PC Jonas Mizen

[Patrick S]

How did Lechmere refuse to help Nichols? As in trying to pick her up?

I think that's the idea. His refusal to "give her a prop".

Again, the contention here is that Cross/Lechmere didn't wish to move or touch Nichols in any way lest her wounds become apparent to Paul.... Whom he just flagged down in Buck's Row and asked to "come see this woman". Paul tried to avoid him, but Cross/Lechmere went to so far as "touch his shoulder" in order to call his attention to Nichols, lying on the pavement, barely visible in the dark, who Paul was in the act of walking right past.... only to now decide that he didn't want him to notice her wounds. Again, Paul could have lit a match and seen the wounds. Paul could have banged on the nearest door and asked for a lantern or torch, and seen the woudns. Paul could have begun screaming for a policeman, who would have arrived with his bullseye, lit the scene, and seen the wounds. Paul could have BEEN a policeman for all Cross/Lechmere knew when he supposedly deduced to remain on the spot and wait rather than simply walk away in the dark.

This has always struck me as a key bit of making what's known fit what we so desperately wish to be true, because frankly it makes so little sense. And of course, at least in my view, it's only the beginning of series of nonsensical, inexplicable acts undertaken by Cross/Lechmere... IF he killed Nichols. Of course, his behavior is consistent with someone who did not kill Nichols, but instead found her body, recruited to the first person who came along to have a look for himself, and then accompanied that person on an errand to find and tell a policeman, which they did successfully, to Mizen in Baker's Row. Mizen, of course, let both Cross/Lechmere continue on to work, didn't detain them, didn't ask their names, didn't search him to find the knife used to kill Nichols (that we're told was still on his person throughout this "bluff").

And then.... Cross/Lechmere showed up at the inquest voluntarily.... Despite Paul's "Remarkable Statement" in Lloyd's that - again - doesn't refer to the man he met in Buck's Row by name (because he didn't know it), offers no description beyond the fact that he was "a man". In fact, Paul's statement leaves one with the impression that Paul went off alone to search for a PC and left the other man behind. Yet, we're asked to believe this statement was a "bombshell" that compelled Cross/Lechmere to appear at the inquest... even though he supposedly killed Nichols and walked away, unsuspected, unnamed, not described in anyway?

Regardless of two thousand word rebuttals designed to explain what I've described above was Cross/Lechmere's ONLY way out, I just can't seem to see any of it as the least bit plausible.

[Snidery_Mark]

Yes, thank you, he probably wasn't wearing an apron, granted.

I think the reason why he didn't help Paul prop Polly up was that he felt that her head would fall off.

The whole situation is strange. How long was Lechmere with the body before Paul came by? Why didn't Lechmere go for help himself? Given that Lechmere was employed "for some time" before this date (Friday 31/8/1888) he would have been familiar with the route and possibly those who were out and about at that time of the morning. He may have been aware of Paul's routine and perhaps that of Constables Neil and Mizen. Conjecture is a fine thing, yet I find the window of opportunity is very small in this particular case.
The attending doctor (Henry Llewellyn) arrived at 4:00am and stated that Polly had died approximately half an hour prior (around 3:30am). Paul states that he came across Polly and Lechmere at "exactly" 3:45am. Lechmere states he left home at 3:30am although he usually left home at 3:20am. It was a 7 minute walk from his home to Buck's Row which meant that he arrived some time between 3:27am and 3:37am. Even at the outside, say 3:40am it still leaves him alone with Polly for 5 minutes before Paul arrived. At the earliest, 3:27am, there would be little doubt that Lechmere had done it - the window of opportunity is just too small. It would be most gratifying if I knew what time a bobby last walked down Buck's Row, it would establish for a certainty the exact timeframe between when the body appeared and when Paul arrived to see Lechmere with the body.

Polly was last seen by a room-mate at 2:30am on the corner of Osborn St (Brick Lane) and Whitechapel Road. It is only a 5 minute walk from there to Buck's Road (Durward St) although it's doubtful she went straight there. She was killed where she lay between, no earlier than 3:15 and no later than 3:45. Paul was running behind time at 3:45am and would "usually" be in Buck's Row two?, three?, five? minutes prior. Lechmere would "normally" be in Buck's Row around the same time - anywhere between 3:22 and 3:37 (even if he left at 3:30am).

