The Mizen scam

[Lechmere]

No moomin - we have zero evidence that he ever called himself Cross and lots of evidence that he was known as Lechmere even in childhood.

Frau von Retro - what was that talk about flak? Achtung baby!

[moonbegger]

Ok ..

So let me step into the boots of team Lechsmear for just a moment ..

We are 100% positive that no one ever refurred to him as Cross ( apart from his deranged controlling stepfather )

And we are confident that all the people working at pickfords were so stupid or illiterate that they would not have read the news papers and wondered who the hell this cross fellow was who supposedly worked amongst them .

Or indeed the foreman , manager , even the ****ing tea lady would have been a tad curious

Sooner than later , people would have asked questions and drawn their own conclusions , surely this charlatan , this fraudster , masquerading as one of us must be the killer ! At the very least someone would have informed the police .

And MAYBE they did .. just maybe the police did investigate his double name conundrum .. all this , after his name was officially registered as Cross in the police report and the inquest .. and once they was satisfied with his ( fearful to give my more common name guv ) story .. they checked him out and let him go .

The bonus in having only half an apple at our disposal , is that we can all theorise as to the condition of the the other half .

moonbegger .

[Rubyretro]

Moonbegger -What is this obsession with apples ? Are you a greengrocer or something ?

[Rubyretro]

Guten Morgen, Fisherman ! a bit of wurst with a slice of kase this morning ? -to set you up for your job down at the camp today..

[Fisherman]

Thanks, Ruby, but I think Iīll pass ...

All the best,
Fisherman

[caz]

One other thing about the name swap.
It is clear that he gave the name Cross but was more usually called Lechmere - even if he was called Cross at work. So if the police came knocking he would potentially have drawn attention to himself if innocent by not telling them he as also called Lechmere - and we know he did not tell them that.
That was silly for an innocent man - he could have drawn suspicion on his head for no reason.

Except that an innocent man would not be waiting for more opportunities to kill prossies on his way to work, would he, Lech? Chances were that an innocent Cross would be able to provide an alibi for subsequent murders, in the event that his name change had drawn suspicion on his head.

So it would have been far sillier for the killer to risk drawing suspicion on his head in this way, in the wake of C1.

Thanks for finally appreciating that Cross would have been a silly-billy either way, and sillier still if he was never known as Cross at work.

Progress of sorts?

Love,

Caz
X

[Rubyretro]

Hi Caz -I know that this reply is for Lechmere, but forgive me if I butt in.

Except that an innocent man would not be waiting for more opportunities to kill prossies on his way to work, would he, Lech?

An innocent man -obviously not. We certainly don't know how a guilty man would think. Maybe he would be like a drug addict and say to himself " OK that's the last one -tomorrow I'll stop". Maybe he had only the idea of getting out of the immediately sticky problem viz ā viz Paul, with no intention of ever murdering again ?

Certainly whoever the killer was, he did leave gaps between the murders (pointing perhaps to the idea that he was satiated after a killing until the urge & opportunity concerted to put temptation in his way once again), and unless he was incarcerated or died suddenly, he chose to stop rather than be caught.

Chances were that an innocent Cross would be able to provide an alibi for subsequent murders, in the event that his name change had drawn suspicion on his head.

An innocent one, Yes. As to a guilty one, I think that it is a fact that JTR
(Lechmere/Coss, or otherwise) enjoyed his own publicity and getting away with his crimes under the noses of the police. Therefore, had Lechmere been the killer, he might well have felt invincible after bluffing Paul, Mizen and the inquest, and have been positively encouraged to take further risks.

It might well be that the risks involved, and adrenalin rush, were as important to Jack as the actual murder and mutilation.

So it would have been far sillier for the killer to risk drawing suspicion on his head in this way, in the wake of C1.

I think that I have given the answer to this with my previous responses. He could hardly have known that Polly was 'C1' -if he was not a long term planner, but dealt with temptation, murder, and resulting problems if and when they arose, and with aways the intention to stop.

