Lechmere validity

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

the Lloyds account for a start:

"and 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"

We know there are issues with this account in general, and my rule is to only accept it when it is corroborated by either Lechmere or Mizen.

So what does Lechmere say?

Echo 3rd September

""There's a woman lying in Buck's-row. She looks to me as though she was dead, or drunk." The other
man then said, "I believe she is dead." I don't know who this man was; he was a stranger, but appeared
to me to be a carman. From the time I left my home I did not see anyone until I saw the man who
overtook me in Buck's-row."


IPN 8th September

"and in Baker's-row they saw Police-constable Mizen. They told him that a
woman was lying in Buck's-row, witness adding, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk." The other
man observed, "I think she's dead.""



Star 3rd September

"They went up Baker's-row, and saw the last witness. Witness said to him, "There's a woman lying down in Buck'srow
on the broad of her back. I think she's dead or drunk." The other man said, "I believe she's dead."



The Times 4th September

"They went to Baker's-row, saw the last witness, and
told him there was a woman lying down in Buck's-row on the broad of her back. Witness also said he
believed she was dead or drunk, while the other man stated he believed her to be dead"

It is of note that reports which don't give such detailed info such as the Evening Post say:

"They went away and met a constable coming out of Montague-street, and told him
what they had seen, remarking that either the woman was dead or insensibly drunk."

That is very in keeping with the Non Verbatim accounts we have of Paul's actual testimony, and may suggest that he said much the same, giving details of comments to Mizen by both himself & Lechmere .

I hope that makes it clear, that both men claim they spoke to Mizen.





Simply because Abby, Two men, who do not know each other, Paul and Lech agree about what was not said to Mizen. it's not Mizen V Lech!

Mizen's wording is very clever, i believe it was used intentionally by him, once he realised he had made a mistake that was about to be exposed(Sorry, book makes it clear)
by saying the words he did, he could always say it was a misunderstanding, which i suggest was the view taken officially at the time.

thanks el
when what date was the Lloyds article?

"Paul and Lech agree about what was not said to Mizen."

when and where does Paul specifically refute mizens claim that he was told that he was wanted by a policeman?

[Elamarna]

thanks el
when what date was the Lloyds article?

"Paul and Lech agree about what was not said to Mizen."

when and where does Paul specifically refute mizens claim that he was told that he was wanted by a policeman?

Lloyds is the 2nd. Paul makes no mention in that of saying or hearing about another police officer. Indeed, he makes it clear that he believes there has been no one in Bucks Row for some considerable time, i think it is inconceivable that he supported Mizens view of the account, given those comments.

If another officer not wanting Mizen was not said, it is hard for Paul to refute it in that article on 2nd , before Mizen first gives his version at the inquest on Monday 3rd.

At the inquest Paul is never asked about it Abby, at least it is not reported in the reports of his testimony. Again we should not that the later dates are not as well covered, and the reporting is not as detailed, at least not for Paul on 17th .

Maybe it would be more correct to say that they agree about what was said.

Given that this issue had been raised at the inquest on the 3rd, it is a little odd that he is apparently not asked his view of what was said.
However, we should note that Paul had been questioned by the police before he appears at the inquest, no records remain of this, but Paul gave another interview to Lloyds weekly 30th Sept, when he complained about his treatment.

The argument being presented by the Lechmere theorists is that Paul, does not talk and is out of earshot, which it seems apparently he was not based on an objective reading of the sources.

Steve

[APerno]

Me a wet blanket

If you argued this all out and conclude that Lechmere lied to Mizen (and said there was a PC on Buck Row,) you don't gain much. Lechmere's entire motivation may have been nothing more than a simple blow off, making sure PC Mizen doesn't say "show me"?

Maybe he actually just wanted to go to work.

And then denying it at inquest really doesn't amount to much; his alternative would have been to tell the truth: "I lied because I didn't want to get involved."

Concluding Lechmere lied doesn't really mean too much; but finding him next to the body never goes away.

[JeffHamm]

I agree with that Jeff, just wanted to point out the possible issue with Paul's testimony.

Yes, and appreciated. I tend to consult Evan and Skinner's book for testimony, which reproduces The Times when official documents are not available. I realize wording and reporting style differ between papers though, but for the general gist it seems reliable. When things get down to specific wording a single source is not best practice of course. From the testimony as written though, with Cross/Lechmere indicating both he and Paul spoke and told PC Mizen what they found, and with PC Mizen leaving out Paul, I get the impression that Cross/Lechmere, being the one to first discover the body, did most of the talking and Paul probably threw in agreements and when Cross/Lechmere said he thought she was drunk or dead, Paul could have just said "I think she's dead", type thing. So it appears that Paul's contribution was more confirming, and minor additions rather than giving an entirely separate statement at the time.

My view is not that different Jeff, he certainly does not see it as an emergency, i go further than that, and his response is produced because of the evidence of Neil on 1st and the Lloyds article on 2nd.
The book should be out in the next couple of weeks.

Steve

Oh nice. Look forward to it.

