The Mizen scam

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Ok Fisherman -so it's not Polly that your wife might cite as the 'other woman', it is apparently Lechmere ( THE poster)"

I don´t know how these surreal posts surface? Meanwhile, back at the farm ...

The best,
Fisherman

[FrankO]

Not really. There may also have been a confusion among the papers. He could have said that he normally left at 3.20 but on this morning he was late, and so he left at 3.30.
That is one possibility.
Another is that he said that he left at 3.20 or 3.30. Then the time added to the unexplained amount of time is increased. Whichever way, we are left with a scenario where we must accept that his schedule cannot be shown to have been too tight to squeeze in a blitz style mureder - on the contrary.

Hi Jenny & Fish,

There’s another possibility. I’ve found 13 newspapers who carried (a version of) Cross’s inquest statement: 3 of those stated that he deposed to have left home at 20 minutes past three and 10 stated he deposed to have left home at (about) half past three. So, it’s quite possible the newspapers who printed ’20 minutes past three’ (or their journalists) made a mistake.

It’s a pity Cross’s police statement hasn’t survived, and that we don’t know how accurate Cross’s estimate was as to the time he left home.

All the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Frank:

"There’s another possibility. I’ve found 13 newspapers who carried (a version of) Cross’s inquest statement: 3 of those stated that he deposed to have left home at 20 minutes past three and 10 stated he deposed to have left home at (about) half past three. So, it’s quite possible the newspapers who printed ’20 minutes past three’ (or their journalists) made a mistake."

Absolutely, Frank - that may be what happened. I do have some trouble to understand how "half past three" could have been mistaken for "twenty minutes past three", though. Could he have said "thirty minutes past three"?

"It’s a pity Cross’s police statement hasn’t survived, and that we don’t know how accurate Cross’s estimate was as to the time he left home."

It is, of course. What we have, though, very clearly opens up for the possibility that he had time at hand to kill. And what we have is what we are obliged to go by.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Mr Lucky]

There’s another possibility. I’ve found 13 newspapers who carried (a version of) Cross’s inquest statement: 3 of those stated that he deposed to have left home at 20 minutes past three and 10 stated he deposed to have left home at (about) half past three. So, it’s quite possible the newspapers who printed ’20 minutes past three’ (or their journalists) made a mistake.

Hi Frank

Yes it's quite a curious point you've made there, and I have looked into that, too, but I have come to a different conclusion to you, If as you suggest a simple error has been introduced, changing the 3 into a 2, then that would be most likely explanation if the text appeared in print as 3.30, but the time is actually expressed in the text as ‘20 minutes past 3’. As the phrase ’thirty minutes past three’ would not have usually been used, ‘half past three’ being the generally excepted way of expressing this particular time, it seems unlikely that the two terms have been confused. Likewise the reverse, as ‘half past three’ doesn’t contain the word ‘minute’ . The likelihood that this confusion between the various press versions of ‘half past three’ and ‘3.30’ on one side and the ‘20 minutes past 3’ and ‘20 minutes past three’ on the other, is just a simple copy error is very much reduced in my opinion and the chance that it is actually an error caused by omission or editing is increased, by that I mean that I think Cross had mentioned both times, ‘20 minutes past three’ and ‘half past three’

It’s a pity Cross’s police statement hasn’t survived.

Very true, or even the actual notes taken at Baxters inquest.

[moonbegger]

Fisherman ,

I have a question , did any of those inquest reports list cross's address ?

[FrankO]

If as you suggest a simple error has been introduced, changing the 3 into a 2, then that would be most likely explanation if the text appeared in print as 3.30, but the time is actually expressed in the text as ‘20 minutes past 3’.

Hi Mr Lucky & Fish,

What actually ended up in all but one paper indeed wasn't '3.30', but that doesn't mean that the journalists didn't write it down as such. In fact, since ‘3.30’ would have been much quicker to write than ‘half past three’, I wouldn't be surprised if that was what most, if not all, journalists actually wrote down, while listening to Cross's further deposition.

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

What we have, though, very clearly opens up for the possibility that he had time at hand to kill. And what we have is what we are obliged to go by.

Taking (just) the '3.20' at face value very clearly opens up for that possibility, Fish, but I, for one, don't see good reason to do so. Besides, the timing of Cross finding the body ('about 3.40 am') in Abberline's report of 19 September, is clearly more in line with the '3.30' than the '3.20'. And that's what we have too. But that's just my take.

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

If he had said that he left home at close to 3.45, the problem would not have surfaced for him. As it stands, it inevitably does.

What occured to me, Christer, is that - if guilty - he could indeed have done better to state a time closer to 3.45 am, because, according to Lloyd Weekly News of 2 September, that's the time Paul said to have walked through Buck's Row on the morning of the murder. If Cross was prompted to come forward because of this article (something I can well imagine - guilty or innocent), we can be fairly sure he read that timing too.

