Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PC Jonas Mizen

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    So we are to take Lechmere's word over a policeman's word?

    Comment


    • #32
      No, we give weight to Xmere and Paul over Mizen because they are two independent witnesses, who verify each other.
      dustymiller
      aka drstrange

      Comment


      • #33
        I thought Paul and Lechmere's stories were different?

        Comment


        • #34
          Both men say Paul spoke to Mizen. Both men say there was no policemen around before they spoke to Mizen. Both men say they told Mizen she might be dead.
          dustymiller
          aka drstrange

          Comment


          • #35
            I thought Paul said he thought the woman might still be alive and drunk, and that Lech said she was dead?

            And I also remember hearing/reading Lech said he was standing in the road when Paul was approaching and called him over, and Paul said Lech was standing over the body when he arrived.

            I could be mistaken.

            Comment


            • #36
              I carefully chose the phrase "... might be dead..." because Xmere was reported by the Times as saying, "she was dead or drunk" (The Times 4 Sept 1888). Paul variously stated he, "thought she was dead" and he '"fancied he felt a slight movement" (The Times 18 Sept 1888). Earlier he had told the Lloyd's Weekly that she was definitely dead.

              What happened between Xmere and Paul is not on topic for this thread, but briefly, the notion that Paul saw Xmere leaning over the body is a fake story that has spread from a documentary on Charles Lechmere. There is no evidence to support it, people involved in the documentary have acknowledged the error, but unfortunately nobody has done anything to correct it, to date.

              Hope that helps.
              dustymiller
              aka drstrange

              Comment


              • #37
                That helps tremendously. Thanks!

                Comment


                • #38
                  The Golden state killer eluded the Police, Friends and his Family for around 48 years up until 2018 when a member of his family (His daughter I think) sent some DNA to a genealogy site and they managed to link it to the murders, he was 72 when he was arrested the crimes were committed in the 70's he was an Ex police officer and had a family and probably held a steady job until retirement and this happened in a time where we have modern forensics etc... it would have been much easier in 1888 to elude capture as is the case here.

                  I feel Lechmere is certainly a good candidate, he was your typical Joe Bloggs next door and would be able to disappear easily without suspicion because of his Job, he knew the areas well and probably even knew the Police patrol routes for the locations pretty well. Even the night of the double murder (which is apparently generally considered outside of the general crime mapping zone) can be accounted for, if he was indeed visiting his Mother and Daughter in the area and he had lived in that location prior to his move to Doveton Street.

                  Lechmere was with the body of Nichols a good 8 or 9 minutes prior to Robert Paul arriving on the scene and had plenty of time to commit the murder, if we are to believe the timings provided from various statements are indeed correct, Lechmere left home at either 3.20am or 3.30am, It takes approx 6 or 7 minutes to reach Bucks row, there is no mention in his testimony to say he had to stop/detour for any reason except when he reached Bucks row whereupon he then said he found the body of Mary Ann Nichols and stopped to see what he initially thought was a tarpaulin. Robert Paul doesn't arrive on the scene until 3.45am, (I assume he would have known the time from one of the clocks in the area striking the 1/4 hour), so what was Lechmere actually doing for that 8 or 9 minutes prior to Paul arriving in bucks row because he makes it look as though he is not sure what he has seen when Paul happens along or why call him over? Paul himself was aware of crimes being committed in the area previously, because he said he tried to give the man he saw a wide berth for that reason, I cannot believe Lechmere would not have known this too, being it was his way to work and possibly routinely, so why hang around for 8 or 9 minutes alone and not immediately try and alert a police officer himself, especially if he was innocent of any wrong doing and also out of concern for his own safety, with his knowledge about the area it would not have been prudent to hang around there would it, most people would have high tailed it out of there pretty quick being alone. (Maybe Lechmere was either brave, stupid or guilty)?