- Jeff

I see you've covered all that a few posts above, and the accounts in the other papers look exactly like the impression I was getting from the accounts, so that's nice to see.

[GUT]

Me a wet blanket

If you argued this all out and conclude that Lechmere lied to Mizen (and said there was a PC on Buck Row,) you don't gain much. Lechmere's entire motivation may have been nothing more than a simple blow off, making sure PC Mizen doesn't say "show me"?

Maybe he actually just wanted to go to work.

And then denying it at inquest really doesn't amount to much; his alternative would have been to tell the truth: "I lied because I didn't want to get involved."

Concluding Lechmere lied doesn't really mean too much; but finding him next to the body never goes away.

Depends on you definition of “finding” and “beside”.

you mean how he had to stop Paul, was him being found.

and the middle of the road to the footpath as beside.

[Abby Normal]

Lloyds is the 2nd. Paul makes no mention in that of saying or hearing about another police officer. Indeed, he makes it clear that he believes there has been no one in Bucks Row for some considerable time, i think it is inconceivable that he supported Mizens view of the account, given those comments.

If another officer not wanting Mizen was not said, it is hard for Paul to refute it in that article on 2nd , before Mizen first gives his version at the inquest on Monday 3rd.

At the inquest Paul is never asked about it Abby, at least it is not reported in the reports of his testimony. Again we should not that the later dates are not as well covered, and the reporting is not as detailed, at least not for Paul on 17th .

Maybe it would be more correct to say that they agree about what was said.

Given that this issue had been raised at the inquest on the 3rd, it is a little odd that he is apparently not asked his view of what was said.
However, we should note that Paul had been questioned by the police before he appears at the inquest, no records remain of this, but Paul gave another interview to Lloyds weekly 30th Sept, when he complained about his treatment.

The argument being presented by the Lechmere theorists is that Paul, does not talk and is out of earshot, which it seems apparently he was not based on an objective reading of the sources.

Steve

thanks el

so then the only thing we have on record of paul saying he spoke himself (none of this "we" stuff)directly to Mizen is his highly boastful Lloyds article-where he tries to act the hero and belittle the police- the subsequent reports are obviously cribbing from the Lloyds article.

and given his apparent negative attitude towards the police its no wonder hes not going to contradict Lech.

[APerno]

Depends on you definition of “finding” and “beside”.

you mean how he had to stop Paul, was him being found.

and the middle of the road to the footpath as beside.

Oh Yea! Paul moves him around a bit no doubt but does semantics really matter? When you get "found" "next" to a dead whore people are going to be asking you to explain yourself. Parse those words anyway you like, Scotland Yard is going to have questions, and well they should.

I was not trying to prove him the Ripper (or prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt) I was just saying from the police's point of view he is a serious 'person of interest' and because of the where and when of his appearance he is always going to be a suspect.

Say it any way you like: next/beside/road/footpath/around/in the neighborhood/in the vicinity/called to/was approached by/came upon/found by, it don't matter he was close enough for some serious questioning; he was close to a dead whore, not a place to be "discovered".

You sound like a lawyer looking to distract a jury with an argument over diction.

[Abby Normal]

Me a wet blanket

If you argued this all out and conclude that Lechmere lied to Mizen (and said there was a PC on Buck Row,) you don't gain much. Lechmere's entire motivation may have been nothing more than a simple blow off, making sure PC Mizen doesn't say "show me"?

Maybe he actually just wanted to go to work.

And then denying it at inquest really doesn't amount to much; his alternative would have been to tell the truth: "I lied because I didn't want to get involved."

Concluding Lechmere lied doesn't really mean too much; but finding him next to the body never goes away.

Hi AP
bingo and bingo!

[Abby Normal]

Oh Yea! Paul moves him around a bit no doubt but does semantics really matter? When you get "found" "next" to a dead whore people are going to be asking you to explain yourself. Parse those words anyway you like, Scotland Yard is going to have questions, and well they should.

I was not trying to prove him the Ripper (or prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt) I was just saying from the police's point of view he is a serious 'person of interest' and because of the where and when of his appearance he is always going to be a suspect.

Say it any way you like: next/beside/road/footpath/around/in the neighborhood/in the vicinity/called to/was approached by/came upon/found by, it don't matter he was close enough for some serious questioning; he was close to a dead whore, not a place to be "discovered".

You sound like a lawyer looking to distract a jury with an argument over diction.

hi AP
I always phrase it as-Seen near the body of a murder victim before raising any alarm. Its as innocuous as possible but yet raises what I think is important-before raising any alarm.

and I always try to put myself in the shoes of the witnesses (or suspects if you like). Imagine your in pauls shoes as he enters a darkened Bucks row and sees the figure of a man near a recently murdered victim. it gives me shivers thinking about it-creepy and yes-suspicious. at least to me anyway.

[John Wheat]

Anyone found standing close to a murder victim is automatically a suspect, and that is never dumb. Lechmere has to be considered, maybe eventually put aside, but first he needs to be closely examined. I believe the discussion is worth having.

