The Mizen scam

[Fisherman]

Thanks lech
How old was his mom in 1888?

Around 63. Born 1825, as I recall.

Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Around 63. Born 1825, as I recall.

Fisherman

Thanks fish
Any chance she had her own cats meat shop in 1888?

[Fisherman]

Thanks fish
Any chance she had her own cats meat shop in 1888?

Of course there is.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

... and as Edward has pointed out, there is good reason to think that Lechmere himself was involved in the cat´s meat business to at least some extent. Which arguably would give him insights about how to disjoint limbs and cut flesh, for instance.

Interesting man, that.

Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Map
1 Pickford's - Charles Lechmere's workplace
2 Charles Lechmere's house
3 Charles Lechmere's mother's house.
Murder scenes also marked.

[Abby Normal]

Map
1 Pickford's - Charles Lechmere's workplace
2 Charles Lechmere's house
3 Charles Lechmere's mother's house.
Murder scenes also marked.
[ATTACH]15501[/ATTACH]

Thanks!

[Abby Normal]

Map
1 Pickford's - Charles Lechmere's workplace
2 Charles Lechmere's house
3 Charles Lechmere's mother's house.
Murder scenes also marked.
[ATTACH]15501[/ATTACH]

Hi lech
His mothers place does not seem to be too far away for lech to use it for a bolt hole, store his goodies, stash the knife clean up etc. possibly to and from work.
I know fish has his reservations, but to me anyhow that seems more viable than lech going straight to work after killing. Do we know when he had to be at work?

Also, I can't help but notice the murders all took place in the center of the three locales.

Perhaps he used her place when he knew she would be gone? The murders all took place on weekends, holidays and beginning, end of the month. Maybe she was gone at those times traveling, work etc.?

[Lechmere]

Abbey
When you are on the ground it is too far away as a general purpose bot hole
Plus his second step father was living there.
Here he is in the trade directory for the year he died – 1889

Listed as Jacob (instead of Joseph) Forsdike – 147 Cable Street.

Charles Lechmere claimed he had to be in work by 4 am on the day Nichols was killed. That is all we can say about his work times.

It is a bit of a myth that the murders took place on weekends.
The only day off work back then was Sunday. So the only evening that was not followed by a workday was Saturday night.
That makes sense for the double event – so far as Chares Lechmere as the culprit is concerned.
I think the geography of it – when you actually look closer at the main through routes and where the bodies were found – is one of the strongest circumstantial evidences against Lechmere.

You might note that the Pinchin Street torso is the nearest yellow cross to any of the three marked locations. If he was responsible then the body would need to be within hauling distance of the secure location – in this instance being 147 Cable Street.
My hypothesis would be that Forsdike was ill and absent (he died soon after) and this allowed Charles Lechmere to use the premises, but he then had to get rid of the body quickly. It should also be noted that his mother was listed as a horse flesh dealer (cat’s meat) in the 1891 census and in various trade directories thereafter.
I can connect Charles Lechmere to other unsolved deaths, premises near to these deaths and the cat’s meat trade.

[Riahsha]

If so, then Ripperology is the fine art of dissing first and perhaps thinking later

A statement I can get behind 110%.

[Fisherman]

Hi lech
His mothers place does not seem to be too far away for lech to use it for a bolt hole, store his goodies, stash the knife clean up etc. possibly to and from work.
I know fish has his reservations, but to me anyhow that seems more viable than lech going straight to work after killing. Do we know when he had to be at work?

Also, I can't help but notice the murders all took place in the center of the three locales.

Perhaps he used her place when he knew she would be gone? The murders all took place on weekends, holidays and beginning, end of the month. Maybe she was gone at those times traveling, work etc.?

I think we must weigh in the fact that Lechmere had a wife and family. They were potential witnesses to when he left for job, and if he did, in the Chapman case, the trek 22 Doveton Street-29 Hanbury Street, 29 Hanbury Street-147 Cable Street and 147 Cable Street-Broad Street, then we must surmise that this would have taken a lot more time then the time he had set off to do the 22 Doveton Street - Broad Street trek. To this, we must add the time for chatting up Chapman, for killing and mutilating her (Phillips said that he would have spent a quarter of an hour cutting away, although this can be challenged) and for cleaning up. It would also involve the risk of travelling a lot longer with blood on him.
He started work at 4 o clock, apparently - he told the police that this was when he arrived at Pickfords, and this would have been correct information, easily checkable as it was.
22 Doveton Street-Broad Street thus took around half an hour to walk.
The suggested "Kill-Chapman-and-go-to-mother´s-place" routine would have encompassed perhaps an hour and a half, meaning that if he killed her en route to work - and I feel pretty certain that he did - then he would need to leave home between 2 and 3 o clock, instead of 3.30.