                  After the two do establish it is a woman on the ground, Robert Paul said that he asked Lechmere to help him move the body but Lechmere refused not wanting to touch it but had Lechmere not already examined the body with Paul and touched it the hands and arms at least? was it not Lechmere who pulled her dress down suggesting giving her some dignity or maybe covering up the other wounds inflicted upon her person that he would have known were there if he had killed her, which does raise the question why would you do all that but not be willing to maybe sit her up or move her if you assumed she was just drunk, unless maybe he did already know the woman's throat had been cut and was worried that it might reveal it by moving her at that point, if Paul had seen that, it may have certainly given him reason to be uneasy of Lechmere, he would have seen he was already near the body and may have even suspected him or have had doubts enough to suggest to the nearest policeman he found Lechmere was already with the body when he approached him. The police officer would have likely detained him for further questioning at that point if that had been the case, instead Mizen is told either you are wanted over there (points in the direction of Bucks Row) there is a body of a woman that maybe drunk or dead or that a policeman was already there with it. Either way it seems to have been played down by Lechmere, who it could be considered used Paul as an alibi somewhat, he made sure he went with Paul to find the Police, even though Paul seems to first suggest he himself go to inform the next PC he meets. Lechmere even appears to have been the one who approached and spoke with PC Mizen first giving his version of the facts and possibly misleading him to believe there was already a policemen there (Depending if Mizen lied or if Lechmere did, it makes Lechmere appear more concerned and helpful to the police if he approaches them and also suggests that two people initially found the body together if he goes with Paul at least up until Paul's interview with the paper.

                  Lechmere clearly knew it was a woman on the floor prior to Robert Paul arriving on the scene, which says he had to have been close enough to have looked at the body already to establish it was female (remember he says he thought it was a tarpaulin initially because it was too dark to see) but he asks Paul to "come look at this woman" If it was dark and he had been wary of approaching the tarpaulin/body alone and waited for someone else to come along to assist him then how did he know it was a woman by the time Paul arrived? which suggests he had already been and had a look at least on his own before Paul's arrival, why not then just go and find a policeman and inform him or shout for one upon finding her, the police were never that far away as they were patrolling the area, so it would have been worth shouting for help. Shock at what he discovered may account for this but he didn't appear shocked or even preturbed by what he had seen given the statements made.

                  Lechmere would likely of heard Paul approaching before Paul saw him, it would have probably been reasonably quiet at that time of the morning and he would have heard his shoes on the cobblestones heading toward him, Paul's earlier statement places Lechmere near the body as he says he tried to give him a wide berth because he knew it was an area where crimes were often committed. If Lechmere was in the middle of the street how would Paul have been able to give him a wide berth? it would also have been interesting to know how far down the street Paul was before he noticed Lechmere, i suspect he was already too far to turn back or down another route so as to avoid him which he may have chosen to do if he was nervous already of the area.

                  PC Neil said that when he found the body the eyes were open and that is something that does not sit right for me, neither Lechmere or Paul's accounts mention they noticed the eyes of the woman they found being open, how did they miss it if PC Neil saw it only a few minutes later and why would Lechmere and Paul think Nichols was either dead or drunk if her eyes were wide open and not blinking or moving and she was not moving either. I know it is not unheard of for people to be found sleeping with the eyes open but I doubt its a common occurrence and probably pretty eerie to see and you would probably be more likely to think someone dead if they are laying prone on the floor staring unblinking up at you.

                  By all accounts Lechmere didn't even appear flustered, excited or nervous in anyway when Paul approached him I would at least expect a bit more of a reaction if you came across a lifeless body in a known area of crime and knew other crimes had been committed recently, Psychopaths however could remain aloof and calm in light of finding/doing something like that, they can portray emotions if necessary but generally don't have any empathy. It is entirely possible that I am expecting too much detail given the era and there lack of and maybe due to the general conditions of the time period and location, perhaps it is assumptive to think people would react in the way we likely would nowadays if we were to find a person that might or might not be a victim of a crime. but I know if I found a person even if it was someone lying drunk I feel my first reaction would be a bit of healthy fear and my next to contact the police, not hang around for several minutes and then leave the scene with someone else who happened along because I might be late for work and hope i might find a PC on my way, that said we have the luxury of phones these days and understanding employers but if I had been in 1888 i would have been yelling the place down to get police attention if i knew they patrolled nearby.

