun (25 degrees Celsius today!). So your scepticism is uncalled for - I AM all sunshine!

My advice is to take full advantage of it while you can. There will be rain again sooner or later.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

I am not a "suede", Ruby. Je suis desolée, mais ca, ce simplement Francais. I am a SWEDE!

Sorry, I was actually reticent of confusing you with a vegetable ( how times change). Effectively La suède, un suédois is franco-lingo.

And, weatherwise, I am quite content. I jusr arrived back from sunny Madeira, only to find Sweden basking in sun (25 degrees Celsius today!). So your scepticism is uncalled for - I AM all sunshine!

for a fleeting moment, I'm sure...but I'm enjoying the clement weather.

My advice is to take full advantage of it while you can. There will be rain again sooner or later.

ah -I hadn't read your last sentance, when I wrote the above. We appear to be mysteriously in tandem at the mo' -it can't last (your hols will wear off, I'll start an Hutch thread...)

x Rubeetroot (according to my shadow, Moonbegger ..who probably mean't to call me Rubeetrout. You being a fisherman, you might understand me when I say that I'm very fond of trout ).

ps As long as there are no more accusations of 'Rod Hull and Emu' -going by your photo , you don't have the beak for it, and I don't have the legs. Although you might have the temperament -of Rod Hull, I mean.

[Mr Lucky]

but clearly he must have been close to the body at some point in order to identify that it was not the tarpaulin he first took it to be. I'm sure that he (Cross / Lechmere) moved into the middle of the street when he heard Paul approach. The only issue is why. It's something an innocent body-finder would have done, and a guilty killer might, if he thought he had no choice.

Hi Bridewell

How did Cross know it was a body at this point, and not for example a drunk? It was to dark to see her injuries, so what has innocent body finder/guilty body finder got to do with his reaction at this time, supposedly before he or anyone knew what happened to Polly?

[Cogidubnus]

Open mind please

I'm puzzled...to a potential ripper (who's obviously by definition, in crude terms, an unbalanced nutter - else why's he doing it?) caught standing over the body of his victim, there are any number of places he can flee with even only a forty yard start...it's not like Hanbury Street...

Forty yards is 120 feet for goodness sake...a respectable start without allowing for any witness catch-up time...there's a helter skelter round to the left down Winthrop Street with an easy exit via Woods Buildings onto the Whitechapel Road...there's a sharp right into Queen Ann Street with easy exits down side alleys on the left, or through to Thomas Street and beyond...there's straight on, with various side-turnings...

With these choices I don't in all honesty see how you can contend that a mentally unbalanced ripper would boldly turn round (presumably knife in pocket with at least some blood on him) and engage his discoverer in plausible conversation...Unless you see Jack as some kind of superman it defies rational belief...

Is it more rational to accept all this premeditated boldness, plus bluffing Paul, plus bluffing Mizen, plus bluffing the police generally, plus bluffing the coroner, (not to mention his wife)...ad infinitum... or to believe he was exactly what he says he was (and which is what all the post 1888 evidence in fact suggests)... a carman on his way to work...

I can see why you're curious about the name-change...I can in all honesty see arguments both ways about that...but the rest? Sorry...

Dave

[Lechmere]

Ah Mindboggles

I don't know how I always seem to miss your point.
But let me talk you through your scenario where Cross talks about his late lamented step dad to the interviewing officer.

Cross/Lechmere enters a police station and approaches the desk.
Cross/Lechmere: I'd like report that I found the body of a woman on Bucks Row on Friday last.
Policeman: Hello hello hello what have we here?
Cross/Lechmere (adopting Ronnie Corbett attitude): But before I do that let me tell you about dear old Thomas Cross. He was a policeman based in Leman Street and he was married to my Mama. He was a wonderful chap, I have such fond memories. I remember when he used to let me play with his truncheon etc etc.
Policeman: Well I never. What are your Christian names? I already know your surname must be Cross.
Cross/Lechmere: Err yes I suppose it is, sort of really. My other names are Charles Allan.
etc etc.

It's fortunate Cross/Lechmere didn't say his step-father was the Emperor Napoleon or this would be the Bonaparte/Lechmere theory.

By the way is 'Team Lechmere' named after the poster Lechmere or after the serial killer known as Jack the Ripper (case solved) Lechmere?

As for your questions...