This is part of why I don´t buy your suggestion, much as I can of course not rule it out totally.

All the best,
Fisherman

PS. Edwards post is something I agree with very much too. The better guess is that he used some space where he had privacy at Pickfords! I´m glad to see that you noticed how the three premises marked on the map encompass the murder spots, though. Others will say it´s a coincidence, and that makes sense - Lechmere has a tendency to bring out such "coincidences" en masse ...

[Abby Normal]

Thanks fish and lech


Lech
What other unsolved murders can you tie lech to?

[Pierre]

Hi everybody!

Having returned from a weeks outdoors living - fishing included! - I am anxious to hear what you all think about what I refer to as the Mizen scam. The theme is presented in my article in Ripperologist 126, in the article "Two murders in Buck´s Row".

Much has been said already about whether I have made my mind up that Charles Lechmere was the Ripper, and those who have taken the time to read my article will know by now that I confess to that exact belief. And it is the Mizen scam that pushed me over the edge, so to speak.

For those unfamiliar with it, I will make a short presentation of the scam.The fewest do, actually - when reading books by Sugden, Evans, Begg and Rumbelow, for example, it quickly becomes clear that the very detail that I belive gives away the Ripper, remains untouched upon in these books.

It all lies in what Mizen claimed "Cross" had told him on the evening of the murder. Mizen says that Cross was the one who spoke to him (apparently pointing to Paul not being involved in the conversation, at least not to any significant degree), and stated in his words to Mizen: "You are wanted in Buck´s Row" (he said Baker´s Row, but he of course meant Buck´s ditto), and "Another policeman wants you there". "Cross" then proceeded to point out that a woman "had been found there", lying flat on her back, being either dead or drunk.

This has always been the source of much consternation. Lechmere himself witnessed after Mizen at the inquest, and was asked whether he had really told Mizen that another PC waited for im in Buck´s Row. He denied that he had done so, pointing out that there had been no other PC in Buck´s Row.

The situation that was crated at the inquest was thus one that seemingly entailed a question that needed to be settled: Had there been a PC in Buck´s Row as Lechmere and Paul were there, or had there not? The ones that championed the different views were on the one hand Mizen, who argued that there HAD been a PC there, and on the other hand Lechmere, who claimed that this had not been so. And Lechmere came out on top, Paul and Neil supplying corroboration of his version.

This was all a game of smoke and mirrors, though. For the truth of the matter was that BOTH views originated with Lechmere! He was the one who had claimed that there had been a PC in place (when speaking to Mizen) and he was ALSO the one who claimed that there had NOT been a PC in place (when witnessing at the inquest).

But the REAL question should have been another one: Did Lechmere tell Mizen that there was a PC in Buck´s Row, waiting for assistance, or did he NOT do so? THAT is the pertinent question, and in this case, there is no Paul and Neil to corroborate Lechmere!!

So who told the truth, Mizen or Lechmere? Well, when we accept that Lechmere was the truthful party, we end up with a testimony on behalf of Mizen that makes no sense, which is what Sugden, Evans, Begg and Rumbelow all noticed, conveniently leaving the "strange" testimony aside.

But look what happens if we instead accept that Mizen, a serving PC, was the one who told the truth!
......

Thoughts, anybody?

The best,
Fisherman

I think Mizen told the truth.

Regards Pierre

[Whitechapel]

Cross was believed over a Police Constable at the inquiry because he was correct that there wasn't another policeman at the scene when he left it. Mizen's policemen colleagues would have corroborated his account. By the time Mizen arrived at the scene there were policemen, so I expect they thought Mizen was confused.

If there is something Mizzen it could be argued that it was PC Mizen's memory. The view of the Inquiry was that he was just a law abiding citizen reporting a crime as he approached a policeman.

[Patrick S]

I think the chronology of events along with the information that comes to us from contemporary press accounts show, pretty clearly, that Mizen wasn't "scammed". To put it bluntly, he lied....more than once.

Now, let's not jump up and down and interpret every lie as evidence that "liar" is Jack the Ripper. As we know, this has become something of a cottage industry these days. It's quite clear that Mizen lied for a very simple reason: To explain his actions relative to the Nichols murder, actions that - if publicized, would not have reflected positively upon himself or (already harshly criticized) Metropolitan Police as a whole.

Cross is viewed as 'unreliable' (not to mention that he's now become Jack the Ripper himself). Yet it's his testimony that finds corroboration, not Mizen's.

Let's look at what Mizen said about his behavior in Baker's Row, upon being told that a woman was lying in Buck's Row:

Mizen stated that he was told ONLY that a woman was lying in Buck's Row. He stated that he was told simply, " “You are wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row, where a woman (is) lying.”