All the best,
Frank

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Mr Lucky & Fish,

What actually ended up in all but one paper indeed wasn't '3.30', but that doesn't mean that the journalists didn't write it down as such. In fact, since ‘3.30’ would have been much quicker to write than ‘half past three’, I wouldn't be surprised if that was what most, if not all, journalists actually wrote down, while listening to Cross's further deposition.

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank

So did the journalist write down a quick rough draft, then a formal version, then wire that in to the papers they worked for. Or did they just write a formal version (missing some text out) and wire that straight in, which saves the most time in the long run ?

Or have their editors changed the 3.30’s to ‘half past three’s etc.

If I was a 'penny-a-liner' I would definitely be writing down ‘half past three’ and not 3.30, ha-ha

[moonbegger]

Evening all

Charles Allen Lechmere , Finally Vindicated , Proof .

With a little conjecture thrown in of course

It was too big to post on here , had to slap in on a new thread !

cheers

moonbegger .

[harry]

There were two individuals concerned in the killing of Nicholls,one being Polly herself.When did she arrive on Bucks Row?Regardless of when Cross arrived there,she had to have been there alive as he passed through,if he was her killer,and after the reported time that the police foot patrol passed through.A period of perhaps 20-25 minutes.What information exists that puts both Cross and victim alive and in Bucks Row at the same time during that period?

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

There were two individuals concerned in the killing of Nicholls,one being Polly herself.When did she arrive on Bucks Row?Regardless of when Cross arrived there,she had to have been there alive as he passed through,if he was her killer,and after the reported time that the police foot patrol passed through.A period of perhaps 20-25 minutes.What information exists that puts both Cross and victim alive and in Bucks Row at the same time during that period?

Harry we can deduce that Polly must have arrived in Bucks row either with Cross (if he were the killer), or a scant minutes before -because if it wasn't Paul who interrupted the murderer then it was Lechmere/Cross.

[Fisherman]

Frank:

"What occured to me, Christer, is that - if guilty - he could indeed have done better to state a time closer to 3.45 am, because, according to Lloyd Weekly News of 2 September, that's the time Paul said to have walked through Buck's Row on the morning of the murder. If Cross was prompted to come forward because of this article (something I can well imagine - guilty or innocent), we can be fairly sure he read that timing too."

That would be correct, Frank - he would probably have seen the time given, and so, if he was guilty, he would be better off not acknowledging that he had left home at a stage that allowed him to find time to kill.

Which is why I think that he was not alone in his knowledge about when he had gone to work. For if somebody else knew about his depature time, then he could get in trouble over it.
If, for example, Mrs Lechmere waved goodbye to him at 3.25 that morning, and he later stated at the inquest that he left home at, say, 3.40, then he would direct the investigation floodlight onto himself if this was discovered. And all that took, was a visit from the police to 22 Doveton Street.

Other explanations may equally apply, sloppiness being one of them. Or innocence, for that matter. But even if he was innocent, he still arrived late in Buck´s Row...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"Regardless of when Cross arrived there,she had to have been there alive as he passed through"

Not at all, Harry. Buck´s Row was not a street in which prostitutes solicited. It was a street that was deserted at nighttime, and therefore prostitutes took their customers there for business. But the bargains as such were struck in other places, Whitechapel Road being the obvious place to do so, not least because we know that Nichols travelled east along it as Emily Holland spoke to her.

"What information exists that puts both Cross and victim alive and in Bucks Row at the same time during that period?"

There is no such information, but for the possibility that Paul discerned life in Nichols when feeling her chest. Otherwise, no information exists as to how and when Nichols entered the street. There are some people - like Mulshaw - to keep in mind, telling us what way she probably did NOT use, but the rest remains guesswork.

The best,
Fisherman

[FrankO]

Morning Fish!

Which is why I think that he was not alone in his knowledge about when he had gone to work. For if somebody else knew about his depature time, then he could get in trouble over it.
If, for example, Mrs Lechmere waved goodbye to him at 3.25 that morning, and he later stated at the inquest that he left home at, say, 3.40, then he would direct the investigation floodlight onto himself if this was discovered. And all that took, was a visit from the police to 22 Doveton Street.

I agree that that would be the only reason why a guilty Cross couldn't have put his timing much later than about 3.30 am. Again, it's a pity that we don’t have this kind of confirmation, that we don't know how accurate Cross’s timing was as we don’t know what he based it on.

But even if he was innocent, he still arrived late in Buck´s Row...

Since we can’t be sure at what time he left home exactly, I don’t think we can make such a call.

The best, Fish,
Frank