Lechmere validity

[Herlock Sholmes]

And of course Patrick, there was a route to work Lechmere could have taken which is hardly any difference in distance and goes well clear of Bucks Row.

That route is: across the Cambridge Heath Road and North to Three Colts Lane, west via London St, Cheshire St, Hare St, Slater St, then south to Norton Folgate
and onto Broad St.

Distance 3280 yards Approx.

The other routes via Bucks Row average out at about 3000 yards so that's an additional 300 yards, about 3 minutes extra walking at most.

steve

With that kind of detailed knowledge Steve you should consider writing a book on the events in Bucks Row.

[Patrick S]

Alternatively - and this is probably an outrageous suggestion - Cross was just a decent chap.

A fair reading of what we know might support that suggestion. I think his actions are what could be fairly expected of a "decent chap". His actions as they're reported by others include alerting Paul to a woman lying on the pavement. Telling a PC of the woman and where he could find her. Appearing voluntarily at the inquest a few days after the event. I've suggested in the past that many decent, law abiding citizens would have considered their civic duty done: Cross reported the woman lying in Buck's Row to a policeman. Yet, he goes further and lends his voice to the inquest. This thread of absurdity, of course, runs through it all. His staying to "bluff it out" with Paul. The "Mizen Scam". The idea that a murderer who walked away clean would appear at the inquest 72 hours later to tell lies about a policeman. Of course, this foolishness only works if we bring a belief that Cross was Jack the Ripper with us from the outset.

[John Wheat]

Alternatively - and this is probably an outrageous suggestion - Cross was just a decent chap.

I think that's the most likely explanation Sam

[Sam Flynn]

There are two reasons that I know of that have been floated about.

First, Paul's Lloyd's article is considered "a bombshell". It drives Cross out and compels him to appear at the inquest. But, this obviously ignores what Paul's Lloyd's statement actually says. Paul's telling has him as the prime actor. He comes across Cross in Buck's Row... and then leaves the reader to conclude that he (Paul) takes it from there. Paul doesn't specifically say he continued alone. but, Cross disappears from the narrative. Paul goes to find a PC. Paul tells him the woman is dead. Alas, what does this "bombshell" contain by way of information that may identify Cross? Well... Paul refers to Cross as "a man". That's it. Not a short man, tall man, skinny man, fat man. Not a CAR man, bearded man, bald man, young man, old man. THIS is the bombshell we're asked to believe DROVE Cross BACK to the police to tell lies about what he'd told PC Mizen.

The second reason for Cross voluntarily appearing is of a much more recent vintage. It has him fearing he'd be "picked up" because he walked through Buck's Row (or near it) to work. Thus, he'd no choice but to go the inquest. Obviously, it's quite clear that it was quite easy for the police to "pick up" individuals for whom they have no name, even if they have some physical description to go by: Pipeman. Lipsky. Blotchy. The man Lawende saw. The man Long saw. All brought in, right? Well... perhaps these are poor examples. In any event, what IS clear is that it was simply less of an inconvenience for Cross to go to inquest and risk being exposed for "scamming" a PC, "bluffing it out" with Paul, and killing Nichols, than it would be to walk a few minutes out of your way to work for a few weeks.

Alternatively - and this is probably an outrageous suggestion - Cross was just a decent chap.

[Elamarna]

And of course Patrick, there was a route to work Lechmere could have taken which is hardly any difference in distance and goes well clear of Bucks Row.

That route is: across the Cambridge Heath Road and North to Three Colts Lane, west via London St, Cheshire St, Hare St, Slater St, then south to Norton Folgate
and onto Broad St.

Distance 3280 yards Approx.

The other routes via Bucks Row average out at about 3000 yards so that's an additional 300 yards, about 3 minutes extra walking at most.

steve

[Patrick S]

And get this, from the Echo: Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross [my underline]

He "now" knew the man to be named Cross... Mizen only found out Cross's name sometime after the night in question, which almost certainly means that Mizen didn't take down his name or contact details at the time. Which in turn means that Cross came forward separately to volunteer those details. Whether he did so unprompted, in response to an appeal for witnesses, or on Mizen's instruction, he did the right thing, didn't he?