Did Cross/Lechmere know whether or not Paul had actually seen him in the act?
My guess is that Cross/Lechmere would know that Paul hadn't actually seen him in the act. The road was very dark. Paul didn't notice that Polly's eyes were open, nor that her throat was cut. My best guess is that Cross/Lechmere wanted to avoid scarpering only for Paul to call out that all too familiar East End night time call 'Murder', just as Cross/Lechmere was walking past a beat copper. What would happen then? The beat copper might stop him, search him, bring him back to the crime scene. He might end up swinging from a rope in that scenario. If he blufffs it out with Paul he has an accomplice in innocence - as happened.

Was he aware that no one had seen him from the the windows?
On the south side of Bucks Row any resident would have to hang out the window as her body was fast by the frontage - unlike say Chapman who was out further in the yard due to the back steps at Hanbury Street. That didn't faze the killer, nor did murdering Stride next to a busy club nor Eddowes right by inhabited buildings. Many people assume windows are like walls. I think the killer disregared the windows in every case. So there is no defenestration of Cross.

Was he aware that he wouldn't be searched by a copper?
No but that could happen if he walked off (see above). Clearly whoever was the culprit ran that risk every time he struck.

Was he aware that no one would call him out (in court or if the police visited him) due to his name swap?
No but undoubtedly the reason he chose that fake name was precisely because he could come out with a concocted explanation for using it.

For anyone who still thinks Cross/Lechmere was called Cross in his everyday life...
Cross/Lechmere's children attended school as Lechmere. It would be embarrassing for them to have a dad called Cross by everyone - don't you think?

Abbey
I know you scratched the gang explanation - but the name swap as an attempt to avoid retribution from a gang doesn't work as he gave his real address...

I was going to reply to Caz's posts but she seems to have been 'dealt with' already.
But on the
"Should I stay or should I go?" issue, if she was familiar with the words properly (its probably a generational thing) she would know that this song contains the following lines:
"If I go there will be trouble
"And if I stay it will be double"

Go? If he went he might bump into the beat policeman - Neil - just as Paul discovered the body and shouted out 'murder' - that familar East End street cry. For Cross/Lechmere that would spell trouble with a capital T. Trouble that would end with a neck tie party (see above).
Stay? Bluff it out with the person approaching? (Paul). That could be double trouble and it was. He had to go to a police station and the inquest, yet still bluffed it out.
I think Joe Strummer stayed. just as Cross/Lechmere did.
I would contend that he did not act like an idiot at all. Calculating and cunning.
(That's for you as well Cog)

[Cogidubnus]

So...Joe Strummer (whoever the crap he is ripperwise)...well OK that's pretty conclusive. I'll humbly submit to your obviously superior opinion and abase myself...(I can be sarcastic too you see)...That's exactly why I think you've got nothing, zilch, de nada, F**k all... you're so good with the contempt and the sarcasm but when it comes down to it, you've got no more than anyone else...a wild guess and no evidence whatsoever...goodnight...

[moonbegger]

OMG OMG a first, from you ?

I never thought that I'd live to read that !

thank you.

(folks -fisherman has nothing to add I shall start calling you 'fishkin' if i'm not very very careful).

I think Jack himself would have a hard time surgically removing your tongue here ..

[Rubyretro]

I think Jack himself would have a hard time surgically removing your tongue here ..

Good morning, Moonbegger ! (up bright and early ?)

[Rubyretro]

Moonbegger -I want to ask you a serious question...

I see that Dave got very upset at Lechmere's reply to you, I hope that you don't really get upset at all the sarcasm and joking, do you ? You seem a good natured sort..

[Cogidubnus]

That wasn't "very upset" - I can do far better than that if I get upset!

Dave

[Rubyretro]

That wasn't "very upset" - I can do far better than that if I get upset!

Dave

I'm quaking ! good morning, Dave -and ta ra, I'm off to work.

[Fisherman]

Hi Dave!

May I have a go?

"I'm puzzled...to a potential ripper (who's obviously by definition, in crude terms, an unbalanced nutter - else why's he doing it?) caught standing over the body of his victim, there are any number of places he can flee with even only a forty yard start...it's not like Hanbury Street..."