                  I am pretty new to all this and only recently heard about the Lechmere/Cross theory here in this case file. I have had an interest over many years about Jack the Ripper and the women who died but i am no expert, these are just my thoughts and it would be interesting to hear any more theories. I enjoyed reading through this forum and the debates about it.
                  Last edited by Lostris1971; 03-08-2019, 05:32 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Lostris1971 View Post
                    The Golden state killer eluded the Police, Friends and his Family for around 48 years up until 2018 when a member of his family (His daughter I think) sent some DNA to a genealogy site and they managed to link it to the murders, he was 72 when he was arrested the crimes were committed in the 70's he was an Ex police officer and had a family and probably held a steady job until retirement and this happened in a time where we have modern forensics etc... it would have been much easier in 1888 to elude capture as is the case here.

                    I feel Lechmere is certainly a good candidate, he was your typical Joe Bloggs next door and would be able to disappear easily without suspicion because of his Job, he knew the areas well and probably even knew the Police patrol routes for the locations pretty well. Even the night of the double murder (which is apparently generally considered outside of the general crime mapping zone) can be accounted for, if he was indeed visiting his Mother and Daughter in the area and he had lived in that location prior to his move to Doveton Street.

                    Lechmere was with the body of Nichols a good 8 or 9 minutes prior to Robert Paul arriving on the scene and had plenty of time to commit the murder, if we are to believe the timings provided from various statements are indeed correct, Lechmere left home at either 3.20am or 3.30am, It takes approx 6 or 7 minutes to reach Bucks row, there is no mention in his testimony to say he had to stop/detour for any reason except when he reached Bucks row whereupon he then said he found the body of Mary Ann Nichols and stopped to see what he initially thought was a tarpaulin. Robert Paul doesn't arrive on the scene until 3.45am, (I assume he would have known the time from one of the clocks in the area striking the 1/4 hour), so what was Lechmere actually doing for that 8 or 9 minutes prior to Paul arriving in bucks row because he makes it look as though he is not sure what he has seen when Paul happens along or why call him over? Paul himself was aware of crimes being committed in the area previously, because he said he tried to give the man he saw a wide berth for that reason, I cannot believe Lechmere would not have known this too, being it was his way to work and possibly routinely, so why hang around for 8 or 9 minutes alone and not immediately try and alert a police officer himself, especially if he was innocent of any wrong doing and also out of concern for his own safety, with his knowledge about the area it would not have been prudent to hang around there would it, most people would have high tailed it out of there pretty quick being alone. (Maybe Lechmere was either brave, stupid or guilty)?

                    After the two do establish it is a woman on the ground, Robert Paul said that he asked Lechmere to help him move the body but Lechmere refused not wanting to touch it but had Lechmere not already examined the body with Paul and touched it the hands and arms at least? was it not Lechmere who pulled her dress down suggesting giving her some dignity or maybe covering up the other wounds inflicted upon her person that he would have known were there if he had killed her, which does raise the question why would you do all that but not be willing to maybe sit her up or move her if you assumed she was just drunk, unless maybe he did already know the woman's throat had been cut and was worried that it might reveal it by moving her at that point, if Paul had seen that, it may have certainly given him reason to be uneasy of Lechmere, he would have seen he was already near the body and may have even suspected him or have had doubts enough to suggest to the nearest policeman he found Lechmere was already with the body when he approached him. The police officer would have likely detained him for further questioning at that point if that had been the case, instead Mizen is told either you are wanted over there (points in the direction of Bucks Row) there is a body of a woman that maybe drunk or dead or that a policeman was already there with it. Either way it seems to have been played down by Lechmere, who it could be considered used Paul as an alibi somewhat, he made sure he went with Paul to find the Police, even though Paul seems to first suggest he himself go to inform the next PC he meets. Lechmere even appears to have been the one who approached and spoke with PC Mizen first giving his version of the facts and possibly misleading him to believe there was already a policemen there (Depending if Mizen lied or if Lechmere did, it makes Lechmere appear more concerned and helpful to the police if he approaches them and also suggests that two people initially found the body together if he goes with Paul at least up until Paul's interview with the paper.

