Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[moonbegger]

Hello Dave O ,

Thanks for clearing that one up for me .. So we have Cross attending for the last three of the four , and Paul just the last two .. Hence the ..

At the close of the inquest he got two shillings, being a shilling for each day.

Also ..

No--I think Fisherman is right that there would have only been one summons (if there was a formal summons for Cross). They're just having the witnesses present for the rest of the inquest in case they want to recall them and I think that the coroner just kept them coming back on their own recognizance. They wouldn't be serving summonses on some of these people two, three, or four times.

So from this , is it also safe to assume that the 22nd inquest date and the one previous was already set in stone on the 3rd , and therefore there was no reason to contact Cross to inform him of the inquest date ?

Fisherman ,
I was unaware that [ flashing a lamp ] was referred to as a [calling] back then . But i will bow to your superior knowledge of such things

I heard a constable passing Brady-street, so I called him. I did not whistle. I said to him,

cheers

moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

Dave O:

"besides his appearance on Sept 3, I think we can be pretty comfortable saying that this practice tells us that Cross would very likely have been present on the 17th and 22nd as well although we don't see him testifying."

Seems sound enough reasoning to me, Dave. You may well be correct on this, given what you tell us about other inquests headed by MacDonald. I would have loved to know how Lechmere was clad for the occasions, if this was what happened!

"So nothing's set in stone, eh?"

That is true. Meaning, amongst other things, that it is no certainty that Lechmere WAS summoned for three occasions. But much points to this being the case!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"So when or if , Cross informs Mizen he is wanted by another officer .. perhaps he is going on what he heard ? "

Then he would not need to inform Mizen at all, Moonbegger. Take a look, if you will, at a map of the area. Lechmere and Paul walked weswtards after having left Nichols. That means that they walked the same stretch as Neil did - but in the opposite direction.

They did not meet Neil, though. Nor did Neil meet them.

What does that tell you? It tells me that if Neil came up in Buck´s Row via Baker´s Row, then the carmen would have turned left into Hanbury Street and were already speaking to Mizen as Neil passed behind them.

If Neil used Thomas Street to reach Buck´s Row, he would still have just as long to walk before he came upon Nichols as the carmen had from the corner of Thomas Street up to Mizen. And the carmen were walking faster, being in a hurry.

So, rationally, when Neil reached Nichols, the carmen were already up at where Mizen stood. Meaning that when Neil "called" Thain, Mizen would have heard him too - IF this was what happened.

But I think we need to realize that Neil could have called Thain by means of flashing his lamp. Here´s how these boards word it:

"PC Neil noticed PC Thain passing North through Brady St and quietly signaled him with his lamp.
PC Thain responded likewise and approached the scene. "Here's a woman has her throat cut," said PC Neil. "Run at once for Dr Llewellyn."

This is also borne out by the inquest reports, such as this one from the Illustrated Police News:
"Police-constable John Thain, 96 J Division, said that his beat passed the end of Buck's-row, and he passed that end about thirty minutes before he was called, but he saw nothing. At a quarter to four a.m., about half-way down Buck's Row, he saw a lamp signal, and upon going down he saw Police-constable Neal standing beside the body of the deceased."

Neil did not call out to Thain, Monbegger. The carmen thus did not hear such a thing, and therefore Lechmere could not have known about it in the way you suggest.

The best,
Fisherman

[Dave O]

Hi Moonbegger and Fisherman,

"So can we take from this that Cross was also summoned on more than one occasion ? even if it was just the last one on the 22nd would that not mean that a summons arrived his home, addressed to Charles Cross ?"

No--I think Fisherman is right that there would have only been one summons (if there was a formal summons for Cross). They're just having the witnesses present for the rest of the inquest in case they want to recall them and I think that the coroner just kept them coming back on their own recognizance. They wouldn't be serving summonses on some of these people two, three, or four times.

I've seen Macdonald doing the same thing in his records too. When he adjourned and the figures have survived, I always see lay witnesses and constables who testify getting that extra shilling for having to come again--even if they don't testify, they're paid (unless they're relatives, who got nothing). The figure may have been different at the Eddowes inquest in the City as they're operating under a different financial authority, which I think set the rates.

So besides his appearance on Sept 3, I think we can be pretty comfortable saying that this practice tells us that Cross would very likely have been present on the 17th and 22nd as well although we don't see him testifying. And at the close of the inquest on the 22nd, Baxter's officer would have given him 3 shillings.