To begin with, I think we need to look at the term "unbalanced nutter" here, later followed up with "mentally unbalanced", I think we would easily agree that the Ripper was not like you and me. But to predispose that he was in any way a jumpy guy due to this difference would be to draw a potentially very faulty conclusion.
Lots of killers have acted very cooly under pressure. Some of them have injected themselves into police investigations, others have mocked the police during and after their sprees. Some have - instead of running when people arrived at the spot they committed crimes - included the ones who discovered them in their death tolls.
David Carpenter was one such man, who raped and shot women, and who once had another woman come upon him when he had just subdued a victim. Did he run, as all unbalanced nutters ought to? No, he did not - he waited for the woman to arrive, subdued her too, tied her up, raped her and killed her too.
And that was in a forest, with no PC:s patrolling close by and with every opportunity to leg it.

Please also weigh in that serial killers normally not are "nutters" intelligencewise - many of them score impressive IQ:s when tested.

The aim of running would be to stay undetected and uncaught, Dave, right? Well, that would have been Lechmere´s aim to - he just chose another means to reach that aim, a means that allowed him to walk away at leisure. That does not mean he was any superhuman - it only means that he was cool and calculating. Look at fraudsters and con men - they are extremely cool and audacious, running the risk of being revealed every second - but that does not stop them. They don´t break any sweat, they don´t start stuttering, they don´t suddenly run off, do they? No, they stay totally cool and reassuring in spite of being malicious criminals. Some of them would face very serious terms in jail if caught, some even lifetime if it´s their third consecutive crime. But they don´t wawer for a second. And there are heaps and heaps of them.
Apply that mindset on a serial killer and you will see what I am talking about. It´s a vicious animal and a very dangerous one - but not superhuman at all.

Look at the many serialists who, when caught, have reacted with total disinterest and laughed the police in the face. These are men that could not care less, men who have put themselves above the law, men who have professed to have felt godlike when taking lives.
Nutters?
Yes.
A hundred per cent certain to run scared?
Not at all.

Furthermore, let´s say that your assessment of the killer is correct. Let´s say that he was a man who would leg it at the first sign of danger. Then given the timings and the warmth in Nichols´ body, it must be reasoned that if Lechmere was not the killer, then he would probably have been the man who scared the true killer off.

But Lechmere said that he had not seen or heard anybody galloping away in Buck´s Row. That would mean that the killer must have noticed Lechmere at an early stage, gotten up immediately from the body and tip-toed very silently away out of Buck´s Row, right?

No, wrong - for if this is a useful scenario, we must accept that the killer did NOT run for it instantly. Instead, he aborted his deed, stashed his weapon, and set about pulling the clothes down on Nichols, over the wounds to the abdomen. After that, he got up, and did that tip-toeing on soft soles, without being noticed by the fast approaching Lechmere (he was late, and so would have walked briskly, arguably).
Does that make sense to you? Is that what a mentally unstable nutter would do? Or did the killer have a wish to conceal what he had done? If so, why - when he departed the scene as Lechmere entered it? Why risk that extra pair of seconds?

"Is it more rational to accept all this premeditated boldness, plus bluffing Paul, plus bluffing Mizen, plus bluffing the police generally, plus bluffing the coroner, (not to mention his wife)...ad infinitum... or to believe he was exactly what he says he was ..."

Well, he said that he was Charles Cross - and he wasn´t. And we KNOW he bluffed Mizen, that is no conjecture. We also therefore KNOW that he bluffed the coroner, when refusing to admit that he HAD bluffed Mizen. And, in all honesty, if he WAS a stand-up citizen, what would it cost him to say "Sorry, Sir, but yes, I did say that, but that was because I was late to work, and did not wish to be upheld..." That would have cleared a thing or two up - not the pulling of the clothes, though. And likewise not why he opted to loose a few minutes more by choosing Hanbury Street, in spite of being late, something he should never have been in the first place if he left home when he said he did.

So, you see, much as I of course agree that it would have been a more rational thing to do to go to work instead of killing, I think that the more rational EXPLANATION to what he ACTUALLY did, given the testimonies, timings and other circumstances involved, is to believe that he killed instead of going to work like a good chap.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Come to think of it, there is one story that needs to be told when discussing how nutters will run instead of bluffing it out!

Konarak was the name of a young asian man who was found running butt naked on a US street some years ago. He was incoherent and obviously scared of something.
A woman called 911, and paramedics arrived at the scene, trying to calm Konarak down and understand what had scared him. Two young women tried to help.
A blonde man arrived at the scene, and told the paramedics that Konarak was his lover, and that they had had a row. At this stage, two police officers joined the party. And by now, the young women had formed the opinion that the blonde man was what scared Konarak. They told the police so.
This, however, was denied by the man himself. And since he was very eloquent, neat in appearance and completely calm, the police decided that he was probably a good guy. But they decided to check a little bit further, and accompanied the man and the young asian back to the mans flat. Inside it, there were pictures of the asian in undergarments, and the police decided that it seemed to be two lovers they were dealing with, and promptly took off, the asian man sitting dazed on the couch.

