Lechmere misinterpreted

[Pierre]

Hi,

I have analysed the narrative given by Lechmere at the Nichols inquest and I believe that Lechmere has been misinterpreted.

The misinterpretation has lead to the hypothesis of the so called "Mizen scam", and it has also given the wrong idea of what happened on the night when Polly Nichols was murdered.

I will now give my interpretation of the narrative, as it was written down in The Daily Telegraph, September 3, 1888.

I quote the text and make comments on it directly:

Chas. Andrew Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for over twenty years. About half-past three on Friday he left his home to go to work, and he passed through Buck's-row. He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement." They both crossed over to the body, and witness took hold of the woman's hands, which were cold and limp. Witness said, "I believe she is dead." He touched her face, which felt warm. The other man, placing his hand on her heart, said "I think she is breathing, but very little if she is." Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her.

No comments.

Just then they heard a policeman coming.

This is the reason why Charles Lechmere tells Mizen that Mizen is wanted by another policeman.

Witness did not notice that her throat was cut, the night being very dark. He and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's-row they met the last witness, whom they informed that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row.

There is nothing indicating that Lechmere or Paul had decided to go and look actively for a policeman. There is nothing in this narrative that suggests an active search was intended or indeed made. On the contrary, the narrative contain the words "they met", which means that it was a random event. The consequence of that random event was, very obviously, that Lechmere and Paul ("they"!) had to tell the police what they had seen. And heard. So this is what they did.

Witness said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on. The other man left witness soon after. Witness had never seen him before. Replying to the coroner, witness denied having seen Police-constable Neil in Buck's-row. There was nobody there when he and the other man left. In his opinion deceased looked as if she had been outraged and gone off in a swoon; but he had no idea that there were any serious injuries.

The Coroner: Did the other man tell you who he was?

Witness: No, sir; he merely said that he would have fetched a policeman, only he was behind time. I was behind time myself.

A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?

Witness: No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row

The sentence about not seeing a policeman in Buckīs Row is no lie. They did not see a policeman in Buckīs Row. They "heard a policeman coming". And that is what they told Mizen.

Mizen got it a bit wrong when he interpreted the narrative on the night of the murder. So Mizen did not lie at the inquest. And he did not have to be in a great hurry to get to the murder site either. The reason why he did not run to the murder site in a hurry, was that the carmen had heard a policeman coming. That was Neil.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

This is the best thing that can happen to me - Pierre takes it upon himself to try and exonerate Lechmere.

Keep it coming, Pierre!! I can feel the support coming my way already.

"I have analysed..." Priceless!

[Pierre]

This is the best thing that can happen to me - Pierre takes it upon himself to try and exonerate Lechmere.

Keep it coming, Pierre!! I can feel the support coming my way already.

Maybe I am doing you a favor. How many years have you given away to sources for a dead unknown person in the past?

The sources have problems, Fisherman. They have tricked you. It is a very common problem with historical sources.

Regards, Pierre

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi, Pierre.

The Telegraph is the only source for the statement that they heard a policeman coming. The claim appears nowhere else, as far as I am aware. This means it is uncorroborated. It is, most likely, an editing error upon the part of the person tasked with transcribing the document for printing.
You state that there is nothing to suggest that the pair had decided actively to seek a policeman. Not in the Daily Telegraph, perhaps. However an examination of other accounts of the same inquest will reveal that Cross said "No, let us go and tell a policeman." (Morning Advertiser, also Evening Standard both 4th September 1888)
"I'm not going to touch her. Let's go on till we see a policeman and tell him." The Star 3rd September 1888

Your, Caligo

[David Orsam]

So let's see what's going on here in Pierre World.

While examining the body, Cross and Paul hear the unmistakable sounds of a policeman's footsteps coming towards them. Rather than wait for the arrival of that policeman they decide to hot foot it out of Bucks Row....in order to look for another policeman!!!!

They find one and Cross says to him.....um...what? "There's a dead body in Bucks Row and I heard the footsteps of a constable walking towards it". Is that right?

Mizen mishears or misunderstands, thinking that the Carmen has told him that he is wanted by a policeman.