Hi, Sam. This is a point I've made again and again. A recap:

We know that Cross waited in Buck's Row for Paul and called his attention to Nichols.
We know that Paul tried to walk past, but that Cross "touched his shoulder" and asked him to "come see".
We know that Cross agreed to continue on with Paul to find a PC.
We know he found Mizen in Baker's Row, and told him of a woman lying in Buck's Row.
We know Mizen didn't ask or record his name (or search him or ask him any questions whatever).

Now, regardless of whether or not he told Mizen Nichols was dead (as both he and Paul claimed) and regardless of whether or not he pulled this "Mizen Scam" and told him he (Mizen) was wanted by a PC in Buck's Row. We've been told that the "scam", the "bluffing it out" with Paul in Buck's Row was all aimed to "take him past the police"... then it seems to have been - shockingly - completely successful. He'd committed murder, made the first person who came along stop and have look at her, and then went off and told the first PC he found where he could find her. And walked off into the dark.... But, then... she shows up at the inquest. Why?

There are two reasons that I know of that have been floated about.

First, Paul's Lloyd's article is considered "a bombshell". It drives Cross out and compels him to appear at the inquest. But, this obviously ignores what Paul's Lloyd's statement actually says. Paul's telling has him as the prime actor. He comes across Cross in Buck's Row... and then leaves the reader to conclude that he (Paul) takes it from there. Paul doesn't specifically say he continued alone. but, Cross disappears from the narrative. Paul goes to find a PC. Paul tells him the woman is dead. Alas, what does this "bombshell" contain by way of information that may identify Cross? Well... Paul refers to Cross as "a man". That's it. Not a short man, tall man, skinny man, fat man. Not a CAR man, bearded man, bald man, young man, old man. THIS is the bombshell we're asked to believe DROVE Cross BACK to the police to tell lies about what he'd told PC Mizen.

The second reason for Cross voluntarily appearing is of a much more recent vintage. It has him fearing he'd be "picked up" because he walked through Buck's Row (or near it) to work. Thus, he'd no choice but to go the inquest. Obviously, it's quite clear that it was quite easy for the police to "pick up" individuals for whom they have no name, even if they have some physical description to go by: Pipeman. Lipsky. Blotchy. The man Lawende saw. The man Long saw. All brought in, right? Well... perhaps these are poor examples. In any event, what IS clear is that it was simply less of an inconvenience for Cross to go to inquest and risk being exposed for "scamming" a PC, "bluffing it out" with Paul, and killing Nichols, than it would be to walk a few minutes out of your way to work for a few weeks.

[Abby Normal]

It's the same Article Abby.





He is not alone with the body if, as I and other contend he is only 40 or 50 yards ahead of Paul in Bucks Row.

without the gap caused by Paul's 3.45 exactly there is NOTHING to say Lechmere is there alone with the body, absolutely nothing.




How do they contradict each other Abby? I assume you mean Thain and Neil?
Neil says "AT 3.45"; Thain says "AT ABOUT 3.45" such is consistent with the account of Neil of hearing Thain immediately after he finds the body.

So it does not leave just Mizen, all 3 remain.

To give Paul the upper hand over Mizen, based on Speculation that something happened at home is just that, speculation.
Are we really expected to believe that Paul would have a more accurate time, than a police officer engaged in knocking up?

We are not going to agree which is sad, but its not the first time, and wont be the last.


cheers


Steve

he El
no worries. Im burnt out anyway lol. need a break : ) but thanks for sticking with it!

[Abby Normal]

And get this, from the Echo: Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross [my underline]

He "now" knew the man to be named Cross... Mizen only found out Cross's name sometime after the night in question, which almost certainly means that Mizen didn't take down his name or contact details at the time. Which in turn means that Cross came forward separately to volunteer those details. Whether he did so unprompted, in response to an appeal for witnesses, or on Mizen's instruction, he did the right thing, didn't he?

hi sam

isn't simply because lech was at the inquest so now Mizen knows his name?

(and not sure what your statement has anything to do with the quote of els?you seem to be backing him up somehow, but I don't see the relevance between what you quoted El on and your response)

[Elamarna]

Thanks El
well that last one (thanks for providing!)does appear to have lech having Paul saying it directly but the others do not IMHO. however, in none of them does it have him speaking or saying anything directly to Mizen. theyre all so nebulous. Is there anything other than the Lloyds article that has Paul saying he himself spoke directly to mizen?