Jack was a bit of a 'silly-billy' to kill in a yard in Hanbury Street, Dutfield's yard, Kelly's room (he risked being cornered red-handed, with the knife, -literally- with no hope of bluffing). And silly to carry the Eddowes apron piece on him, let alone organs. Silly to have carried out a murder if he had been spotted with a victim, in the time frame, by a witness. He would have been silly if he lived in a lodging house, silly if he wrote a diary, and literally silly if he was obviously mad. Silly, if he was famous. Silly, if he a memorable rich toff. Silly if he was married. Silly if his times off work coincided with the murders. Silly if he was a known criminal. Silly if he actually got done for other murders. Silly if he fit the jewish foreigner/ abbatoir circulating descriptions. Silly if he was a known Anarchist/Fenian watched by police.

Rubes
x

[Lechmere]

Caz
Being a silly Billy seems quite the vogue for serial killers if you look at what they have done and the risks they have taken. If that's the term you prefer - I would say they are self centred, egotists that think they can do as they please and don't live by your rules.

Moomin
I think it is almost certain Lechmere told his work colleagues he was involved as he took a day off for the inquest. He may have explained to them with a **** and null story why he used cross as a name.

I take it you would prefer the culprit to be an aristo. I am afraid it will almost certainly be the case that it was an East End lad - Lechmere or not.

[caz]

Hi Ruby & Lech,

That's fine then. So we are now agreed that Cross - if he was the killer - was a silly-billy just like I've been saying all along, and not the clever clogs that some had tried to argue for previously.

So again, if he was the killer, he got away with it despite taking silly risks and not because he took clever, calculated ones.

Phew! Thank the lord for that.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

How is calling yourself Cross "asking to be suspected"? And no matter how he would fare in a "Brain of Britain"-competition, we can see that he was apparently NOT suspected. Meaning that in the choice of "yes" or "no" to the question "Will calling myself Cross have me suspected", "no" was the correct answer.
Would have earned him a useful point in that brain-competition, thus!

Blimey, Fish, enough already with the circular reasoning.

Of course calling himself Cross was asking to be suspected, but only if everyone knew him as Lechmere and he only used Cross in the context of talking to the police about his discovery of the victim - his victim, if he was the killer.

The fact that he was apparently NOT suspected could indicate that 1) the police checked there was a Charles Allen Cross at Pickfords and there was, because he was known there as Cross, or 2) they saw no need to check and he was very fortunate - if he was the killer and was always known as Lechmere - because he couldn't have anticipated them not finding out.

The fact that he was apparently NOT suspected in no way, shape or form has anything to do with calling himself Cross rather than Lechmere. The fact that he was apparently NOT suspected in no way, shape or form makes his decision to call himself Cross a smart one, if he was always known as Lechmere.

If you cross a busy main road with your eyes shut, you will be asking to be run over and killed. You will not suddenly turn from foolhardy to brainy if you happen to survive. You will simply be a brainless fool who got lucky on that occasion.

It is not "assumed" that he lied to Mizen.

Oh yes it is.

It was assumed at the time to be an honest misunderstanding, and we simply don't know what exactly was said to Mizen as he apparently took down no details at the time.

It is as if them cards are tightly glued together, growing stronger and more durable with every failed objection, for some reason.

Those cards, Fishy - 'them' cards should be kept for spoken slang, if you must, but never written. It's like nails down a blackboard, which is a shame considering how good your use of English is generally.

Love,

Caz
X

[moonbegger]

Hello Retro ,

Apples .. Yes indeed Ruby, i am subliminally planting the seeds , just waiting to unleash my new Jack the greengrocer theory

Lech,

"I think it is almost certain Lechmere told his work colleagues he was involved as he took a day off for the inquest. He may have explained to them with a **** and bull story why he used cross as a name "

We all know how people at work gossip ! so he told his work colleagues , his work colleagues told their friends .. their friends (Ect, Ect) Not every one who herd the story first, second , third hand would have believed his C+B story .. As the Great T.S Elliot once said ...

"You can fool some of the people some of the time , half of the people half of the time, most of the people most of the time , but you cant fool all of the people all of the time "

Someone would have been suspicious and upset the apple cart (like it retro)
at sometime .. maybe the fellow who watched him scrub off the encrusted blood from his hands the morning of Polly's murder may have figured something was a miss .. And where would he have subtly stored his 8 inch blade whilst working ?

Where would he have stored Chapmans Body parts , or Kelly's bits and pieces ( the canteen fridge ? )

And once he told his colleagues , and they read about him committing perjury , would they not then become accomplices in their silence , would they also be expected to lie for him if the police came asking questions ?

