The Mizen scam

[Observer]

The Yorkshire Ripper was pre-PACE so, in answer to your question, he could (by devious means admittedly) have been held for several days on suspicion of stealing the car. That said, I acknowledge that I misunderstood your previous post, when I thought you were suggesting that Sutcliffe wouldn't have been arrested had it not been for the officer remembering etc. So apologies for that.

Regards, Bridewell.

No problem Bridewell.

Yes, I agree, there is no question that Sutcliffe would have been charged with stealing number plates, and driving with false number plates. However, even without the knowledge of the hammer and knife, I think the police believed there was a strong possibility that Sutcliffe was the Ripper. How far they would have pushed him I don't know, but If he'd stuck to his story about giving some people a lift to Sheffield, and using the money they'd given him, ten pounds, to engage a prostitute, then I believe it's a possibility they would have had to let him go eventually. Of course we'll never know.

Regards

Observer

[Rubyretro]

Good morning, Fisherman !

[Fisherman]

Good morning, Dave!

Here goes!

"So where is all that cool and calculation, in say, Dutfields Yard - he's widely assumed to have flitted at the slightest disturbance there...no staying put and calling the witnesses bluff..."

Widely ASSUMED, yes. But you ask for evidence yourself, remember? Tom (Wescott) has suggested that the killer set out to kill two on the "double event" night, and therefore just cut the throat of number one, in order to stay neat enough to go searching for another. If this applies, then the cool calculator is back in the picture again, right?
Anyhow, he would have had a lot better reason to leg it in Berner Street, as I am sure you can appreciate. For he would have stood no chance to get away with ANOTHER charade ŕ la Buck´s Row. How would that have looked? "Hi, it´s me again, Charles Cross. Guess what ...?"
After Buck´s Row, that option was closed to him, and so he HAD TO flee if disturbed.

"the killer could easily have been gone a couple of minutes before Cross hove into view"

Yes, he could. But that STILL leaves us with the question why the killer pulled Nichols´clothing down, does it not? He did not do that in any other case, where he instead can be reasoned to have displayed the victims in sexually explicit positions.
Now, what practical use could he have had to hide Nichols´wounds...? I can think of a very good suggestion!

"I concede there's a need to examine why this identity was used...but more than one explanation is perfectly viable..."

And how do these explanations cover the fact that he signed himself Lechmere att sixty contacts with the authorities, but Cross at the sixty-first? Your McCarthy/Carty comparison does not really hold up, I think - the names are nicknamishly alike to begin with. And did your relative SIGN himself Carty or McCarthy? And did he use one name colloquially and the the other officially? My father-in-law was born Skog but added another o and made it Skoog, but that does not compare either, does it?

"how we can accurately assess Cross's journey I simply don't know...If he left home say 0325 and discovered the body at 0331, spent just 4 or 5 minutes over it with Paul, then came across Mizen at 0340..."

But he did not spend five minutes with the body. Paul is adamant that the discovery, the examination, the walk down to Hanbury Street and the meeting with Mizen would have taken no more than four minutes altogether. And the weighed-together timings of the involved people tells us clearly that the body was discovered (by Paul, at least!) at around 3.40-3.45. No ten minutes can be deducted from that, rationally.

"the limited evidence we DO have suggests that's just what he DID do...not just that day, but the rest of his working life...in that, I see innocence, whilst you somehow see suspicion..."

I don´t see suspicion in anybody going to work. Not at all. It´s not until I can see that someone is out on the timings, uses the wrong names, lies to the police and has a string of killings happen along his work route that I get suspicious. And that´s not "somehow", Dave. Like I have said before, any police force worth it´s salt would have jumped on somebody with a rap sheet such as Lechmere´s - had they known about it. Surely you must realize this? Knowing, as we do, that the police was uninformed about the name swop, the correlation between his work route and -times and the victims, the lie to Mizen, the correlation between his mother´s lodgings and the Berner Street slaying ON A SATURDAY NIGHT, Lechmere´s recent move to Doveton Street, his old haunts in James Street and Mary Ann Street, I fail to see that they would not have become convinced that they had a red-hot suspect on their hands if they had been handed this information. But they had no idea - and they were looking for a monster, not a family father.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Oh! Mornin´, Ruby! What´s up?

Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Morning all - stuck in traffic on M25...
Bridewell
Mizen under oath at the inquest said Cross told him he was wanted by a policeman. He also denied continuing to knock up.
Are you accusing a serving policeman of lying under oath?

[Rubyretro]

Excellent post, Fish..

Widely ASSUMED, yes. But you ask for evidence yourself, remember? Tom (Wescott) has suggested that the killer set out to kill two on the "double event" night, and therefore just cut the throat of number one, in order to stay neat enough to go searching for another. If this applies, then the cool calculator is back in the picture again, right?

I certainly didn't know that Tom had said that, and I'm very interested in knowing why he said that -I shall find out.

I have suggested this myself on several occasions. My reasons are that there is a 'double event' run at Newmarket close to the 30th September (dates vary) known as the 'Autumn Double' -They are two races (Cesarewitch and Cambridgeshire). I think that I'm correct in saying that in the days before telly, horseracing was very much more popular with the
working classes than it is now -and that's why they built a direct railway line from London to Newmarket to ferry in the crowds. Caz may well be correct with her suggestion (in reply to me) that it was a journalist who saw this link at the time and coined the term 'Double event' in honour of the Autumn Double -but maybe that was the killer's little joke all along ? Maybe he actually did set out to kill two at that date intentionally ?

If it were true, it would make the killer extremely cool and calculating.

At any rate there s a witness statement from someone (I'm not looking it up unless you ask me to), who testified that it was so dark in the yard when he went out for air, that he had to feel his way along the walls to get back into the club...not conducive to mutilation, I would have thought ( were that the killer's motivation in the case of Liz).

Anyhow, he would have had a lot better reason to leg it in Berner Street, as I am sure you can appreciate. For he would have stood no chance to get away with ANOTHER charade ŕ la Buck´s Row. How would that have looked? "Hi, it´s me again, Charles Cross. Guess what ...?"
After Buck´s Row, that option was closed to him, and so he HAD TO flee if disturbed.

Bog standard base logic. It is just laughable to suggest otherwise.

"the killer could easily have been gone a couple of minutes before Cross hove into view"

Yes, he could. But that STILL leaves us with the question why the killer pulled Nichols´clothing down, does it not? He did not do that in any other case, where he instead can be reasoned to have displayed the victims in sexually explicit positions.
Now, what practical use could he have had to hide Nichols´wounds...? I can think of a very good suggestion!

Fish, your answer is the only serious reply to that.

I must have inadvertently zapped one of Dave's suggestions somewhere that the body was cold -I'm sure that I read that it was still warm above the elbows, when 'discovered' by Neil. Wasn't there a suggestion by Paul that she might still be breathing ? It was a very fresh kill -whoever did it.
(even if you say that it wasn't Lechmere who killed her, it just has to be admitted that Lechmere disturbed the killer. Either way, Polly had only just expired when Paul arrived).

[QUOTE]

they were looking for a monster, not a family father.
[/QUOTE

Whoever JTR was, he surely didn't appear to be a 'monster' -and a monster is what the police and public were looking for. But we know today that serial killers can be 'ordinary' seeming people, and they can stop and continue ordinary lives -

Just google wikipedia for Emile Louis -a french serial killer, married twice, with four kids from his first marriage. I saw him interviewed on the telly once..;no one would ever guess that the man was a killer ...

Sa mčre adoptive est autoritaire et froide, trait de personnalité dont il s'imprčgne entičrement. Il se réfugie dans un moi grandiose et omnipotent. Il est en męme temps décrit comme un homme gentil, serviable, ŕ l'écoute et affectueux, un confident, un pčre, qui apportait beaucoup ŕ des jeunes en manque d'affection et de reconnaissance.

This is an extract from the section on his psychology (and it fits with that thread on Narcissicm, a month or so back). I'll translate it :

"His adoptive mother was a cold authoritarian, which was a personality trait in which he seeped himself in entirely. He built a sense of self which was grandiose and omnipotentent. At the same time he has been described as kind, helpful, attentive, and affectionate, a 'confidente', a Father, someone who gave a good deal to young people who lacked affection and recognition"

Well, of course he did actually rape and eviscerate 7 of of those young people -for which he was done many years later...

[Lechmere]

Cog

I don't think this is too repetative given Fisherman's reply...

