PC Jonas Mizen

[Snidery_Mark]

Sorry Patrick, I've been busy, but in reply to the "What wall?" question, I was going off the artist's impression of the scene that I've seen a few times in various places (like post # 512 by DrStrange169 in the "Window of Time for Nichols murder" thread in the General Suspects directory, this site). The scene shows a fence and over the road from where Polly lay was the gate to the wharf (which was locked). The killer could have easily thrown the knife over the fence. Personally, I think Lechmere kept his knife in his boot. I read somewhere that the "frisking" method of late 19th Century London policemen consisted merely of pat down and turning out pockets. No such thing as a strip search in those days. I don't think it would be overly imaginative if someone would hide a knife in their boot.

[Fisherman]

The point that I would make is that in none of the scenarios does it point to Lechmere giving the name Cross with the purpose avoiding the police or making himself less of a suspect. He might of course have done this to avoid the name Lechmere being associated with the case in the newspapers. So I’d say that the sinister explanation is untenable but the non-sinister one is a very reasonable possibility.

I find that a very odd thing to say. From where do you get it that Lechmere´s avoiding to use his registered name, the name we know he used in authority contacts otherwise, would not point to him acting suspiciously? Isn't using an alias an example of EXACTLY that? Isn't it the oldest trick in the villain manual? Or has that changed?

I am not saying that there could not be an innocent explanation. But I am saying that claiming that the innocent explanation is very reasonable whereas saying that it is suspicious is untenable is wrong, simple as that.

Saying that it is a proven thing that the name swop points to guilt would be untenable.

Then again, saying that it is a proven thing that it does not point to guilt is equally untenable.

We cannot prove it either way. But history is crammed with examples of criminals who gave false names, and that has to count for something. The fact that people have used two names with no sinister reason at all must also be weighed in, and that offers the possibility of an innocent explanation. But that's about it: suspicious, but possibly not sinister. That's the long and the short of things.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I find that a very odd thing to say. From where do you get it that Lechmere´s avoiding to use his registered name, the name we know he used in authority contacts otherwise, would not point to him acting suspiciously? Isn't using an alias an example of EXACTLY that? Isn't it the oldest trick in the villain manual? Or has that changed?

I am not saying that there could not be an innocent explanation. But I am saying that claiming that the innocent explanation is very reasonable whereas saying that it is suspicious is untenable is wrong, simple as that.

Saying that it is a proven thing that the name swop points to guilt would be untenable.

Then again, saying that it is a proven thing that it does not point to guilt is equally untenable.

We cannot prove it either way. But history is crammed with examples of criminals who gave false names, and that has to count for something. The fact that people have used two names with no sinister reason at all must also be weighed in, and that offers the possibility of an innocent explanation. But that's about it: suspicious, but possibly not sinister. That's the long and the short of things.

It’s the fact that apart from the Lechmere/Cross thing we have to take into consideration that he gave his correct Christian names and his correct address which surely shows that he wasn’t trying to avoid any police attention but was might have been trying trying to keep the family name out of the newspapers (I’ll add imo of course). Now it’s not impossible that there may have been an alternative explanation but I’m unaware of one at this point.

And so, at this point in time, I find myself in this position - I can’t see what sinister benefit (pointing to Lechmere having something to hide) that he might have gained from calling himself Charles Allen Cross Of 22 Doveton Street rather than Charles Allen Lechmere of 22 Doveton Street. But I can potentially see a non-sinister benefit in that he might have wanted to have spared his mother and family from having their surname in the paper. A name that would stand out too, just as the name Holmgren would be more likely to draw attention for East End newspaper readers amongst the Smith’s, Jones’s, and Thompson’s. And so the innocent explanation, on this point, appears to be the more likely (Again imo Fish.)

[Patrick S]

If he had called himself Giles Fairbottom and claimed to work for The Drunkenbolt Distillery, adding that he lived at 666 Rotten Row, and if this information was checked out, he would have been caught with his trousers down and he would quite likely have been accused of being the killer.