At the inquest, Cross having already told the coroner and the jury that he and Paul heard a policeman walking towards them is asked if he told Mizen he was wanted by another policeman. Of course he plays a little game in court. No of course he didn't say that because he didn't see a policeman, he only heard one!!!!

But hold on, did that policeman call out to him and Paul to fetch another officer? Cross didn't need to see him to hear him did he? So his answer hasn't really answered the question at all.

But let's move on. I have some questions for you Pierre as you have so carefully analysed the narrative. Here they are:

Q1. What do you make of the fact that where the Daily Telegraph reporter says:

"Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her. Just then they heard a policeman coming".

the Star reporter says:

"He suggested they should shift her - set her up against the wall - but witness said, "I'm not going to touch her. Let's go on till we see a policeman and tell him."

And the Echo reporter says:

"I'm not going to touch her. You had better go on, and if you see a policeman tell him."

And the Morning Advertiser reporter says:

"He then suggested that we should shift her, but I said, "No, let us go and tell a policeman."

Do you think Cross was trying to draw a distinction between seeing and hearing a policeman here? Did he only want to speak to a policeman he could see and not one he could only hear? Or were the Star, Echo and Morning Advertiser reporters engaged in a cover-up do you think? Tendencies here maybe? Or did the Daily Telegraph reporter mishear what Cross said about the policeman at this point in his evidence?

Q2. What do you make of the fact that Paul said in his evidence: "They agreed that the best thing they could do would be to tell the first policeman they met". With the sound of an approaching officer's footsteps why not just tell that policeman?

Q3. What do you make of the fact that the Daily Telegraph reporter also said in a bit of his report that you omitted (which is actually in the 4 September 1888 issue, not 3 September as you posted):

"Replying to the coroner, witness denied having seen Police-constable Neil in Buck's-row. There was nobody there when he and the other man left."

If the Daily Telegraph reporter was so accurate should we accept that Cross used the words "There was nobody there" in Bucks Row? In which case, what about those footsteps of the policeman?

[Fisherman]

Hi, Pierre.

The Telegraph is the only source for the statement that they heard a policeman coming. The claim appears nowhere else, as far as I am aware. This means it is uncorroborated. It is, most likely, an editing error upon the part of the person tasked with transcribing the document for printing.
You state that there is nothing to suggest that the pair had decided actively to seek a policeman. Not in the Daily Telegraph, perhaps. However an examination of other accounts of the same inquest will reveal that Cross said "No, let us go and tell a policeman." (Morning Advertiser, also Evening Standard both 4th September 1888)
"I'm not going to touch her. Let's go on till we see a policeman and tell him." The Star 3rd September 1888

Your, Caligo

Now, now, Caligo - letīs not spoil the fun!

[Columbo]

Well, at least this is something different. I'd like to read Pierre's analysis of the other papers.

Columbo

[harry]

How many posters are selective in choosing which papers to believe? How many persons can tell by sound whether that sound is made by the steps of a policeman.

[Columbo]

How many posters are selective in choosing which papers to believe? How many persons can tell by sound whether that sound is made by the steps of a policeman.

Alot of posters I imagine.

Columbo

[Pierre]

Hi, Pierre.

The Telegraph is the only source for the statement that they heard a policeman coming. The claim appears nowhere else, as far as I am aware. This means it is uncorroborated. It is, most likely, an editing error upon the part of the person tasked with transcribing the document for printing.
You state that there is nothing to suggest that the pair had decided actively to seek a policeman. Not in the Daily Telegraph, perhaps. However an examination of other accounts of the same inquest will reveal that Cross said "No, let us go and tell a policeman." (Morning Advertiser, also Evening Standard both 4th September 1888)
"I'm not going to touch her. Let's go on till we see a policeman and tell him." The Star 3rd September 1888

Your, Caligo

Hi Caligo,

It is not uncorroborated. You have it in the Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, 9 September 1888. But that is not at all the issue here. Have a look at all the available newspapers in the British Newspaper Archive for the first day when the testimony of Lechmere is in the papers, the 3rd September. Compare these to the text for the testimony in The Daily Telegraph, on 4 September.