If its in quotes, it should be seen as a direct quote, that's what i was always taught Abby.

Why do we need anything else, we have BOTH Carmen saying that Paul Spoke; unless we have actual evidence to counter that we should accept it.


Is there anything which says this may be incorrect apart from Mizen?


Steve

[Elamarna]

hi el
IMHO it is innocuous, compared to his Lloyds article-which I was responding to Patricks query about how could he be accurate with one and not the other-and the reason is because ones a boastful article and the other is simply when he entered bucks row.

It's the same Article Abby.

"The whole idea of Lechmere being alone with the body comes from this time."

Lech WAS alone with the body-we just dont know how long-which is what were debating and trying to figure out.

He is not alone with the body if, as I and other contend he is only 40 or 50 yards ahead of Paul in Bucks Row.

without the gap caused by Paul's 3.45 exactly there is NOTHING to say Lechmere is there alone with the body, absolutely nothing.

"You don't see 3 police officers giving contrary evidence as a compelling reason for his time being off?"

I see it as possible evidence he was off, but no not compelling-two of the police contradict each other-so theyre out, which only leaves Mizen contradicting. and as ive mentioned many times before-I think between him and paul, paul has the upper hand in accuracy, because hes marking his time with something that just happened before-him leaving home.

How do they contradict each other Abby? I assume you mean Thain and Neil?
Neil says "AT 3.45"; Thain says "AT ABOUT 3.45" such is consistent with the account of Neil of hearing Thain immediately after he finds the body.

So it does not leave just Mizen, all 3 remain.

To give Paul the upper hand over Mizen, based on Speculation that something happened at home is just that, speculation.
Are we really expected to believe that Paul would have a more accurate time, than a police officer engaged in knocking up?

We are not going to agree which is sad, but its not the first time, and wont be the last.


cheers


Steve

[Abby Normal]

Thanks, Abby.

I'm not saying he's lying or mistaken with respect to his timings, either. I'm also not saying he's completely honest, accurate, and correct in any or everything he says.

I maintain that we simply don't know. We don't know anything about Paul's character, despite efforts that have been made to characterize him as "lying" and "big-upping" in his Lloyd's statement. We don't know that he was the kind of person to allow himself to be duped and manipulated by Cross. We don't know if his character was such that he'd allow Cross tell lies to a PC and agree to go along with those lies, tacitly or otherwise.

For reasons I've made in previous posts, I don't think that we know enough about Paul to say he harbored an anti-police sentiment or bias. I think there's enough evidence to suggest the possibility that Paul's comments were to some extent justified, especially as they pertain to Mizen's reaction, and/or informed by media and local criticism of the police for the fact that four previous attacks on woman had occurred "under their noses" in the area and their inability to resolve those cases. In short, I do not think the frustration with and criticism of the police could be inferred from his Lloyd's statement were atypical of East End residents in the late summer of 1888.

As to his time, I share you're viewpoint. I have no reason to believe Paul is lying about his time for entering Buck's Row. I think it's likely that it was not "exactly" 3:45am when he walked up Buck's Row. But, that feeling is based more on the realities of establishing firm, to the minute times, in Victorian London, not on any desire to discredit Paul or because of some perception that it was his character to lie. Again, aside from what we know he said in Lloyd's and at the inquest we know absolutely nothing about him. Thus, I stop short of seeing "big upping" and "police hatred" in his statement.

It's simply my view that Paul becomes whatever the Lechmere theory or the Mizen scam need him to be.

thanks Patrick

[Sam Flynn]

They are all quotes from Lechmere's testimony on the 3rd, it is Lechmere saying Paul said it, NOT the Reporter.

And get this, from the Echo: Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross [my underline]

He "now" knew the man to be named Cross... Mizen only found out Cross's name sometime after the night in question, which almost certainly means that Mizen didn't take down his name or contact details at the time. Which in turn means that Cross came forward separately to volunteer those details. Whether he did so unprompted, in response to an appeal for witnesses, or on Mizen's instruction, he did the right thing, didn't he?

[Abby Normal]

Afraid not Abby, those comments are all in internal quotation marks within the inquest reports. They should be interpreted as being direct quotes from Lechmere, The IPN and Star may come from a common source. The times generally reported in the 3rd person.