I think he stayed with the body because he had no choice - to flee may have caused alarm to whoever was approaching, besides I don't think either Paul or Lechmere were overly cluey.

Considering Lechmere's familiarity with the area, I believe he knew that Paul wasn't a copper and knew when the police patrolled Buck's Row as he walked the same route for a few years before that morning. Buck's Row is about 30-odd minutes from Broad Street (Lechmere's employ), so I'd assume Lechmere would leave home at quarter past (by the bell) or twenty past three to be at work by 4. If he leaves at 3:15 he's at Bucks Row at 22 past 3 - and the murderer. I just don't think anyone had the opportunity, the time or was as familiar with the area at that time in the morning as did Lechmere.

But again, this is all guess-timation. And, even if Lechmere killed Nichols, he may not have killed the others (the canonical ones anyway) but he DID have the opportunity to do so, was very familiar with the area and was in the area at or about the times of the killings.

[drstrange169]

>>I think the reason why he didn't help Paul prop Polly up was that he felt that her head would fall off.<<

See Herlock's post #59 for a full and reasonable explanation of this.



>>The whole situation is strange. How long was Lechmere with the body before Paul came by?<<

The real facts are, nobody knows, despite the show you saw claiming the contrary



>>Why didn't Lechmere go for help himself? <<

Why would he go for help, what reason would he have?

He acted entirely appropriately for the situation. He stopped the nearest passer-by, Paul.

According to their testimony, neither he or Paul knew Mrs Nichols was murdered even after they examined her. What Xmere claims he saw was just another dero lying/sleepng in the street, something most of us who live in cities see all the time. All the other discoverers of victims bodies saw blood and guts, there was no doubt that a murder had taken place, this was a very different situation, so why would he rush around screaming for help? It doesn't make sense.



>>Given that Lechmere was employed "for some time" before this date (Friday 31/8/1888) he would have been familiar with the route and possibly those who were out and about at that time of the morning. <<

He had only just moved to the area, he had previously been living in James Street south on Whitechapel Road in the St. Georges parish.



>> Paul states that he came across Polly and Lechmere at "exactly" 3:45am. Lechmere states he left home at 3:30am<<

Again, you are basing this on the show you saw, it presented very misleading evidence about the timings. See my post #42 for a more accurate summation of the timings.



>>It would be most gratifying if I knew what time a bobby last walked down Buck's Row, it would establish for a certainty the exact timeframe between when the body appeared and when Paul arrived to see Lechmere with the body.<<

Check through this site and you'll find posts about PC Neil's route and timings.



>>I think he stayed with the body because he had no choice - to flee may have caused alarm to whoever was approaching, besides I don't think either Paul or Lechmere were overly cluey.<<

All witness agree to was very dark. The murderer would only be, literally, seconds away from disappearing into the darkness.

What possible reason would Xmere leaving cause alarm? Quite the opposite, Paul stated he was uneasy because Xmere stayed.



>> Buck's Row is about 30-odd minutes from Broad Street <<

According to members who have timed it 17 to 20 minutes depending on the walking speed.

[Joshua Rogan]

Yes, thank you, he probably wasn't wearing an apron, granted.

Actually, he did wear an apron, but it wasn't made of leather.

East London Observer 6 Sept;

"Charles A. Cross, a carman, who appeared in court with a rough sack apron on"

[Fisherman]

>>Do you agree that Nichols had probably received the wounds that killed her at the stage when the carmen examined her?<<

I don't know for certain, nobody does.

It my favoured theory, but I don't exclude the possibility at least some wounds were inflicted after they left. Such a theory explains the lack of blood sighted and transferred by the pair and also explains the oozing blood sighted by PC Neil.


>>Do you agree that Neil said that he saw blood oozing/running (he used both words) from her neck as he found her, some minutes AFTER the Carmens examination?<<

So the newspapers said. I don't recall a direct quote from Neil as to his exact words.


>>If so, why would it not be probable in the extreme that she bled as the carmen were with her?