The killer at Duffields Yard is often thought to have hidden themesleves in the dark recesses until Diemschutz had withdrawn.
There is a fundamental difference between the scenario where a killer is found in a dark blind alley that is also private property immediately 'by' a corpse, and someone spotted at forty yards 'by' a corpse on an open street.
What excuse could any potential killer have given Diemschutz?
'I popped in to have a quiet slash and blimey there's a dead body'.
And as Fisherman pointed out there would be even less chance of bluffing his way out if the killer was Cross - obviously.
Not much chance of escaping I would guess. But if anyone thinks otherwise, be my guest...

I don't think that the killer, Cross or anyone else would deliberately court discovery or semi discovery (as at Bucks Row). Hence once the deed was done (e.g. Mitre Square, Hanbury Street, Miller's Court) why on earth would he hang around to bluff it out with anyone?
The evidence that the killer had not gone before Cross hove into view is that the killer droppeed the skirt to cover the abdominal injuries. The display of the abdominal injuries seems to have been important in all other cases where there were abdominal injuries - Tabram, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly. The dropping of the skirt made it less obvious that the victim was dead and would buy time for the killer. But this would only be necessary if there was an immediate prospect of discovery.
Furthermore the beat policemen at either end of Bucks Row, plus the beat policeman who patrolled Bucks Row, plus all the other witnesses failed to see anyone. Not even a shabby genteel chap or someone who looked like a sailor.

On the Mizen-Cross exchange - it is agreed that Cross told Mizen that there was a woman down in Bucks Row and she may be alive or dead.
Mizen claims he went straight to Bucks Row - Paul claims he continued knocking up.
Mizen claims Cross told him he was wanted by a policeman, Cross denied it, qualifying his denial by saying 'there was no policeman in Bucks Row' (to paraphrase).
It is clear that Mizen did not take Cross nor Paul's name or address.
For Mizen to fail to take their names and addresses and to continue knocking up (and I strongly suspect that he did continuing knocking up) he would have to have been an utter incompetant. The only excuse for his dereliction would be if Cross did tell him he was wanted by a policeman as that would imply that the matter was in hand and he was not urgently needed and also that the other policeman would ahve already taken their details.
On balance it would seem likely that Cross did tell Mizen he was wanted by another policeman in Bucks Row.

Would Cross have known that Winthrop Street was relatively busy late at night?
I would suggest that prior to going on his murder spree he would have made it is business to know what was going on in streets adjacent to his route. He would have been truly foolish not to.
Likewise he moved into Doveton Street some six weeks prior to his first murder - Tabram. But about ten weeks prior to the Nichols killing. With him walking that way - or near alterative routes - six nights a week there and back I would suggest that would be plenty of time to aquaint himself with the local police beats - Neil's for example. He would cartainly have passed him several times, almost certainly unnoticed.. But then carmen were as common a sight on the streets of the East End as a cocksparrow.
To form counter arguments I would suggest that you have to think things through from Cross's persepective - as if he were the culprit. That would save many of these exchanges.
For instrance, if he did it he will almost certainlky have picked Polly up on Whitechapel Road somewhere. Whitechapel Road was quite busy according to Neil even at that time. But where was Neil while this meeting took place? He passed the murder scene at Bucks Row at 3.15. Between 3.20 and around 3.40 he must have been on Whitechapel Road, sharing a pipe with someone or loitering in an alley. Cross would almost certainly have passed him. He may even have seen Neil engrossed in conversation . Cross will have known that he had limited time at his disposal. That is why he will have been anxious about running slap bang into Neil just as Paul was crying our 'Murder'. That is why he didn't just quietly 'bugger off'.

[moonbegger]

Morning all - stuck in traffic on M25...
Bridewell
Mizen under oath at the inquest said Cross told him he was wanted by a policeman. He also denied continuing to knock up.
Are you accusing a serving policeman of lying under oath?

Oh Please !

Like that never Happens

[Rubyretro]

Oh Please !

Like that never Happens

Well , that is probably a myth of Telly and pubs...it most probably rarely happens in real life.

I would put to you the unfashionable suggestion that policemen are people more honest than the average ?

(that might be one reason that they wanted to be policemen ? Turn off the box !).

[Fisherman]

Ruby!

