PC Jonas Mizen

[Great Aunt]

Thanks for your thoughts - much appreciated. I understand that there is no record of any personal info shared between Lechmere and Paul - I would just have assumed it was a normal thing for 2 strangers to chat - after witnessing such an event as they had - and as Lechmere was (if the murderer) attempting innocence and normality. Regarding Lechmere possibly not wanting his name in the press - as a working class man with a family it could have been to his advantage - given him some local celebrity status - or even an opportunity to sell his story - so I can't see him trying to avoid publicity (if he was an innocent witness). Just my thoughts on how I believe people of today might act - maybe Victorian Whitechapel residents wouldn't have behaved so. Thanks for your encouragement regarding my ongoing research.

[GUT]

Thanks for your thoughts - much appreciated. I understand that there is no record of any personal info shared between Lechmere and Paul - I would just have assumed it was a normal thing for 2 strangers to chat - after witnessing such an event as they had - and as Lechmere was (if the murderer) attempting innocence and normality. Regarding Lechmere possibly not wanting his name in the press - as a working class man with a family it could have been to his advantage - given him some local celebrity status - or even an opportunity to sell his story - so I can't see him trying to avoid publicity (if he was an innocent witness). Just my thoughts on how I believe people of today might act - maybe Victorian Whitechapel residents wouldn't have behaved so. Thanks for your encouragement regarding my ongoing research.

It may also have bought him to the attention of a killer.

[drstrange169]

>>Hi - I am new to the forum so apologies for any errors or misunderstandings of the case. I just wanted to make a comment about Lechmere using Cross as his surname...<<

Welcome Great Aunt, I hope you find some interesting new information here on Casebook.

[drstrange169]

>>Do I have any problems answering any of your questions? Please...!<<

Let me look at your reply... nope ... no answers to my questions, lots of avoidance, but no direct answers, so yes, it does appear that there is solid evidence that you have problem answering specific questions.



>>If you think that how matters cannot be proven is synonymous to them having been, ehrm, "debunked", you may need to take up another hobby.<<

"Oxford dictionary verb past tense: debunked; past participle: debunked :expose the falseness or hollowness of (an idea or belief)."

"Cambridge dictionary
debunk definition: 1. to show that something is less important, less good, or less true than it has been made to appear:"

"Merriam-Webster
if it is "debunked," the implication is that it was a grossly exaggerated or foolish claim."

"The verb debunk was first used by an American writer, William Woodward, in 1923, to mean "take the bunk out of something." Bunk means "nonsense."

I'll stick with my hobbies, thanks all the same.



>>It takes around 7 minutes to walk from Doveton Street to Browns. Lechemre said he started out at 3.30. He should have been there at 3.37. He was not.<<

Four independent witnesses suggest he was, without comparing clocks no witness can say he wasn't. So where is the evidence for the fact you are claiming in the above sentence?



>>These timings are perhaps exact, perhaps not. <<

I like it when people can agree on something.



>> ... we CAN tell that the timings given are not a point in favor of Lechmere´s innocence.<<

But, they do as I detailed in post #101, which yet again you've avoided addressing. On the other hand your timing is at odds with all the known information.



>>As Scobie succinctly put it: He is somebody who is acting suspiciously, and a jury would not like that.<<

For credibility's sake, Scobie has to explain why he appeared to accept an unsupportable theory based on a, known to be inaccurate, newspaper report over five independent witnesses, three of whom were policemen.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't PC Mizen engaged in knocking on peoples doors and telling them the time when Cross and Paul met him?

debunk definition: 1. to show that something is less important, less good, or less true than it has been made to appear:"



>>Do you like it? No. Will you have to learn to live with it? Yes.<<

Sorry, but no, it is the duty of researchers to debunk the nonsense, until you can give straight answers to relevant questions, you will continued to be called out.

To "... expose the falseness or hollowness of (an idea or belief)."

[drstrange169]

>>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.<<

Hello Snidery_Mark,

PC Thain testified he searched the wharf area.

[drstrange169]

>>... my nephew is a policeman in a nearby town and we share the same (unusual) surname...<<

Hello Great Aunt,

Of course, your nephew is a current policeman, Lechmere's "step-dad" had been dead for many years prior to this incident, but your general point is not impossible.