What is the difference between The Daily Telegraph and the other papers? As you can see, the difference is that in the other papers from the 3rd you find a few lines concerning Lechmere. In The Daily Telegraph you have extensive dialogue.

For an historian this means that The Daily Telegraph has a much higher quality than the rest of the papers.

If anyone has seen another newspaper from the 4th with the same quality (and not full of errors) I would like to know.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Caligo,



In The Daily Telegraph you have extensive dialogue.

For an historian this means that The Daily Telegraph has a much higher quality than the rest of the papers.



Regards, Pierre

Pierre

I have a question for you?

Its not aimed directly about this particular case, but a general one with regards to analysis.

How can we be sure in a case such as you cite above the "extensive dialogue" is not an invention of the journalist or editor.

I am not asking about this report in particular, but in general.

are you suggesting we should always take such "extensive dialogue" as being honest


steve

[Pierre]

Now, now, Caligo - letīs not spoil the fun!

I donīt think it is any fun, Fisherman. I think you are misleading people with your hypothesis about "the Mizen Scam". There was no scam. There was just a simple misunderstanding. Such are common, but when you analyse a murder case you tend to give small simple things a high significance where it had no significance.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

I donīt think it is any fun, Fisherman. I think you are misleading people with your hypothesis about "the Mizen Scam". There was no scam. There was just a simple misunderstanding. Such are common, but when you analyse a murder case you tend to give small simple things a high significance where it had no significance.

Regards, Pierre

Letīs disagree, then.

I really think it is very funny.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;387834]

Pierre

I have a question for you?

Its not aimed directly about this particular case, but a general one with regards to analysis.

How can we be sure in a case such as you cite above the "extensive dialogue" is not an invention of the journalist or editor.

Hi Steve,

Nice hearing from you.

Yes, how can we be sure? Can we even be sure?

My answer is that as long as there is no reason to believe that it is an invention, we should not hypothesize any invention. Do you think there is any reason to believe that the dialogue is "an invention"?

I am not asking about this report in particular, but in general.

are you suggesting we should always take such "extensive dialogue" as being honest

Ah, I see what you mean now! No, Steve. We should not always take such dialogues as being honest. We should analyse the sources and see if we find any tendency in them.

The reason why I think that the source is "honest" in this case is very simple. This source explains, through the dialogue, the problem in the communication between Mizen and the carmen on the night when Nichols was killed. It is visible in the dialogue!

And it shows that this problem is generating another problem in the court room.

Therefore, it also explains why Fisherman has not seen it. He is a journalist and is trying to create another theory about Jack the Ripper. Selling books, perhaps. Making a "documentary". But the sources are available and can be subjected to source criticism, something that many people would want to avoid, of course.

As always, you pose good questions. Thanks.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

It is not uncorroborated. You have it in the Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, 9 September 1888.

I posted the below list on this forum last year in a thread "Inquest Reports of Mizen/Cross Evidence" #47 based on my analysis of the various newspaper reports (so it is not in any way affected by any tendency or desire on my part to prove Pierre wrong!). It attempts to show the number of different reporters in the courtroom on 3 September 1888:

Reporter A (The Times)
Reporter B (The Star)
Reporter C1 (Daily News)
Reporter C2 (East London Observer)
Reporter C3 (Daily Chronicle, Illustrated Police News)
Reporter C4 (Eastern Argus & Borough of Hackney Times)
Reporter D (Morning Post, Morning Advertiser, Evening Standard)
Reporter E (Daily Telegraph, Lloyd's Weekly News, Weekly Dispatch)
Reporter F (The Echo)
Reporter G (Evening News)
Reporter H (Evening Post)
Reporter I (Globe)
Reporter J (Birmingham Daily Post, Pall Mall Gazette)

You will see under Reporter E that I have identified the Daily Telegraph reporter as the same reporter for the Lloyd's Weekly News and the Weekly Dispatch because the latter two weekly newspapers simply repeat the Daily Telegraph report.

So I'm afraid Pierre there is no corroboration here at all.