Thanks for the Emile Louis snippet - much interesting. He rings no bells with me, so I will have to take a closer look at him. And yes, the authoritative mother is a figure he may have had in common with Lechmere. The latter also suffered a lack of his father, that too being an ingredient in many a serial kiler soup (if Sam Flynn had been around, I´m sure I can predict the exact word he would have used reading this. Psychobabble ...)

All the best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

...and it is true..let's put it to Colin..

-Does he think it reasonable to assume, or not assume (since we can't know), if a policeman would lie under oath ?

[Lechmere]

The mindboggles Moomintroll at your posts...

Anyone who engages in sensible discussion in this field will admit that much of it is based on conjecture. I sometimes makes guesses based on the evidence and the application of common sense. But when I do I try and point it out that I am not claiming that something as a fact when it is not - even when that something is virtually certain to be the case.

Now I will say that there is no chance whatsoever that Paul will have been able to have seen Cross 'in the act'.
Cross acknowledged that he was aware of Paul at 40 yards. That means that Cross must have in reality been aware of Paul at about 60 yards, otherwise he will not have had time to lower the dress, wipe his hands and conceal the knife.
I believe you used to meander down Durward Street at one point in your life, zig zagging from north pavement to south pavement (I hope not while you were walking from Shoreditch to Essex Road as you would have been lost).
You should surely know without me having to tell you that on a dark night with no street lights, Paul would not have been able to see anything else but the shape of a human form at that distance.
Or are you going to claim that Paul might have had night vision goggles on?

I take it you no longer think that people on the south side of Bucks Row were leaning out of their windows observing the murder scene? That just leaves Essex Wharf. As I pointed out to you - if the killer was worried about window watchers he wouldn't have struck in the back yard at Hanbury Street when it was lighter. I think we can take it that he disregarded window watchers.

The danger to Cross wasn't from an unaware beat plod - it was from a beat plod alerted by Paul crying out murder.
You seem hyper confident that Paul wouldn't have noticed the body. In Paul's newspaper interview he stated that the body was clear to see. No guesswork needed there.
Also if you re-read the contemporary accounts, Cross didn't drag Paul back to the corpse. Paul hadn't reached it by the time Cross approached him and frightened him. No guess work needed there.

As there is no record of Cross ever using the name Cross - including in his children's school records - then until anyone can provide a shred of evidence to the contrary, Cross was a fake name. If he went around calling himself Cross unofficially, then he was inviting riducle on his children.

If the police discovered that he was really Lechmere he could have come out with a concocted story about how he treasured the memory of his late lamented step father. That is why it was a useful fake name to use. The difference - or the reason for the name swap - would be to hide his involvement in the case from his wife. If guilty this would be to avoid her getting suspicious about his behaviour. His family would probably know him to be obsessive, over wraught, up tight, and perhaps aggressive around the home.

Some of this Moonintroll is conjecture based on the facts as known and based on likelihoods
(The question about lying under oath was one that I hope for an answer from Bridewell).

[moonbegger]

...and it is true..let's put it to Colin..

-Does he think it reasonable to assume, or not assume (since we can't know), if a policeman would lie under oath ?

My God , you people are for real The real world is somewhere outside of a book , or a sick want or need for self indulgent praise ..


[The majority of the cases reviewed by the Star involve police officers who, out of laziness, overzealousness or poor training, violated laws that protect suspects from abuse of police power, found damning evidence and then lied to cover up their flawed investigation.

“It's the coverup that kills,” said one judge, who requested anonymity to preserve the appearance of impartiality necessary for his job.

Police officers have a difficult job and usually know who the criminals are, the judge said, but some play hunches to bust suspects, then “make stuff up” to patch their investigations.

“Police will end up lying on the witness stand. That's just a reality ... We (judges) know this happens. We talk about it all the time. ]


I am sensing an cowards ambush .. bring it on !

moonbegger .

[Abby Normal]

Cog

I don't think this is too repetative given Fisherman's reply...

The killer at Duffields Yard is often thought to have hidden themesleves in the dark recesses until Diemschutz had withdrawn.
There is a fundamental difference between the scenario where a killer is found in a dark blind alley that is also private property immediately 'by' a corpse, and someone spotted at forty yards 'by' a corpse on an open street.
What excuse could any potential killer have given Diemschutz?
'I popped in to have a quiet slash and blimey there's a dead body'.
And as Fisherman pointed out there would be even less chance of bluffing his way out if the killer was Cross - obviously.
Not much chance of escaping I would guess. But if anyone thinks otherwise, be my guest...