The one you left out is in the 1st person throughout. With conversation given additional quotation marks
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."


They are all quotes from Lechmere's testimony on the 3rd, it is Lechmere saying Paul said it, NOT the Reporter.


Steve

Thanks El
well that last one (thanks for providing!)does appear to have lech having Paul saying it directly but the others do not IMHO. however, in none of them does it have him speaking or saying anything directly to Mizen. theyre all so nebulous. Is there anything other than the Lloyds article that has Paul saying he himself spoke directly to mizen?

[Patrick S]

hi Patrick
I knew this was coming LOL. and Mizen is lying (or mistaken) yet gets his timings right?

but ill try to answer-Im not necessarily saying Paul is lying or mistaken in this article-it could be BS from the reporter or paper. Im just stating that this Lloyds report seems to be highly innacurate and has paul stating that he thinks shes dead (and not only that-long dead) and that the subsequent papers take this and add to their reports-all seemingly implying that Paull spoke directly to mizen (ie.-"the other man said I think shes dead"). everything else has Paul saying we.

and yes-even if the Lloyds article is accurate with what Paul said to them (which is questionable in its own right)and he lied out his face to them, he can still be accurate with his timing on entering Bucks Row-its two separate things-done at two different times-for two different reasons-told to two different audiences. he could be lying about one and telling the truth about the other. and anyway-Ones innocuous-the time he entered bucks row(who cares?)-and the other is not-his "im the man" interview with Lloyds. and I find no other compelling reason why he must be off on his time in Bucks row.

Thanks, Abby.

I'm not saying he's lying or mistaken with respect to his timings, either. I'm also not saying he's completely honest, accurate, and correct in any or everything he says.

I maintain that we simply don't know. We don't know anything about Paul's character, despite efforts that have been made to characterize him as "lying" and "big-upping" in his Lloyd's statement. We don't know that he was the kind of person to allow himself to be duped and manipulated by Cross. We don't know if his character was such that he'd allow Cross tell lies to a PC and agree to go along with those lies, tacitly or otherwise.

For reasons I've made in previous posts, I don't think that we know enough about Paul to say he harbored an anti-police sentiment or bias. I think there's enough evidence to suggest the possibility that Paul's comments were to some extent justified, especially as they pertain to Mizen's reaction, and/or informed by media and local criticism of the police for the fact that four previous attacks on woman had occurred "under their noses" in the area and their inability to resolve those cases. In short, I do not think the frustration with and criticism of the police could be inferred from his Lloyd's statement were atypical of East End residents in the late summer of 1888.

As to his time, I share you're viewpoint. I have no reason to believe Paul is lying about his time for entering Buck's Row. I think it's likely that it was not "exactly" 3:45am when he walked up Buck's Row. But, that feeling is based more on the realities of establishing firm, to the minute times, in Victorian London, not on any desire to discredit Paul or because of some perception that it was his character to lie. Again, aside from what we know he said in Lloyd's and at the inquest we know absolutely nothing about him. Thus, I stop short of seeing "big upping" and "police hatred" in his statement.

It's simply my view that Paul becomes whatever the Lechmere theory or the Mizen scam need him to be.

[Abby Normal]

That's the problem Abby, its not innocuous.
The whole idea of Lechmere being alone with the body comes from this time.

I have tried to explain so many times, if the 3.45 exactly is not correct, that supposed gap when Lech is alone with Nichols, claimed to be up to 9 minutes, simply disappears.

You don't see 3 police officers giving contrary evidence as a compelling reason for his time being off? Not to mention the synchronization issue.?

Steve

hi el
IMHO it is innocuous, compared to his Lloyds article-which I was responding to Patricks query about how could he be accurate with one and not the other-and the reason is because ones a boastful article and the other is simply when he entered bucks row.

"The whole idea of Lechmere being alone with the body comes from this time."

Lech WAS alone with the body-we just dont know how long-which is what were debating and trying to figure out.

"You don't see 3 police officers giving contrary evidence as a compelling reason for his time being off?"

I see it as possible evidence he was off, but no not compelling-two of the police contradict each other-so theyre out, which only leaves Mizen contradicting. and as ive mentioned many times before-I think between him and paul, paul has the upper hand in accuracy, because hes marking his time with something that just happened before-him leaving home.