This has been explained a million times but listened to on the fewest of occasions. The myth that if you give some information in a correct fashion then all information given must be correct is peddled over and over again.

He COULD NOT lie on all scores in case he was checked out. Please take heed of that!

What he COULD do if he wanted to stay incognito to those who read the papers was to alter his name - and altering it to a name that he could explain if he was checked out, would be the logical and clever way to go about it. Then he could also try to obscure his address by withholding it - and since one paper only had an address to him, it would seem the rest of the many papers either:
1. Never heard it
2. Could not hear what was said (while the Star got it spot on)
or
3. Got the address but choose to keep it out of their reporting.

There are no other possible explanations if we rule out the aliens from outer space explanations. Which explanation do you favour, Herlock?

The obvious fallacy in all this is, of course, the fact that he needn't have given any name or address. As has been explained here a million times, your "suspect" wasn't asked his name. He wasn't asked his name by Paul in Buck's Row. He wasn't asked his name by Mizen in Baker's Row. He went on to work that morning having not been asked his name, his address, where he worked... by anyone. Of course, Paul's "Remarkable Statement" in Lloyd's appeared a few days later and... gave no name, no description of "the man" Paul had met in Buck's Row. Yet, he appeared at the inquest voluntarily and gave his genuine address, genuine place of employment. So, what advantage was gained by his giving this "false name"? Obviously, he could have give the name "Giles Fairbottom" and it wouldn't have mattered at all had he been suspected of a crime - any crime - since the police knew exactly where to find him.

If course it's just more foolishness, isn't it? Clearly one doesn't attempt to get away with murder by stopping the first fellow who happens along and forcing him to visit with your victim's body before enlisting him on a errand to find a police officer.. and then escaping unquestioned, unnamed... only to appear at the inquest to testify, giving your genuine address and place of employment, actual first name... but a "false" last name which happens to have been his step father's name.

[Abby Normal]

No problem. Obviously there are two or even three sides to this. I don’t think that Lechmere was the killer but he has to be considered and I could be wrong. Then you have someone like Abby who I think I’d be right in saying that whilst not particularly favouring Lechmere, believes him to be a better suspect than in do. Then of course we have Fish who strongly favours Lechmere as the ripper (and The Torso Murderer of course.)

hi HS and Aunt
yes herlock that is correct. hes not my favored suspect but I think hes valid. I think hes exactly the type of candidate that needs looking at-guys like hutch, Richardson, boyer. Folks who we know were near the crimescene and or discovered the body. which would make them de facto suspects (or at least persons of interest) in todays world, at least until they are cleared.

and aunt just for the record-suspectology (yes yes I admit it!)is my main interest in this whodunnit. My favored suspects are hutch, blotchy, Kelly, Bury and chapman. and then further down candidates like lech, Barnett, druitt etc. and I think taken all together all the suspects, persons of interest, witnesses I think we would have a pretty good chance of finding the ripper among them. but as I like to say individually-they are all weak, some just less weak than others.

[Fisherman]

It’s the fact that apart from the Lechmere/Cross thing we have to take into consideration that he gave his correct Christian names and his correct address which surely shows that he wasn’t trying to avoid any police attention but was might have been trying trying to keep the family name out of the newspapers (I’ll add imo of course). Now it’s not impossible that there may have been an alternative explanation but I’m unaware of one at this point.

It has been said a zillion (or is it a billion only?) times that if he kept his name and address out of the papers, then he could easily have managed to stay incognito to the readers. Now you ARE aware of that!

And so, at this point in time, I find myself in this position - I can’t see what sinister benefit (pointing to Lechmere having something to hide) that he might have gained from calling himself Charles Allen Cross Of 22 Doveton Street rather than Charles Allen Lechmere of 22 Doveton Street. But I can potentially see a non-sinister benefit in that he might have wanted to have spared his mother and family from having their surname in the paper. A name that would stand out too, just as the name Holmgren would be more likely to draw attention for East End newspaper readers amongst the Smith’s, Jones’s, and Thompson’s. And so the innocent explanation, on this point, appears to be the more likely (Again imo Fish.)