Fot that not to be probable, is it not true that one must accept that either Neil was wrong and/or that Nichols had not received the wounds that killed her when the carmen examined her? Or that she bled as shew was cut, then stopped bleeding during the Carmens examination, only to then proceed to bleed again afterwards.<<

Or are you simply taking away the "probably", saying that she WAS bleeding?<<

See my first answer.

If it is your favored theory that she had already been attacked as the carmen were in place, then why not concede that this means that you do think that she probably bled as the carmen were there? The only other possibilities are that she stopped bleeding as they were present only to start bleeding again afterwards or that she was cut after the carmen left, something you yourself admit is not your favored theory.

The more probable thing is therefore that she bled as the carmen were there, quite simply. And I would say that 99,9 of the posters out here will readily admit it.

[Snidery_Mark]

Dr Strange, although I haven't yet gone back and read your post #42, I proffer the Evening Standard extract of 3 Sept 1888 purporting to be Mr Paul's statement of events...

... "It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market."...
He must have, and so too, Lechmere, known the time by their usual travels and bell tolling? I'm not basing it on what I saw on telly but trying to fit in a time-line. Polly's discovery I think more than others has the smallest window of opportunity - apart, maybe from Stride who most believe was discovered shortly after the killer was interrupted (and then off he goes to Eddowes). Yet there were many people in a short time at Stride's scene shortly after she was killed, so her killer, it can be assumed left the scene - and then went to Mitre Square.
Nichols murder is the closest thing available to being caught "red-handed" based on time availability, methinks. (I'll read your post #42 now).

I HAD read that post and you merely make reference to the time-keeping quality of a two-bob watch (if they - Paul and Lechmere wore them). I wonder why Paul said "exactly" quarter to 4? There must have been some sort of trigger for him to be so precise with his timing?
Noted that you say 17 to 20 minutes Buck's Row to Broad Street - if 17 or 20 - then Lechmere WAS running late as he stated. Working backwards, then Lechmere leaves home at 3:30 - 7-10 minutes to Buck's Row and at work by 4. I recall reading somewhere that he usually left home around 3:20 so would be in Buck's row about 3:35, even at a toddle's pace. As you said (#42), it would take the perp seconds to vanish on a dark night. But why did Lechmere stay and what was he doing when Paul first noticed him?

I try not to read too much into it as the case is colder than Paul said Polly was - but that's not to deny me my opinion that Lechmere's our man. If not, it's all very convenient and coincidental.

[drstrange169]

>> The only other possibilities are that she stopped bleeding as they were present only to start bleeding again afterwards or that she was cut after the carmen left, something you yourself admit is not your favored theory.<<

That's not what I wrote or what your own quote from me says.

To wit ...

"... I don't exclude the possibility at least some wounds were inflicted after they left. Such a theory explains the lack of blood sighted and transferred by the pair and also explains the oozing blood sighted by PC Neil."

Nothing to do with blood stopping and starting.

I not invested in the word "probable", if it you want me to say it I'm happy to say it, it just doesn't reflect my personal opinion on the subject, ergo I retracted it from my post.

>> And I would say that 99,9 of the posters out here will readily admit it.<<

Then by all means let the majority rule, I don't have a problem with you or others thinking that.

[drstrange169]

>> I wonder why Paul said "exactly" quarter to 4?<<

Everybody wonders why Paul said any of the stuff he told the Lloyds reporter (which is where that quote originally came from) and then changed his story under oath.

If there was a tolling bell it would have to have been heard by PC Neil who said he was there at 3:45, which was corroborated by PC Thain who should have heard it too. And did PC Mizen hear the same bell when he said he met the pair in Bakers Row at 3:45?

Three trained, independent witness who support each others timings.



>> why did Lechmere stay and what was he doing when Paul first noticed him?<<

Whether anyone thinks he is guilty or not, the fact we all agree on, is that he stayed to show Paul the body there is no mystery there.

[Fisherman]

>> The only other possibilities are that she stopped bleeding as they were present only to start bleeding again afterwards or that she was cut after the carmen left, something you yourself admit is not your favored theory.<<

That's not what I wrote or what your own quote from me says.