                    Lechmere clearly knew it was a woman on the floor prior to Robert Paul arriving on the scene, which says he had to have been close enough to have looked at the body already to establish it was female (remember he says he thought it was a tarpaulin initially because it was too dark to see) but he asks Paul to "come look at this woman" If it was dark and he had been wary of approaching the tarpaulin/body alone and waited for someone else to come along to assist him then how did he know it was a woman by the time Paul arrived? which suggests he had already been and had a look at least on his own before Paul's arrival, why not then just go and find a policeman and inform him or shout for one upon finding her, the police were never that far away as they were patrolling the area, so it would have been worth shouting for help. Shock at what he discovered may account for this but he didn't appear shocked or even preturbed by what he had seen given the statements made.

                    Lechmere would likely of heard Paul approaching before Paul saw him, it would have probably been reasonably quiet at that time of the morning and he would have heard his shoes on the cobblestones heading toward him, Paul's earlier statement places Lechmere near the body as he says he tried to give him a wide berth because he knew it was an area where crimes were often committed. If Lechmere was in the middle of the street how would Paul have been able to give him a wide berth? it would also have been interesting to know how far down the street Paul was before he noticed Lechmere, i suspect he was already too far to turn back or down another route so as to avoid him which he may have chosen to do if he was nervous already of the area.

                    PC Neil said that when he found the body the eyes were open and that is something that does not sit right for me, neither Lechmere or Paul's accounts mention they noticed the eyes of the woman they found being open, how did they miss it if PC Neil saw it only a few minutes later and why would Lechmere and Paul think Nichols was either dead or drunk if her eyes were wide open and not blinking or moving and she was not moving either. I know it is not unheard of for people to be found sleeping with the eyes open but I doubt its a common occurrence and probably pretty eerie to see and you would probably be more likely to think someone dead if they are laying prone on the floor staring unblinking up at you.

                    By all accounts Lechmere didn't even appear flustered, excited or nervous in anyway when Paul approached him I would at least expect a bit more of a reaction if you came across a lifeless body in a known area of crime and knew other crimes had been committed recently, Psychopaths however could remain aloof and calm in light of finding/doing something like that, they can portray emotions if necessary but generally don't have any empathy. It is entirely possible that I am expecting too much detail given the era and there lack of and maybe due to the general conditions of the time period and location, perhaps it is assumptive to think people would react in the way we likely would nowadays if we were to find a person that might or might not be a victim of a crime. but I know if I found a person even if it was someone lying drunk I feel my first reaction would be a bit of healthy fear and my next to contact the police, not hang around for several minutes and then leave the scene with someone else who happened along because I might be late for work and hope i might find a PC on my way, that said we have the luxury of phones these days and understanding employers but if I had been in 1888 i would have been yelling the place down to get police attention if i knew they patrolled nearby.

                    I am pretty new to all this and only recently heard about the Lechmere/Cross theory here in this case file. I have had an interest over many years about Jack the Ripper and the women who died but i am no expert, these are just my thoughts and it would be interesting to hear any more theories. I enjoyed reading through this forum and the debates about it.
                    Hi lostris

                    welcome! good post-I pretty much agree with most of it and am one of the few that thinks Lech is a valid suspect. I would just add he also gave his name to police as Cross, not his more commonly used Lechmere last name. of course this could have an innocent explanation but still another potential red flag that needs explaining away. One of things that strikes me is that, if you believe lechs story (not sure I do), Paul comes upon lech right at that moment of hesitation where lech is apparently still not sure what to do. He is the only "witness" in the case where he is seen near a dead victim before trying to raise any alarm. whats the chances? Not when lech is off looking for help, or walking away, or hears him shouting for help-just at that moment-seems a little off to me.
                    "Is all that we see or seem
                    but a dream within a dream?"