What the police did not do was to go into the bedroom. If they had done so, they would have found the corpse of another young man on the bed.

After having wawed the police off, apologizing for the trouble his lover had caused, the blonde man strangled Konarak and had sex with his corpse.

Of course, you will now have picked up on who that blonde man was: Jeffrey Dahmer. The thing is, though, that we KNOW that he was, as Dave puts it, a nutter. Nevertheless, he was very eloquent and totally calm when speaking to the police. Far from legging it when they arrived, he bluffed it out. He even brought the police to his flat, with a dead man lying on his bed.

We are all different, Very, very different at times, luckily. Not all people that seem straight-up and good guys are straight-up, good guys. And not all killers run - some do, whereas others brazenly stay and say "Yeah, I did it - and I would do it again, given the chance!". Others, who wish to proceed with their killing, try to bluff their way out of cornered positions, some do that bad some do it extremely well. Dahmer is a very good example of the latter type.

All the best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Moonbegger -I want to ask you a serious question...

I see that Dave got very upset at Lechmere's reply to you, I hope that you don't really get upset at all the sarcasm and joking, do you ? You seem a good natured sort..

good morning Retro .

I cant really speak for Dave , but what i know of him as a poster , he is very knowledgeable , He looks at every angle of a discussion , weighs up and balance's the pro's and cons of each situation , before he gives his unbiased opinion in a very concise, articulate and informative post . unlike the bias , bigoted ramblings of some on this thread who have no desire to entertain an alternative Scenario outside of their own misguided conjecture ..

So if i was to hesitate a guess, Dave did not get upset at Lechmere's reply to me . but more with Lechmere's all to apparent ignorant and bigoted views towards a whole multitude of possibilities outside of his own closed mind .

But i could be wrong !

Although i must say , i did like his (Lechmere interview sit com ) very good , he is obviously subliminally taking in all i am teaching him .. he just needs to work on that charm and sarcasm malarkey , or maybe he should pay more attention to the puppet master himself

And yes retro i am a very good natured sort .. i am an East End lad , i am both mentally and physically invincible

anyway , back to the thread .

All this talk of " sticking with the facts we know , and no more "

Back in 1888 .. the police was fully aware of CrossMere .. Being murder witness #1 , there is no doubt that the police WOULD have checked him out , Especially after Pauls Lloyds press report . He obviously was no danger , they let him go . The police never suspected him . [Fact]

Many people walked that same route to work . [Fact ]

We DONT know if the Police was aware that he had two names or not .. [Fact ]

We dont know if the police allowed him to be called Cross because he feared retribution (A bit like the witness protection program today )

ok that last bit is conjecture

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"Back in 1888 .. the police was fully aware of CrossMere .. Being murder witness #1 , there is no doubt that the police WOULD have checked him out , Especially after Pauls Lloyds press report . He obviously was no danger , they let him go . The police never suspected him . [Fact]"

Eh ... WHAT is fact here? You list a lot of things, some of which are not proven facts. And IF the police checked him out, how come they did not find his name out? That question has been asked innumerable times - but never satisfactorily answered.
As you have been told, the police invariably listed ALL names when somebody used an alias (like Fleming/Evans) for example.

"We dont know if the police allowed him to be called Cross because he feared retribution (A bit like the witness protection program today )"

Retribution for what? For having spilled the beans and admitted that he had seen or heard absolutely nothing? Is that why he needed protection?

"Many people walked that same route to work . [Fact ]"

Ah- an established fact! May I have the exact numbers please? Or is it only a "fact" that YOU believe that many people MUST have walked this route to work? And do you weigh in the hour of the day - must many people have walked this route to work at around 3.45? Does it not seem obvious that the Ripper felt safe enough to strike in Buck´s Row because the street was empty and he banked on it standing a good chance of remaining empty until he was done? And ALL the PC:s walking the adjoining beats plus all the watchmen spoken to told that they had not seen a soul at the relevant hours, but for Lechmere and Paul - that, Moonbegger, IS a fact.

But how does that rhyme with YOUR "facts"?


All the best,
Fisherman