>>Also, I think it is likely that Paul and Lechmere discussed their place / route to their workplaces while they walked together.<<

Cross stated under oath that the two did not identify themselves in any way to each other.


>>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.<<

My tip, for what it's worth, is to study the case first before thinking about any suspects. The information as opposed to the speculation can be utterly fascinating.

[Great Aunt]

Thank you.

[Great Aunt]

GUT - good point - hadn't thought of that!!

[Abby Normal]

GUT - good point - hadn't thought of that!!

Actually its not. I had brought this up before and was reminded that lech hadnt seen the killer or even heard him walking away. The killer had nothing to fear from lech and so vice versus.

[Abby Normal]

Thanks for your thoughts - much appreciated. I understand that there is no record of any personal info shared between Lechmere and Paul - I would just have assumed it was a normal thing for 2 strangers to chat - after witnessing such an event as they had - and as Lechmere was (if the murderer) attempting innocence and normality. Regarding Lechmere possibly not wanting his name in the press - as a working class man with a family it could have been to his advantage - given him some local celebrity status - or even an opportunity to sell his story - so I can't see him trying to avoid publicity (if he was an innocent witness). Just my thoughts on how I believe people of today might act - maybe Victorian Whitechapel residents wouldn't have behaved so. Thanks for your encouragement regarding my ongoing research.

Hi great
like your fresh take on things. And yes if guily he may have wanted to use his police associated name of cross to help his cause.

and yes he may have if innocent wanted to have the publicity if innocent.

[Harry D]

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.

You can't win.

Lechmere did everything expected of an innocent witness. He approached the first passer-by, he searched for a policeman, he attended the inquest, he volunteered his name, address & place of business.

That's because he was GUILTY and had to do everything an innocent man would.

You're never going to win against this kind of fallacious, ass-backwards logic.

[Sam Flynn]

We don't know if Lechmere gave only the name Cross or if he gave both names with the press only reporting "Cross".

There's also this report of a fatal accident in the Islington Gazette of 29th December 1876:



It's conceivable that this was a different person, but how many carmen called "Charles Cross" were on the Pickfords payroll? What we do know is that Charles Cross/Lechmere worked for Pickfords for a very long time, so it's eminently possible that this is him. If so, then it seems that he called himself Charles Cross several years before 1888, and that this was at least the name by which he was known at work.

(Credit to Gary Barnett for finding the newspaper article from which this snippet was taken.)

[Sam Flynn]

^^^
Sorry, I realise that was off-topic, but I thought some people might not have seen it.

[Patrick S]

Thanks for your thoughts - much appreciated. I understand that there is no record of any personal info shared between Lechmere and Paul - I would just have assumed it was a normal thing for 2 strangers to chat - after witnessing such an event as they had - and as Lechmere was (if the murderer) attempting innocence and normality.

Again, I feel as if this is more of what's always required if we're to believe in Cross/Lechmere as Nichols' killer. Behavior that simply makes no sense if viewed through the prism of his having killed Nichols but is perfectly natural for a man who was what he was believed to have been for 100+ years: a man who found a woman lying on the pavement on his way to work.

So, we have Cross/Lechmere having killed Nichols, opting to stay put and await an unknown man's arrival on the scene. Holmgren contends - despite Andy Griffiths clearly stating that Cross/Lechmere COULD NOT have run and had NO CHOICE but to remain on the spot - that he could have simply walked away but chose to stay and await Paul. He then doesn't allow Paul to walk past. Paul tells us that he tried to do just that, only to have Cross/Lechmere "touch his shoulder" and tells him of the woman lying on the pavement. He then goes with Paul to inspect the body. After doing so he then, rather than walk in another direction and parting company with Paul, CHOOSES to accompany him to find a PC. And on that brief walk he tells Paul personal details: his place of employment, perhaps that he lives in Doveton Street? Again, we're asked to believe that this is an attempt at feigned "normality" or "innocence", rather than concluding the more simple, obvious explanation: that he WAS innocent and his behavior was reflective of that.

Regarding Lechmere possibly not wanting his name in the press - as a working class man with a family it could have been to his advantage - given him some local celebrity status - or even an opportunity to sell his story - so I can't see him trying to avoid publicity (if he was an innocent witness).