Both Charles Cross and Robert Paul stated that they immediately informed PC Mizen that a woman was lying in Buck’s Row, and that she may be dead. “She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead", Cross stated at the inquest into Nichols’ death. Paul in a statement to ‘Lloyd’s Weekly News’ stated flatly, “I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead."

As we have seen, Mizen also states that he was told that he was "wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row". Cross stated that he did not tell Mizen that policeman was waiting in Buck's Row:

A Juryman: “Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's Row?”

Witness (Cross): “No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's Row.”

Paul agrees. "The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see.”

Paul makes it clear that no policeman was present in Buck’s Row. In fact, he infers that the police had not been adequately patrolling the area.

Again, Paul corroborated Cross, NOT Mizen.

Then we have the testimony of John Neil. On the morning of Friday, August 3, 1888, Neil’s beat patrol took him eastward, down Buck’s Row. In his inquest testimony, Neil estimated that it was about 3:45am – mere seconds after Cross and Paul had left, ironically, to find a policeman – when he came upon the body of “Polly” Nichols. Yet, Neil testified on Sunday, September 2, that he - and he alone - found Nichols body. He makes no mention of Paul and Cross. Why? Because he was unaware of them. Mizen did not disclose his interaction with the two men to Neil, his superiors, he peers. He seems to have kept this information completely to himself, even though he spend a large portion of day Friday at the mortuary with the bodies. At no time Friday OR Saturday did he share his information with anyone. Why?

Paul tells us why, doesn't he?

“I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead."

Cross tell us why, as well. Telling us that Mizen, upon hearing this news, replied, “Alright” and walked on.

Further, Mizen's arrival in Buck's Row - as reported by Neil - further tells us why he (Mizen) kept his actions quiet until Paul's less than flattering comment appeared in Lloyd's. According to Neil by the time Mizen arrived in Buck's Row he (Neil) had discovered the body independently, inspected it, determined she was dead, summoned PC Thain to the scene, and dispatched Thain to summon doctor Llewellyn. Clearly Mizen was in no hurry to arrive once informed of Nichols in Buck's Row. Paul and Cross tell us he as nonchalant and continued calling people up once told. His arrival, as described by Neil tells us he did not hurry to the scene.

It should be noted, also, that Cross came forward of his own accord, appearing at the inquest voluntarily. He was not summoned in that PC Mizen did not ask he and Paul to provide him with their names when they met in Baker’s Row on the morning of the Nichols’ murder. It’s also clear that the police were not looking for Cross when he appeared to offer testimony. It seems likely that Cross had either read or been made aware of Robert Paul’s statement published the previous day in Lloyd’s Weekly.

[caz]

Paul agrees. "The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see.”

Paul makes it clear that no policeman was present in Buck’s Row. In fact, he infers that the police had not been adequately patrolling the area...

“I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead."

Great post, Patrick.

Paul's focus was entirely on his perceived shortcomings of the police - PC Neil for not finding Nichols a lot sooner, and PC Mizen for dilly-dallying instead of going immediately to her. There was nothing in his initial account to worry the unidentified 'other man' and force Lechmere out of the woodwork if he had murdered the woman and planned to get away with it by pulling the wool over Paul and Mizen's eyes.

Firstly, Paul's observation that the woman was so cold 'she must have been dead some time' effectively cleared this 'other man' from having done the deed just moments before his own arrival. Secondly, Paul put himself in the driving seat, becoming the man who alerted Mizen, so any discrepancies in what was said and done would appear to have been between Mizen and Paul, not Mizen and the 'other man' - unless or until Lechmere came forward to correct this picture and give his own version of events.

Only if Mizen and Paul came face to face might the former have realised it had been the 'other man' who had told him about the woman, while Paul had carried on his way. But so what? That would merely have made Paul look bad for pretending to be the one who first raised the alarm. There would have been absolutely no reason to suspect the one who did raise the alarm - the as yet unidentified 'other man' - of anything untoward if he didn't come forward voluntarily.

If the object of getting round Mizen would have been to avoid identifying himself, answering questions or being searched, he would presumably also have had no desire to tell the story again to the police and/or inquest if he could possibly avoid it. And yet he knew from the start that Paul and certainly PC Mizen were likely to involve him in any accounts they gave, so it makes no sense that the mere mention of him in Paul's article (which could not have been better designed if Lechmere wanted to remain anonymous and unsuspected) and no mention at all elsewhere (where it was PC Neil who made the discovery) would have suddenly spooked him into the open, if his original plan had been to get away and stay away.

Love,

Caz
X