Once more, a lot speak for him NOT having given his address to the inquest. Now you know that too. My, am I going out of my way to be helpful today!

See the bold above.

[Fisherman]

The obvious fallacy in all this is, of course, the fact that he needn't have given any name or address. As has been explained here a million times, your "suspect" wasn't asked his name. He wasn't asked his name by Paul in Buck's Row. He wasn't asked his name by Mizen in Baker's Row. He went on to work that morning having not been asked his name, his address, where he worked... by anyone. Of course, Paul's "Remarkable Statement" in Lloyd's appeared a few days later and... gave no name, no description of "the man" Paul had met in Buck's Row. Yet, he appeared at the inquest voluntarily and gave his genuine address, genuine place of employment. So, what advantage was gained by his giving this "false name"? Obviously, he could have give the name "Giles Fairbottom" and it wouldn't have mattered at all had he been suspected of a crime - any crime - since the police knew exactly where to find him.

If course it's just more foolishness, isn't it? Clearly one doesn't attempt to get away with murder by stopping the first fellow who happens along and forcing him to visit with your victim's body before enlisting him on a errand to find a police officer.. and then escaping unquestioned, unnamed... only to appear at the inquest to testify, giving your genuine address and place of employment, actual first name... but a "false" last name which happens to have been his step father's name.

Could Mizen recognize Lechmere at the inquest?

Yes, he could.

Could Paul have?

Obviously.

Would that mean that if Lechmere tried to avoid the police, he could be recognized on the streets and brought in as what at that stage would have been the prime suspect of the Nichols murder?

Yes it would.

The ONLY thing he could do to defuse that matter was to go to the cop shop. it was that or take your chances, meaning that you may find yourself dangling from the end of a rope the next week.

Furthermore, I have time and time again said that he would have been more or less forced to give the police correct details to as large a degree as possible. If he called himself Giles Fairbottom and the police sought him out at his address in Doveton Street, what do you think the police would have thought about that name swop? Would they have laughed with you, Patrick? I think not.
It was not the police he would have tried to deceive by giving a false name and nbo address at the inquest, it was the ones reading the papers. Remember? Yes? You remember that I have said this before, don't you? The police: no information that could be disclosed as genuinely false. The readers of the papers: kept in the dark as much as possible. The address was the real distinction. With it, the readers could ID him. Without it, they could not. So he kept it back, but the Star reporter got it anyway. A bummer, but that's how it sometimes goes, and you cannot fault Lechmere for not having tried!

And don´t speak of foolishness, Patrick - I am the one doing the abusing, remember; not you! You are the straight, nice guy, I am the villain.

[Fisherman]

hi HS and Aunt
yes herlock that is correct. hes not my favored suspect but I think hes valid. I think hes exactly the type of candidate that needs looking at-guys like hutch, Richardson, boyer. Folks who we know were near the crimescene and or discovered the body. which would make them de facto suspects (or at least persons of interest) in todays world, at least until they are cleared.

and aunt just for the record-suspectology (yes yes I admit it!)is my main interest in this whodunnit. My favored suspects are hutch, blotchy, Kelly, Bury and chapman. and then further down candidates like lech, Barnett, druitt etc. and I think taken all together all the suspects, persons of interest, witnesses I think we would have a pretty good chance of finding the ripper among them. but as I like to say individually-they are all weak, some just less weak than others.

True. The rest are much weaker than Lechmere.

[Patrick S]

Could Mizen recognize Lechmere at the inquest?

Yes, he could.

Could Paul have?

Obviously.

Would that mean that if Lechmere tried to avoid the police, he could be recognized on the streets and brought in as what at that stage would have been the prime suspect of the Nichols murder?

Yes it would.

The ONLY thing he could do to defuse that matter was to go to the cop shop. it was that or take your chances, meaning that you may find yourself dangling from the end of a rope the next week.