                    -Edgar Allan Poe


                    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                    -Frederick G. Abberline

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                      Hi lostris

                      welcome! good post-I pretty much agree with most of it and am one of the few that thinks Lech is a valid suspect. I would just add he also gave his name to police as Cross, not his more commonly used Lechmere last name. of course this could have an innocent explanation but still another potential red flag that needs explaining away. One of things that strikes me is that, if you believe lechs story (not sure I do), Paul comes upon lech right at that moment of hesitation where lech is apparently still not sure what to do. He is the only "witness" in the case where he is seen near a dead victim before trying to raise any alarm. whats the chances? Not when lech is off looking for help, or walking away, or hears him shouting for help-just at that moment-seems a little off to me.
                      Naughty Abby, on two counts.

                      Firstly, we have no idea if Lechmere was his 'more commonly used' last name. If they all called him Cross every day at Pickfords, for example, that would surely have been the more commonly used name. There is good evidence to suggest that he was using the name Cross at Pickfords back in 1876, when his vehicle was involved in the accidental death of a child. If so, that would provide a rational explanation for the continued use of that name 12 years on, and therefore not an anomaly connected exclusively with his role in Buck's Row.

                      Secondly, Lechmere raised the alarm with Robert Paul as soon as he was near enough to speak to him! He could have walked off before Paul arrived, but he stood his ground and then had to steer Paul over to where the woman was lying and ask for his assistance, because he was clearly reluctant to get involved and would have avoided doing so otherwise. Lechmere had to get Paul onside, before they left together to report the matter to the next policeman they saw. I don't know how much more quickly or effectively Lechmere could have raised the alarm. He really can't win, can he?

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X
                      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by caz View Post

                        Naughty Abby, on two counts.

                        Firstly, we have no idea if Lechmere was his 'more commonly used' last name. If they all called him Cross every day at Pickfords, for example, that would surely have been the more commonly used name. There is good evidence to suggest that he was using the name Cross at Pickfords back in 1876, when his vehicle was involved in the accidental death of a child. If so, that would provide a rational explanation for the continued use of that name 12 years on, and therefore not an anomaly connected exclusively with his role in Buck's Row.

                        Secondly, Lechmere raised the alarm with Robert Paul as soon as he was near enough to speak to him! He could have walked off before Paul arrived, but he stood his ground and then had to steer Paul over to where the woman was lying and ask for his assistance, because he was clearly reluctant to get involved and would have avoided doing so otherwise. Lechmere had to get Paul onside, before they left together to report the matter to the next policeman they saw. I don't know how much more quickly or effectively Lechmere could have raised the alarm. He really can't win, can he?

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X
                        Hi Caz

                        Naughty Abby, on two counts.
                        Do I get a spanking? : )

                        Firstly, we have no idea if Lechmere was his 'more commonly used' last name. If they all called him Cross every day at Pickfords, for example, that would surely have been the more commonly used name. There is good evidence to suggest that he was using the name Cross at Pickfords back in 1876, when his vehicle was involved in the accidental death of a child. If so, that would provide a rational explanation for the continued use of that name 12 years on, and therefore not an anomaly connected exclusively with his role in Buck's Row.
                        well, on all the recent documentation he went by Lechmere, so. But yeah I hear ya on the rest. Ive often said that when he started work at Pickfords he was still under the auspices of his cop stepdad Cross, so probably was going by that name at least at work, even if he reverted to his birthname lech later on. and in this case it was in the context of a carman going to work as a witness when he was dealing with the police so no big stretch that he used his "work" name. Still, it needs explaining.


                        Secondly, Lechmere raised the alarm with Robert Paul as soon as he was near enough to speak to him! He could have walked off before Paul arrived, but he stood his ground and then had to steer Paul over to where the woman was lying and ask for his assistance, because he was clearly reluctant to get involved and would have avoided doing so otherwise. Lechmere had to get Paul onside, before they left together to report the matter to the next policeman they saw. I don't know how much more quickly or effectively Lechmere could have raised the alarm. He really can't win, can he?
                        my point is its the timing that's odd and seemingly improbable. so tight that in those few seconds before lech started to do anything else, that Paul just happens to come upon him. Ive often imagined myself in pauls shoes and just how inherently creepy (and yes suspicious) it must have been to come down the street and see a figure that's hovering near a recently killed women. makes the hair stand up.