I don't think that the killer, Cross or anyone else would deliberately court discovery or semi discovery (as at Bucks Row). Hence once the deed was done (e.g. Mitre Square, Hanbury Street, Miller's Court) why on earth would he hang around to bluff it out with anyone?
The evidence that the killer had not gone before Cross hove into view is that the killer droppeed the skirt to cover the abdominal injuries. The display of the abdominal injuries seems to have been important in all other cases where there were abdominal injuries - Tabram, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly. The dropping of the skirt made it less obvious that the victim was dead and would buy time for the killer. But this would only be necessary if there was an immediate prospect of discovery.
Furthermore the beat policemen at either end of Bucks Row, plus the beat policeman who patrolled Bucks Row, plus all the other witnesses failed to see anyone. Not even a shabby genteel chap or someone who looked like a sailor.

On the Mizen-Cross exchange - it is agreed that Cross told Mizen that there was a woman down in Bucks Row and she may be alive or dead.
Mizen claims he went straight to Bucks Row - Paul claims he continued knocking up.
Mizen claims Cross told him he was wanted by a policeman, Cross denied it, qualifying his denial by saying 'there was no policeman in Bucks Row' (to paraphrase).
It is clear that Mizen did not take Cross nor Paul's name or address.
For Mizen to fail to take their names and addresses and to continue knocking up (and I strongly suspect that he did continuing knocking up) he would have to have been an utter incompetant. The only excuse for his dereliction would be if Cross did tell him he was wanted by a policeman as that would imply that the matter was in hand and he was not urgently needed and also that the other policeman would ahve already taken their details.
On balance it would seem likely that Cross did tell Mizen he was wanted by another policeman in Bucks Row.

Would Cross have known that Winthrop Street was relatively busy late at night?
I would suggest that prior to going on his murder spree he would have made it is business to know what was going on in streets adjacent to his route. He would have been truly foolish not to.
Likewise he moved into Doveton Street some six weeks prior to his first murder - Tabram. But about ten weeks prior to the Nichols killing. With him walking that way - or near alterative routes - six nights a week there and back I would suggest that would be plenty of time to aquaint himself with the local police beats - Neil's for example. He would cartainly have passed him several times, almost certainly unnoticed.. But then carmen were as common a sight on the streets of the East End as a cocksparrow.
To form counter arguments I would suggest that you have to think things through from Cross's persepective - as if he were the culprit. That would save many of these exchanges.
For instrance, if he did it he will almost certainlky have picked Polly up on Whitechapel Road somewhere. Whitechapel Road was quite busy according to Neil even at that time. But where was Neil while this meeting took place? He passed the murder scene at Bucks Row at 3.15. Between 3.20 and around 3.40 he must have been on Whitechapel Road, sharing a pipe with someone or loitering in an alley. Cross would almost certainly have passed him. He may even have seen Neil engrossed in conversation . Cross will have known that he had limited time at his disposal. That is why he will have been anxious about running slap bang into Neil just as Paul was crying our 'Murder'. That is why he didn't just quietly 'bugger off'.

Hi Lech

Mizen claims he went straight to Bucks Row - Paul claims he continued knocking up.
Mizen claims Cross told him he was wanted by a policeman, Cross denied it,

If Mizen lied (or misremembered) about going straight to Bucks Row then isn't it probable that he lied (or misremembered)about Cross saying he was wanted in Bucks Row?

More than likely to save his arse?

[Lechmere]

Bridewell - you asked a while back about why I think that Cross/Lechmere's family background is of significance.

Namely that his father deserted the family and had a second family while his mother bigimously remarried twice, the first time to a much younger policeman who would have been the authority figure during Cross/Lechmere's formative years.

The FBI profile of Jack the Ripper includes this passage:
'He comes from a family where he was raised by a domineering mother and weak, passive father. In all likelihood, his mother drank heavily and enjoyed the company of many men.
'As a result, he failed to receive consistent care and contact with stable adult role models.'
'...this unstable family background resulted in the killer internalising his anger from his younger years, becoming an introvert and venting his frustration through violent destructive acts.'