Furthermore, I have time and time again said that he would have been more or less forced to give the police correct details to as large a degree as possible. If he called himself Giles Fairbottom and the police sought him out at his address in Doveton Street, what do you think the police would have thought about that name swop? Would they have laughed with you, Patrick? I think not.
It was not the police he would have tried to deceive by giving a false name and nbo address at the inquest, it was the ones reading the papers. Remember? Yes? You remember that I have said this before, don't you? The police: no information that could be disclosed as genuinely false. The readers of the papers: kept in the dark as much as possible. The address was the real distinction. With it, the readers could ID him. Without it, they could not. So he kept it back, but the Star reporter got it anyway. A bummer, but that's how it sometimes goes, and you cannot fault Lechmere for not having tried!

And don´t speak of foolishness, Patrick - I am the one doing the abusing, remember; not you! You are the straight, nice guy, I am the villain.

Ah, yes. Boo hoo. You're a villain. Poor Christer. Anyway, I'll play it your way from now on.

This is absurd, by the way. Alas, you should get credit for inventiveness and opposite thinking.

The ONLY thing he could do was appear at the inquest. Because he may be recognized. In the most populous city on Earth. The ONLY thing he could do was WAIT FOR PAUL (according to Griffiths). But even if he COULD you chose to stay... for the thrill (as you see it). The ONLY thing he could do was go with Paul in search of a PC. And the ONLY thing he could do was give a "false name"... but not a real false name... a kinda sorta real false name that protects him not at all since he gives his actual address. As if he'd be less dead were he hung under the name Cross rather than Lechmere. Again... foolishness. Clearly. For all to see. Thanks for this.

[Fisherman]

Ah, yes. Boo hoo. You're a villain. Poor Christer. Anyway, I'll play it your way from now on.

Well, you DID take the time and effort to claim that I was the one abusing others in a recent post of yours.

This is absurd, by the way. Alas, you should get credit for inventiveness and opposite thinking.

What is absurd? Your claim that I am an abuser? Nah, I kick back every now and then, I will freely admit that much.

The ONLY thing he could do was appear at the inquest. Because he may be recognized. In the most populous city on Earth. The ONLY thing he could do was WAIT FOR PAUL (according to Griffiths). But even if he COULD you chose to stay... for the thrill (as you see it). The ONLY thing he could do was go with Paul in search of a PC. And the ONLY thing he could do was give a "false name"... but not a real false name... a kinda sorta real false name that protects him not at all since he gives his actual address. As if he'd be less dead were he hung under the name Cross rather than Lechmere. Again... foolishness. Clearly. For all to see. Thanks for this.

There are a few bold (in terms of text size) remarks above...

In that most populous city one earth, he used the same street en route to work every day. That's how Lloyds found Paul, by the way. Stake the street out and you will find both carmen. Every day. That's how hidden Lechmere was. And that's how populous and large his world was.

He COULD of course move to Norwich. Or Cropredy. But you may be able to see how that would look in the eyes of the police if he did? All they needed to do was to ask around for a carman who lived in the East and passed through Bucks Row every day, and Lechmere would be at peril to get nailed double quick. The anonymity you presume is not there, I'm afraid.

As for the rest of your post, I never said that he had no other choices than the ones he opted for. I am saying that he chose as best as he could, and to his own liking. Which is what we all do when in a tight spot. For example, you just chose to imply that I have said that he didn't have choices, although you could have admitted that I never said that.

See how it works, Patrick?

[Patrick S]

There are a few bold (in terms of text size) remarks above...

In that most populous city one earth, he used the same street en route to work every day. That's how Lloyds found Paul, by the way. Stake the street out and you will find both carmen. Every day. That's how hidden Lechmere was. And that's how populous and large his world was.

You convinced me. Clearly its better to be arrested for murder than alter your route to work.

He COULD of course move to Norwich. Or Cropredy. But you may be able to see how that would look in the eyes of the police if he did? All they needed to do was to ask around for a carman who lived in the East and passed through Bucks Row every day, and Lechmere would be at peril to get nailed double quick. The anonymity you presume is not there, I'm afraid.