And even if the police took it , hook line and sinker , and no longer had him under suspicion .. i'm pretty sure that would not be the case for his work colleagues , who would have been very suspicious of his every move .. In Fact the first question they would have asked themselves after the Chapman murder .. Where was CrossMere ?

cheers

moonbegger

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Hi Ruby & Lech,

That's fine then. So we are now agreed that Cross - if he was the killer - was a silly-billy just like I've been saying all along, and not the clever clogs that some had tried to argue for previously.

So again, if he was the killer, he got away with it despite taking silly risks and not because he took clever, calculated ones.

Phew! Thank the lord for that.

Love,

Caz
X

No, no no, Caz....

It is far too simplistic to sort people into boxes as being either 'clever' or 'silly'.
Life abounds with people who are both very clever (on one level) and very silly on another level (People with a very high IQ and a broad culture, may fare far worse in life than people with only one 'gift' and one interest, who just plug away at the only thing they know, and so succeed through concentration of effort instead of dispersing themselves).

People who are intellectual on paper, may be rubbish when it comes to practical matters or emotional interaction with other people (so not being adept at body language, empathy, team dynamics etc -which wouldn't get them far).

I once read up on 'school killings' -it is most often the brightest students who become school killers -they can plan meticulously over a long time, train themselves, do research on building bombs and work out the logistics on bypassing 'security' and cornering the maximum of victims etc -yet they are basically so 'silly' because they wasted their gifts by guaranteeing that they would fail in exams, be cornered and have to 'self destruct' or face prison and the hate of Society.

One can make a similar case for Jack...except that he was obviously an adult male killer, with a sexual motive. Yet he could have had a very high IQ to cheat the authorities, and still have done any of the 'silly' things that I've cited.

I don't see your problem ?

Pubes
x

[Cogidubnus]

Sorry Moonbegger...probably daft...and I just know I'll somehow regret asking...but I just gotta ask all the same...whereabouts in the list of assassinated US presidents is Thomas Stearns?

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Letīs fix 3.46.30 as the point when Thain saw the signal, then. That would mean that Neil came upon the body at, say, 3.46.

Letīs say that Mizen spoke to Lechmere at 3.46 too. Paul says that the whole thing, from finding Nichols to finding Mizen took no more than four minutes. Then the carmen found Nichols (joint effort, sort of, as Swanson said ...) at 3.42.
After the conversation with Lechmere - but not with Paul - Mizen rushed off to Buckīs Row, but not until having knocked a customer or two up. Letīs say that it took him three minutes, justaboutish. That would bring us to 3.49.
Thain had seen the signal at 3.46.30. He takes off to help Neil, and is in place at 3.47. After having been informed about what has happened, he leaves at 3.47.30 to fetch Llewellyn. One and a half minute later, Mizen arrives, after having seen Neils lantern and responding to it during his way down Buckīs Row.

Letīs see now, how much off does this make people? It makes Paul three minutes off, it makes Neil a minute off, Mizen a minute off and Thain one minute and a half off. It allows for Lechmere and Paul to have passed Thomas Street and turned into Bakerīs Row before Neil came into the very same street if the carmen were up there at, say, 3.44.30 and if Neil came into Buckīs Row at the approximate same time, leaving him a minute and a half to find Nichols.

Hi Christer

I suppose much depends upon Paul's estimate of no more than four minutes being accurate...not forgetting this is the man who estimated leaving home at 3.45...yes?

OK...he leaves home, 30 Foster Street, trundles down Bucks Row, (three or four minutes elapsed so far perhaps?) is accosted by Cross, OK start the clock proper...He crosses the road to look at the body, discusses it with Cross, bending down and touching her chest as he does so...they decide to continue to work, but before doing so, Paul bends again and pulls down the clothes, they trundle off together down the road and meet Mizen at Bakers Row...stop the clock...frankly it seems a lot to pack into the four minutes...and moreover, what time does it indicate he actually left home, compared to his 3.45 estimate?

Like I said before, there is too much going on at 3.45...

All the best

Dave

[Lechmere]

Paul was probably accurate on time as he knew he was late and alone had no motive to lie about time. Cross did - he did the deed. The police did as they were dossing around not doing their beats properly.

Moomin
The police should have taken Cross in after Chapman but didn't. He was lucky.

Caz
The police would not 'just' have checked his work if the checked him out. Surely you know that?