To wit ...

"... I don't exclude the possibility at least some wounds were inflicted after they left. Such a theory explains the lack of blood sighted and transferred by the pair and also explains the oozing blood sighted by PC Neil."

Nothing to do with blood stopping and starting.

I not invested in the word "probable", if it you want me to say it I'm happy to say it, it just doesn't reflect my personal opinion on the subject, ergo I retracted it from my post.

>> And I would say that 99,9 of the posters out here will readily admit it.<<

Then by all means let the majority rule, I don't have a problem with you or others thinking that.

So, in essence, in your personal view, it is NOT probable that Polly Nichols was bleeding as the carmen were with her in Bucks Row.

That is what I am getting at. As always, anybody is welcome to their personal takes on the case details, but it equally applies that once these takes are served up as likelihood's on a public discussion site, anybody who disagrees is welcome to explain why.

To me, the important thing is that you go public with things like these, since they clearly show the quality of your reasoning.

Thank you.

[Harry D]

If Lechmere was guilty, why did he assert that Nichols was dead when they examined the body? He even told Mizen that in his opinion Nichols was dead rather than drunk. Lechmere wasn't to know that Mizen was going to continue knocking up anyway and wouldn't take down any of their details.

[Fisherman]

If Lechmere was guilty, why did he assert that Nichols was dead when they examined the body? He even told Mizen that in his opinion Nichols was dead rather than drunk. Lechmere wasn't to know that Mizen was going to continue knocking up anyway and wouldn't take down any of their details.

Lechmere said that another PC was in place in Bucks Row, so regardless of what condition he gave on behalf of Nichols, dead, dying or possibly just drunk, he ALSO effectively pointed out to Mizen that he and Paul could have had nothing to do with it, since that other PC had seen his way clear to send the carmen along as messengers, looking for another police officer.
It was only if Mizen suspected that the carman was lying about the affair, and that there was probably no officer at all in Bucks Row, that Mizen would have had a reason to take down the men's details or bring them along to Bucks Row.
What he chose to tell Mizen about the condition of the woman would always be menial to the info about how the police already had the errand in hand. Effectively, if he counted on being hauled in for questioning as a possibility, it would even look good if he had been upfront in his info, right?

But we have been over this a million times, Harry. Why do it again?

[Harry D]

Lechmere said that another PC was in place in Bucks Row, so regardless of what condition he gave on behalf of Nichols, dead, dying or possibly just drunk, he ALSO effectively pointed out to Mizen that he and Paul could have had nothing to do with it, since that other PC had seen his way clear to send the carmen along as messengers, looking for another police officer.
It was only of Mizen suspected that the carman was lying about the affair, and that there was probably no officer at all in Bucks Row that he would have had a reason to take down the men's details or bring them along to Bucks Row.
What he chose to tell Mizen about the condition of the woman would always be menial to the info about how the police already had the errand in hand.

Assuming Lechmere did tell Mizen that, as you know it's disputed by Lechmere himself and uncorroborated by a third party (Paul), there's no reason why he couldn't have said Nichols was "probably drunk" whilst lying about the PC.

But we have been over this a million times, Harry. Why do it again?

Unfortunately, there's nothing to do but retread old ground. And I couldn't recall the Lechmerian argument on this particular point.

[Patrick S]

Lechmere said that another PC was in place in Bucks Row,


This should read that MIZEN SAID Cross/Lechmere told him another PC was "in place in Bucks Row".

It should also be noted that of the three men in Bakers Row that night, only one, Mizen, says anyone said anything about another PC waiting in Bucks Row. Noteworthy also, Cross/Lechmere - while undertaking his "bluff" with Paul (that has him killing Nichols, insisting Paul view his victim even as he tries to avoid Cross/Lechmere and walk on, and accompany him on a mission to find a policeman) and his "scam" with Mizen (that has him telling the PC that he thinks "for (his) part (he) thinks she's is dead", all with the murder weapon stowed on his person) - appeared voluntarily at the inquest to, as you tell it, tell LIES, contradicting Mizen... when he could simply have.. done nothing. Again, Mizen didn't ask his name. Paul didn't know his name. Neither man described him publicly. The only news of anyone other than Neil finding the body appeared in the form of Paul's Lloyd's statement. Obviously there was no nightly news, no talk radio, no internet, no social media. In the unlikely event that the police undertook a search for "the man" (barely) mentioned in Paul's "remarkable statement" it would have been more than plausible for Cross/Lechmere to simply state he hadnt' read that report, so knew nothing of it... OR... he could simply have said he that he assumed he'd DONE his civic duty in that he had TOLD THE POLICE about the woman lying in Bucks Row. Very clearly there was NO reason for him to appear at the inquest had he killed Nichols and his objective was to not be arrested, convicted, and hung for doing so.