Obviously, the police wouldn't have known he'd moved to "Norwich. Or Cropredy", since they weren't looking for him. Didn't have his name. Clearly, his escaping the night of the murder and then moving - still unnamed - is yet another scenario that's better than the one you have him executing. Thanks for suggesting it.

As for the rest of your post, I never said that he had no other choices than the ones he opted for. I am saying that he chose as best as he could, and to his own liking. Which is what we all do when in a tight spot. For example, you just chose to imply that I have said that he didn't have choices, although you could have admitted that I never said that.

I pointed out Griffiths said he had no choice. We've been over that. But.....He chose as best he could? And THAT'S what he came up with?

See how it works, Patrick?

I think we all see "how it works".

[Fisherman]

I think we all see "how it works".

It works with you speaking of the largest and most populous city on earth as if Lechmere could be anywhere in that space; Chelsea, Seven Sisters, Bow, Kensington, Clapham... in fact, he walked a very small area of the East End and he could easily be found there. "Altering his route to work" is what you speak of. How? If he did not use Bucks Row, what route would he take? How would he be certain that he would not run into Paul or Mizen there? If the police posted a Wanted sign asking about carmen who had reason to pass through Bucks Row, why would not his colleagues and friends, his family etcetera recognize how he was a viable candidate? Let's not oversimplify matters, Patrick - he would be in **** up to his elbows if he did not report in. It is not as if he would become impossible to find and identify if he took another route to Pickfords.

It works with you saying that the police was not looking for him, conveniently forgetting how the combination of Paul and Mizen would have ignited a fuse that would lead to a search for a killer.

It works with you trying to make Lechmere´s choices out as illogical and bad, while all the way we KNOW full well that most serial killers are psychopaths, that most psychopaths do not answer to what we think is logical - plus if Lechmere WAS the killer, his choices seems to have served him quite well. And that is a lot less circular than your reoccurring assertions that he would NEVER ...

That, Patrick, is how it works. Plus you claim along that slippery slope that I am the one abusing people. Be that as it may, I am at least not abusing common sense and empirical knowledge. When I start doing that, there may be a reason to run for cover.

[Patrick S]

It works with you speaking of the largest and most populous city on earth as if Lechmere could be anywhere in that space; Chelsea, Seven Sisters, Bow, Kensington, Clapham... in fact, he walked a very small area of the East End and he could easily be found there. "Altering his route to work" is what you speak of. How? If he did not use Bucks Row, what route would he take?

Seriously? You claim he was Jack the Ripper and The Torso Killer... yet walking a circuitous, out of his way route to work in order to avoid arrest and execution strains credulity? Common sense... indeed.

How would he be certain that he would not run into Paul or Mizen there? If the police posted a Wanted sign asking about carmen who had reason to pass through Bucks Row, why would not his colleagues and friends, his family etcetera recognize how he was a viable candidate? Let's not oversimplify matters, Patrick - he would be in **** up to his elbows if he did not report in. It is not as if he would become impossible to find and identify if he took another route to Pickfords.

Then he says simply, "I didn't know you were trying to find me." He'd done his bit, right? He reported what he'd found TO THE POLICE. And if some "wanted sign" were posted... he THEN goes to the police.

It works with you saying that the police was not looking for him, conveniently forgetting how the combination of Paul and Mizen would have ignited a fuse that would lead to a search for a killer.

This. Is. Hilarious. Ignited a fuse? Because of Paul's "bombshell" that didn't name or describe him in any way?

It works with you trying to make Lechmere´s choices out as illogical and bad, while all the way we KNOW full well that most serial killers are psychopaths, that most psychopaths do not answer to what we think is logical - plus if Lechmere WAS the killer, his choices seems to have served him quite well. And that is a lot less circular than your reoccurring assertions that he would NEVER ...

Oh. I'm sorry. I forgot he was a psychopath. Again. I forgot that I'm supposed to assume he was a psychopath because we're to BEGIN with the idea that was a serial killer. That's simple empirical knowledge, I suppose.