                        when his vehicle was involved in the accidental death of a child.
                        See! hes a killer! ; )

                        He really can't win, can he?
                        Dont cry for Lech, Caz. hes bad news any way. I don't like him in any case, innocent or not-least of all because the doosh left a woman who was in obvious need of help lying on the street-"well maybe well find a copper, but off to work." dick.

                        compare it to someone like mary Kelly, someone in much more dire straits, who despite her situation, because of her kindness and selfishness, let friends stay with her eventhough it caused her more problems. maybe even her life.
                        "Is all that we see or seem
                        but a dream within a dream?"

                        -Edgar Allan Poe


                        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                        -Frederick G. Abberline

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Hello and welcome Lostris1971,

                          >> I feel Lechmere is certainly a good candidate …<<

                          He certainly can be described as a person of interest.


                          >>… probably even knew the Police patrol routes for the locations pretty well.<<

                          There’s no evidence that he did or should.


                          >>Lechmere was with the body of Nichols a good 8 or 9 minutes prior to Robert Paul arriving on the scene <<

                          Ah! Looks like you’ve been watching a certain entertaining, but questionable TV show.
                          There is NO evidence of Xmere’s extra time. For this story to be correct we would have to know that all parties involved had synchronised clocks, in Victorian Britain that notion is in no way viable. We don’t even know if Paul and Xmere even had timepieces. It is entirely possible they guessed the time from “Knocker Uppers” (the function PC Mizen was performing when the pair spoke to him).
                          Anyone, like me, who lived in the era of wind up clocks knows there was often a variance of many minutes in their time-keeping accuracy, so even if the pair had timepieces it still meant nothing in terms of evidence.


                          >>Robert Paul doesn't arrive on the scene until 3.45am, (I assume he would have known the time from one of the clocks in the area striking the 1/4 hour)…<<

                          If that were the case then Xmere Paul and the three policemen would all have given the consistent times, they didn’t.


                          >>After the two do establish it is a woman on the ground, Robert Paul said that he asked Lechmere to help him move the body but Lechmere refused not wanting to touch it <<

                          The fullest account of what he said was, not to touch it before the police had seen it, which, of course, as we all know, is exactly the right thing to do.

                          Also, this information only comes from Xmere, Paul does not mention it at any stage in any interview that we know of. Hardly smart for a murderer to volunteer incriminating information, so chances are this statement supports Xmere not damages him.


                          >> was it not Lechmere who pulled her dress down <<

                          Accounts all say Paul pulled the dress down.


                          >> … it would have been worth shouting for help. Shock at what he discovered may account for this but he didn't appear shocked or even preturbed by what he had seen given the statements made.<<

                          You are presuming knowledge of something that neither man said they had. Finding a down and out in the street was not an odd occurrence. Neither man claimed to know whether she was dead or not. And neither man claimed they were aware it was a murder scene. Their actions were in accord with what they claimed to have seen.


                          >> Lechmere would likely of heard Paul approaching before Paul saw him, it would have probably been reasonably quiet at that time of the morning and he would have heard his shoes on the cobblestones heading toward him …<<

                          And visa versa, if Xmere had moved away from the body Paul should have heard him.


                          >>Paul's earlier statement places Lechmere near the body as he says he tried to give him a wide berth because he knew it was an area where crimes were often committed. If Lechmere was in the middle of the street how would Paul have been able to give him a wide berth? <<

                          Paul’s Lloyds interview should be viewed with some poetic license.


                          >>… it would also have been interesting to know how far down the street Paul was before he noticed Lechmere, i suspect he was already too far to turn back or down another route so as to avoid him which he may have chosen to do if he was nervous already of the area.<<

                          Xmere would never have been more than seconds away from disappearing into the darkness.