Saying he was found next to a body is purely semantics. You could just as easily say he found a body. Considering the murder was at a site on Lechmeres way to work is not exactly a point of suspicion. As for the bullshit about Lechmere using the name Cross it is just that. A man using a name he was known as is not remotely suspicious. I agree Lechmere should be cleared as then maybe people could look at more realistic suspects.

It is also worth bearing in mind that the police at the time don't seem to have regarded Lechmere's statement as suspicious nor do they seem to have regarded the use of Cross as suspicious and the police of the time weren't totally incompetent as certain Lechmere theorists would have you beleive.

[APerno]

Saying he was found next to a body is purely semantics. You could just as easily say he found a body. Considering the murder was at a site on Lechmeres way to work is not exactly a point of suspicion. As for the bullshit about Lechmere using the name Cross it is just that. A man using a name he was known as is not remotely suspicious. I agree Lechmere should be cleared as then maybe people could look at more realistic suspects.

It is also worth bearing in mind that the police at the time don't seem to have regarded Lechmere's statement as suspicious nor do they seem to have regarded the use of Cross as suspicious and the police of the time weren't totally incompetent as certain Lechmere theorists would have you beleive.

The name Cross never should have been seen as suspicious, not even by us now. Unless I am mistaken (what I have gleamed from reading this forum) is that Lechmere had been functioning professionally under the name Cross for several years and if the police had to, they would have likely been able to locate him under that name, so he was not really hiding with the name change.

Neither do I actually think he is anything more than unlucky; what I keep on about though is that he will always be a suspect because of the when and where of his arrival to this story.

At least fleshing out these candidates (Lechmere; Druitt; Kosminski; Bury; Etc.) has some validity to it when compared with the nonsensical conspiracy theories who always seem to involve someone famous. So I think we should put Lechmere/Cross through the ringer, it's more interesting than the Free Mason nonsense.

What I think needs closer examination is Lechmere behavior/action/possible observations while kneeling at the head of Polly's body. If he could see that she had been attacked then his comments to Mizen become very damning and make him very interesting to look at; if he couldn't really tell she had been attacked then his comments to Mizen read to me as someone just avoiding involvement.

Me thinks we are focusing in the wrong direction, what happened between Lechmere and Paul, while leaning over the Polly's body would tell us more than Lechmere's behavior with Mizen.

[GUT]

hi AP
I always phrase it as-Seen near the body of a murder victim before raising any alarm. Its as innocuous as possible but yet raises what I think is important-before raising any alarm.

and I always try to put myself in the shoes of the witnesses (or suspects if you like). Imagine your in pauls shoes as he enters a darkened Bucks row and sees the figure of a man near a recently murdered victim. it gives me shivers thinking about it-creepy and yes-suspicious. at least to me anyway.

But Paul had no idea there was a body, freshly murdered or otherwise until Cross bought it to his attention.

[JeffHamm]

But Paul had no idea there was a body, freshly murdered or otherwise until Cross bought it to his attention.

Indeed, even after the two of them left, they apparently weren't even sure if she was dead or just passed out, so they clearly didn't realize she had been murdered even when they left.

- Jeff

[GUT]

The name Cross never should have been seen as suspicious, not even by us now. Unless I am mistaken (what I have gleamed from reading this forum) is that Lechmere had been functioning professionally under the name Cross for several years and if the police had to, they would have likely been able to locate him under that name, so he was not really hiding with the name change.

Neither do I actually think he is anything more than unlucky; what I keep on about though is that he will always be a suspect because of the when and where of his arrival to this story.

At least fleshing out these candidates (Lechmere; Druitt; Kosminski; Bury; Etc.) has some validity to it when compared with the nonsensical conspiracy theories who always seem to involve someone famous. So I think we should put Lechmere/Cross through the ringer, it's more interesting than the Free Mason nonsense.

What I think needs closer examination is Lechmere behavior/action/possible observations while kneeling at the head of Polly's body. If he could see that she had been attacked then his comments to Mizen become very damning and make him very interesting to look at; if he couldn't really tell she had been attacked then his comments to Mizen read to me as someone just avoiding involvement.

Me thinks we are focusing in the wrong direction, what happened between Lechmere and Paul, while leaning over the Polly's body would tell us more than Lechmere's behavior with Mizen.

Well seems to e nothing suspicious while they were at the body, neither noticed she had been attacked, indeed Paul thought she may even have still been alive.

[Harry D]

Me a wet blanket

If you argued this all out and conclude that Lechmere lied to Mizen (and said there was a PC on Buck Row,) you don't gain much. Lechmere's entire motivation may have been nothing more than a simple blow off, making sure PC Mizen doesn't say "show me"?

Maybe he actually just wanted to go to work.

Agreed. Even if we go with the WORST possible scenario, that Lechmere deliberately misled PC Mizen, it doesn't have to be for nefarious purposes. Both carmen were running late, weren't they? They couldn't run the risk of losing their jobs.