That, Patrick, is how it works. Plus you claim along that slippery slope that I am the one abusing people. Be that as it may, I am at least not abusing common sense and empirical knowledge. When I start doing that, there may be a reason to run for cover.

Despite my comments above, you've convinced me. Clearly once someone is observed he should turn himself in lest he be identified. That's simple common sense. Of course, there are exceptions... Blotchy. Pipeman. "Lipski". The man Lawende, Harris, and Levy saw outside Church Passage. The man Elizabeth Long says she saw talking with Chapman. The man with a knife Thomas Ede saw. The myriad unidentified men who did one thing or another connected to the murders. If only they'd known how easily the police could find them!

[Great Aunt]

Hi - my knowledge on the case is very limited but my most likely suspect so far has to be Lechmere. Regarding Lechmere calling himself Cross at the inquest - I tried to put a thought forward in my original post but I don't think I explained myself clearly. I'll try to do better with a little story: my nephew is a policeman in a nearby town and we share the same (unusual) surname. I get stopped by a policeman for a spot check one day whilst driving to work and get asked for my details. I have a light out and my tyres are borderline and I feel relieved and hopeful when I show him my ID with same surname as my nephew (local policeman) - nothing untoward or suspect - just a link to a name that might help... ! This was my initial thought when hearing about the use of previous policeman step-dad's surname. Also, I think it is likely that Paul and Lechmere discussed their place / route to their workplaces while they walked together. He only had to mention he worked at Pickfords or even the name of the firm's road for the police to be able to locate him, if necessary. When I have studied Lechmere I will research other suspects in detail - and do my best to keep an open mind. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

[Patrick S]

Hi - my knowledge on the case is very limited but my most likely suspect so far has to be Lechmere. Regarding Lechmere calling himself Cross at the inquest - I tried to put a thought forward in my original post but I don't think I explained myself clearly. I'll try to do better with a little story: my nephew is a policeman in a nearby town and we share the same (unusual) surname. I get stopped by a policeman for a spot check one day whilst driving to work and get asked for my details. I have a light out and my tyres are borderline and I feel relieved and hopeful when I show him my ID with same surname as my nephew (local policeman) - nothing untoward or suspect - just a link to a name that might help... ! This was my initial thought when hearing about the use of previous policeman step-dad's surname. Also, I think it is likely that Paul and Lechmere discussed their place / route to their workplaces while they walked together. He only had to mention he worked at Pickfords or even the name of the firm's road for the police to be able to locate him, if necessary. When I have studied Lechmere I will research other suspects in detail - and do my best to keep an open mind. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

If you believe Lechmere is a likely suspect to have killed Nichols, then why would you believe that Lechmere told Paul that he worked at Pickford's and shared his route to get there? Again, this is not consistent with someone killing a woman and making an effort to get away with it. Of course, there's no evidence at all the two men spoke of anything other than the situation at hand. Neither man stated that they had done anything of the kind. What we know is that Paul called Lechmere only "a man" in his Lloyd's statement. He didn't give a name or a description. He didn't say that he was also a carman. He didn't give his place of employment. Therefore, at least to my thinking, it's likely he (Paul) didn't know his name and place of employment. We know that Mizen didn't ask either man their name (or their places of employment, for that matter).

We also know nothing about this "false" name business. We don't know if Lechmere gave only the name Cross or if he gave both names with the press only reporting "Cross". The press got many names wrong in the Nichols' case (Robert "Baul", "George" Cross, PC "Thail", Inspector "Spratly", Alfred "Malshaw"). Perhaps they chose to report only the simpler name. Perhaps he went by Cross because it was easier for others. Perhaps he did it to ingratiate himself to the police by invoking is step father's surname. Perhaps he wanted to avoid publicity out of fear, whatever. We simply don't know. The point is that there are many reasons that do not include serial murder for the name Cross appearing in press reports rather than Lechmere.

I'm glad you've chosen to read more about the case and about the Lechmere theory. I'm confident once you learn more you'll abandon it altogether. Most do, of course.