                          >>PC Neil said that when he found the body the eyes were open and that is something that does not sit right for me, neither Lechmere or Paul's accounts mention they noticed the eyes of the woman they found being open, how did they miss it if PC Neil saw it only a few minutes later and why would Lechmere and Paul think Nichols was either dead or drunk if her eyes were wide open and not blinking or moving and she was not moving either. I know it is not unheard of for people to be found sleeping with the eyes open but I doubt its a common occurrence and probably pretty eerie to see and you would probably be more likely to think someone dead if they are laying prone on the floor staring unblinking up at you.<<

                          Good point, tis yet another mystery.
                          Last edited by drstrange169; 03-14-2019, 06:44 AM.
                          dustymiller
                          aka drstrange

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Revised point!

                            >>… it would also have been interesting to know how far down the street Paul was before he noticed Lechmere, i suspect he was already too far to turn back or down another route so as to avoid him which he may have chosen to do if he was nervous already of the area.<<

                            Sorry, I realize now you were talking about Paul not Xmere. As I said, poetic license is needed when it comes to Paul's Lloyd's interview.
                            dustymiller
                            aka drstrange

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post


                              One of things that strikes me is that, if you believe lechs story (not sure I do), Paul comes upon lech right at that moment of hesitation where lech is apparently still not sure what to do. He is the only "witness" in the case where he is seen near a dead victim before trying to raise any alarm. whats the chances? Not when lech is off looking for help, or walking away, or hears him shouting for help-just at that moment-seems a little off to me.
                              The chances of the two men running into one another are increased by the fact that they were both due at work at 4am. Paul was headed to Corbett's Court off Hanbury Street, Cross was headed to Pickford's in Broad Street.

                              I think it's worth pointing out, again, with respect to Cross' waiting for Paul to arrive on the spot, that - had he just killed and mutilated Nichols - he had, at the moment of Paul's approach, several options that did not involve interaction of any kind with Robert Paul. If one believes that Cross killed Nichols then one must believe that Cross heard Paul's approach in Buck's Row, otherwise Paul would have would have caught Cross in the act. We know that it was quite dark in Buck's Row. We know that Paul and Cross were unable to see her wounds, from just inches away. We know that PC Neil was only able to see her wounds with using his lamp. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that Cross - HAD he killed Nichols and HAD his goal been to avoid being CAUGHT - could have simply walked away from Paul and continued on to Broad Street. He could have walked toward Paul, passing him in Buck's Row before Paul had even arrived at the spot where Nichols lay. He could even have, perhaps, stepped into the shadows and let Paul pass.

                              But, let's look at what he we know he DID while viewing him as having just killed Polly Nichols:

                              1. He hears Paul's approach in Buck's Row.
                              2. He waits for Paul near the spot upon which he's just murdered Nichols.
                              3. Paul tries to avoid him, but Cross touches his arm and asks him to "come see this woman", the woman that Paul had - to this point - not even seen lying on the ground.
                              4. He convinces Paul to have a look at her.
                              5. Paul thinks he detects movement "as of breathing", but Cross - rather than allow Paul to believe the woman was alive and likely passed out drunk - says that he thinks she's dead.
                              6. Rather than tell Paul he is heading in the direction from which Paul had come (Cross knew which direction Paul was heading but Paul had no way of knowing which direction Cross was heading) he agrees to continue WITH Paul and tell the first policeman they find about Nichols.
                              7. He stays with Paul until the men find Mizen in Baker's Row.
                              8. Rather than suggest that the woman was simply drunk, he tells Mizen, "for my part I think she is dead".

                              These decisions are inexplicable ONLY if Cross killed Nichols. Cross had no way of knowing WHO as approaching up Buck's Row. It could have been a policeman. It could have been his victim's husband, brother, best friend, roommate, pimp. Yet he waited... AND ostensibly forced the man to inspect her body even though he tried to avoid Cross altogether. Of course, he had no way of knowing that Paul didn't have a match with which to light the scene. If he had he'd have seen the wounds, blood. Remember, had the man just killed Nichols.... he's trying to avoid being caught, arrested, hanged. Yet, he's inviting strangers to "come see this woman" and accompanying them on a search for the POLICE. Inexplicable, had Cross killed Nichols. And that brings us to Mizen. Cross had no way of knowing that Mizen would say, simply, "Alright" upon being told a woman was lying - likely dead - in Buck's Row. He had no way of knowing that Mizen would not ask either man their name, would not search them (the theory goes that Cross HAD the murder weapon ON HIS PERSON through all of what I've described here), would not use his lantern and observe blood on his hands and clothing, would not haul he and Paul back to Bucks' Row to SHOW him the woman lying there.