so regardless of what condition he gave on behalf of Nichols, dead, dying or possibly just drunk, he ALSO effectively pointed out to Mizen that he and Paul could have had nothing to do with it, since that other PC had seen his way clear to send the carmen along as messengers, looking for another police officer.

Mizen said that Cross/Lechmere told him a PC was waiting and thus "pointed out.. that he and Paul could have had nothing to do with it". Here WE should point out that your "scam" had Cross/Lechmere doing all this OUT OF PAUL'S HEARING, even though no one mentions that happening. EVER... until you invented that aspect of the interaction in Bakers Row. You simply must have that happen because Paul must become Cross/Lechmere's dupe in order for this "scam" to have happened. Paul would certainly have said, "Hold on now. There's no PC in Bucks Row. You're lying." And we know he did not say that. We know Paul says nothing about ANYONE saying ANYTHING about a PC in Bucks Row (he does mention in Lloyds that he felt it was a "great shame" that the woman was lying dead on the ground and that a policeman clearly hadn't been around in some time). And we know that Cross/Lechmere was asked flatly under oath about it. He said he DID NOT see a PC in Bucks Row and he said that he did NOT tell Mizen that there was a PC in Bucks Row.

It was only if Mizen suspected that the carman was lying about the affair, and that there was probably no officer at all in Bucks Row, that Mizen would have had a reason to take down the men's details or bring them along to Bucks Row.

I don't think that it can be argued that, regardless of having been told a PC was waiting in Bucks Row, Mizen can not absolved of poor police work here. If you're contention its reasonable for a PC to take the word of a stranger (or strangers) about ANYTHING upon being told that a person was lying likely dead on the ground a few hundred yards away, and then allow those men to simply disappear without getting even the smallest detail about who they are, much less their names...... Well.... I don't think even your most ardent docu fans will agree on that score.

What he chose to tell Mizen about the condition of the woman would always be menial to the info about how the police already had the errand in hand. Effectively, if he counted on being hauled in for questioning as a possibility, it would even look good if he had been upfront in his info, right?

IF he was "hauled in for questioning" he'd have been cooked immediately. You have him carrying the murder weapon on his person. You have him cutting Nichols' throat and mutilating her in the near total darkness of Bucks Row. Regardless of the logistics and absence of arterial spray, etc... he'd have had to be magician to avoid having blood on his clothing, hands. Now, that blood may not have been visible in the darkness of Bucks and Bakers Row. But it would have been visible had he been brought indoors, or even been scrutinized by the light of PCs lamp.

But we have been over this a million times, Harry. Why do it again?

Do it again because there are so many new fans of the documentary, of course. One cannot allow them to buy it's contents without at least some discussion, right?

[Fisherman]

Do it again because there are so many new fans of the documentary, of course. One cannot allow them to buy it's contents without at least some discussion, right?

Harry and I have done this discussion a hundred times, which was what I was referring to. I have had the same discussion with you a hundred times and more. Any new students can read it in detail out here. The one thing that seems new this time over is how you misunderstand when I speak about being hauled in for questioning. I was referring to such a questioning somewhere down the line, when the murder weapon was long gone.

The rest is old hat, is it not? For example, experts on police work like Monty has pointed out that Mizen cannot be accused of poor policing. It fits your argument, though, so you like it and use it.

Its disagreeing time, not discussion time. Not for me.

[Fisherman]

Unfortunately, there's nothing to do but retread old ground. And I couldn't recall the Lechmerian argument on this particular point.

Be my guest.