You can't see him trying to avoid publicity if were innocent? Well. Just as we don't know if gave ONLY the name Cross or, if he did, why he did so, I'd suggest that we know nothing of his character. We don't know if was a private man.. just as we don't know that Robert Paul was a police hating "big upper", as it seems we must believe in order for him to become the killer's unwitting dupe and liar... making Mizen the only one telling the truth about what he was told in Baker's Row.

But, let's play this out. You think it's likely that he wanted publicity if were "innocent", but you believe him a likely serial killer... So you don't necessarily see him as being "innocent". Yet, he subjected himself, again and again, to the police, and to publicity: rather than walk away he, stops Paul; he reports what he found to the police (Mizen) within minutes of finding Nichols' body; he appears voluntarily at the inquest. So, "if he was an innocent witness" you "can't see him trying to avoid publicity". Well. It seems he did NOT try to avoid publicity. At all.

His testimony was published in multiple papers. Did he not court further publicity in that he gave his real name and address? Do we really believe that no one who knew him was aware that he was - as we know from census records - at one time in his life called "Cross"? Do we know if he was known by that name? If he'd worked at Pickford's for more than 20 years by 1888 that puts his time for beginning his work there only a few years after he was recorded in census records as "Cross". But, back to the main point and it's a simple one: he reported what he found to Paul, reported it to the police (Mizen), appeared voluntarily at the inquest. He gave his actual address. He gave his actual employer. He appeared in person. And we're to believe the idea that gave the name "Cross" rather than "Lechmere" is damning (even if we don't know that's the case)? Arrested under the name "Lechmere" or "Cross", what difference? Tried under the name "Lechmere"? Executed under that name? What does it matter? The same can be said for "publicity", can it not? You have him wanting it if he's innocent... and giving his home address and employer. Clearly he was not running from reporters or publicity.


Just my thoughts on how I believe people of today might act - maybe Victorian Whitechapel residents wouldn't have behaved so. Thanks for your encouragement regarding my ongoing research.

I don't think human behavior has changed all the much in 130 years. I contend that, usually, the obvious conclusions are likely the most sound. After all, had Cross/Lechmere walked on from Buck's Row we'd be calling him guilty. Had he NOT appeared at the inquest we'd be hearing how that is indicative of guilt. So, there's really no way out for him with cabal that's decided he's myriad East End serial killers, is there?

In all my examinations of the events in Buck's Row, Baker's Row, at the Nichols' inquest, I don't see behavior from Cross/Lechmere that indicates that he was anything other than what he's always been thought to have been... i.e. a witness and NOT Jack the Ripper. One MUST begin with the idea that he killed Nichols and then inventing reasons that behavior you'd expect from someone who simply found a body on his way to work is somehow sinister and dishonest. I think it's clear they've taken this "false name" issue and invented "scams" and "dupes" and "big upping" and "anti-police" sentiment to fit up Cross/Lechmere and it simply hasn't held water. Of course, if this name issue had led to records of violent behavior, incarceration, diagnoses of mental illness, confinement to an asylum, strange behavior, ANYTHING at all... I think more may have been recruited to this theory. But that hasn't happened. Instead we've found he worked decades at Pickford's. He had 11 children. He was married 50 years. He opened a shop in retirement. He died at around 70, in 1920, and left his wife a tidy sum. Of course, when this is brought up, Holmgren sneers that it's absurd to suggest these things mean that Cross/Lechmere was NOT Jack the Ripper, the Torso Killer, et al. And then that his MAYBE giving the name Cross and ONLY the name Cross (which we simply don't know) is somehow damning evidence that that he WAS virtually every late Victorian serial killer we know of.....

[Patrick S]

There's also this report of a fatal accident in the Islington Gazette of 29th December 1876:



It's conceivable that this was a different person, but how many carmen called "Charles Cross" were on the Pickfords payroll? What we do know is that Charles Cross/Lechmere worked for Pickfords for a very long time, so it's eminently possible that this is him. If so, then it seems that he called himself Charles Cross several years before 1888, and that this was at least the name by which he was known at work.

(Credit to Gary Barnett for finding the newspaper article from which this snippet was taken.)

Thanks, Sam. This has been published here before. Perhaps by you (apologies for not recalling). I also did not recall if his name was given as Lechmere or Cross in news reports. This is yet another giant crack in the Lechmere the Ripper facade.