                              Finally, what does Cross do AFTER he's not detained or even asked his name by Mizen? He shows up and the inquest voluntarily.








                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Patrick S View Post

                                The chances of the two men running into one another are increased by the fact that they were both due at work at 4am. Paul was headed to Corbett's Court off Hanbury Street, Cross was headed to Pickford's in Broad Street.

                                I think it's worth pointing out, again, with respect to Cross' waiting for Paul to arrive on the spot, that - had he just killed and mutilated Nichols - he had, at the moment of Paul's approach, several options that did not involve interaction of any kind with Robert Paul. If one believes that Cross killed Nichols then one must believe that Cross heard Paul's approach in Buck's Row, otherwise Paul would have would have caught Cross in the act. We know that it was quite dark in Buck's Row. We know that Paul and Cross were unable to see her wounds, from just inches away. We know that PC Neil was only able to see her wounds with using his lamp. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that Cross - HAD he killed Nichols and HAD his goal been to avoid being CAUGHT - could have simply walked away from Paul and continued on to Broad Street. He could have walked toward Paul, passing him in Buck's Row before Paul had even arrived at the spot where Nichols lay. He could even have, perhaps, stepped into the shadows and let Paul pass.

                                But, let's look at what he we know he DID while viewing him as having just killed Polly Nichols:

                                1. He hears Paul's approach in Buck's Row.
                                2. He waits for Paul near the spot upon which he's just murdered Nichols.
                                3. Paul tries to avoid him, but Cross touches his arm and asks him to "come see this woman", the woman that Paul had - to this point - not even seen lying on the ground.
                                4. He convinces Paul to have a look at her.
                                5. Paul thinks he detects movement "as of breathing", but Cross - rather than allow Paul to believe the woman was alive and likely passed out drunk - says that he thinks she's dead.
                                6. Rather than tell Paul he is heading in the direction from which Paul had come (Cross knew which direction Paul was heading but Paul had no way of knowing which direction Cross was heading) he agrees to continue WITH Paul and tell the first policeman they find about Nichols.
                                7. He stays with Paul until the men find Mizen in Baker's Row.
                                8. Rather than suggest that the woman was simply drunk, he tells Mizen, "for my part I think she is dead".

                                These decisions are inexplicable ONLY if Cross killed Nichols. Cross had no way of knowing WHO as approaching up Buck's Row. It could have been a policeman. It could have been his victim's husband, brother, best friend, roommate, pimp. Yet he waited... AND ostensibly forced the man to inspect her body even though he tried to avoid Cross altogether. Of course, he had no way of knowing that Paul didn't have a match with which to light the scene. If he had he'd have seen the wounds, blood. Remember, had the man just killed Nichols.... he's trying to avoid being caught, arrested, hanged. Yet, he's inviting strangers to "come see this woman" and accompanying them on a search for the POLICE. Inexplicable, had Cross killed Nichols. And that brings us to Mizen. Cross had no way of knowing that Mizen would say, simply, "Alright" upon being told a woman was lying - likely dead - in Buck's Row. He had no way of knowing that Mizen would not ask either man their name, would not search them (the theory goes that Cross HAD the murder weapon ON HIS PERSON through all of what I've described here), would not use his lantern and observe blood on his hands and clothing, would not haul he and Paul back to Bucks' Row to SHOW him the woman lying there.

                                Finally, what does Cross do AFTER he's not detained or even asked his name by Mizen? He shows up and the inquest voluntarily.

                                All that make perfect sense, and in all probability Lechmere was innocent.

                                But let me ask you three questions:


                                1-Why did he refuse to help her?!

                                2-Why he was sure that she was dead, if Paul detected a breath?

                                3-All that points you have mentioned, don't disprove that Lechmere had the opportunity, he was there, alone, at the time she still was bleeding, was he not?!



                                The Baron

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X