But I also see that John Davis' 2 shillings seems low--he evidently had been excused at some point.

And Cadosh's figure of 3 shillings shows that he was present at the inquest on an earlier session than the one where he actually testified: likely he was there on the 13th though we don't hear from him.

So nothing's set in stone, eh?

Best,
Dave

[moonbegger]

And here is another thing ...

Lechmere not speaking of a PC in Buck´s Row etcetera, etcetera.

He may well have not spoken to a PC in Bucks Row or even seen one .. but he could have well known one was there calling for assistance ..

How is this possible ? Take a Boo at what Neil himself said !

I heard a constable passing Brady-street, so I called him. I did not whistle. I said to him, "Run at once for Dr. Llewellyn," and, seeing another constable in Baker's-row, I sent him for the ambulance.

For Neil to call out to Brady street to alert the passing officer .. it must have been a pretty loud call , loud enough in fact that if Cross and Paul had only just left Bucks Row a minute or so before , they for sure would have heard Neils call ( especially given the natural acoustics that time of the morning, echoing through the streets )

So when or if , Cross informs Mizen he is wanted by another officer .. perhaps he is going on what he heard ?

cheers

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

Frank:

"... on balance, there’s nothing in the evidence pointing in the direction that Paul was dislodged out of earshot from Mizen and Cross. "

On the contrary - the Echo is the only paper that writes something that can be used to make some sort of call. If you don´t agree, well ...

"The reason I wrote ‘that they briefly spoke to Mizen and that afterwards they walked on together’ was just to keep the text shorter and because I was basing it on Paul’s testimony: they ‘told him what they had seen’. As much as this might mean that not both of them spoke to Mizen, it may just as well mean that they did."

We all make our choices, Frank - but I would not recommend using Paul as a source, since he gives VERY differing statements. He either runs the show or is a background guy, depending on who he speaks to. Such things make me very wary about his credibility in many a matter. I find Mizen is the much better choice, given the professional role he represented.

"How much stock should we put into the Echo phrase when there’s two other newspapers who had them both go down Hanbury Street, one of which after the brief conversation had finished?"

But did the paper have them walking TOGETHER? Did it? They could well have stood much apart, Paul some way up Hanbury Street. We both know that they DID walk down Hanbury Street, the two of them, after the Mizen business. But the Echo was and remains the only source that makes a stand in this department.

"We only know what the newspapers say. It doesn’t follow that they printed all that Paul said, and they sure didn't do so ad verbatim. "

Probably very correct, Frank. But what we have is what we have! And it all speaks a language that is very compatible with the theory of Lechmere as the scammer and killer. I fail to see how he could be so desperately unlucky as to always have the sources going against him. It is not until he speaks himself that we suddenly have Paul talking to Mizen, Lechmere not speaking of a PC in Buck´s Row etcetera, etcetera. All the things that seemingly gets him of the hook are presented by himself, always. Why do you think this is so? A mere coincidence?

"That would have been wonderful, yes, and since it isn’t the case, we are left with very little and incomplete information, which makes me cautious to take what the newspapers wrote at face value. And in that respect we differ."

I am not saying that we have definite proof. But I AM pointing to the incredible amount of details that, one by one, point to guilt on his behalf. And the papers did not have him down as the villain of the play, mind you. But still, it is there.

"I honestly think this is not a good comparison, Christer, because the rapist deals with a living victim who needs his full attention in order to get what he wants. During the initial attack, I think the Ripper probably would have had a similar problem, but once he had them dead and down he would be able to focus on his surroundings, especially listen for sounds of possible coming danger, for which in this case the circumstances seems to have been very good indeed. But, that's just my take on it."

I think it is a very apt comparison, weighing in that there are things like necro-sadism in this world, Frank. And necro-sadists do not need somebody to be alive to be focused and sexually aroused by their victims. Plus many theorists have Jack down as an archetype of necro-sadism.

At any rate, Nichols may well have been alive as Lechmere rose from her body and stepped out into the street to assess Paul - don´t forget that. If he was the killer, then she would have been down, yes, but not necessarily dead at that stage. And if cutting into her was his ultimate dream, that THAT was the sex for him, and then that would have had his attention to the full, arguably.

But just like you honestly say, Frank, I also say that this is MY take. If you disagree, I know that a very useful thinker, rational and wise, holds another opinion than I do. And that is something to give some long, hard afterthought.

All the best, Frank!
Fisherman

[FrankO]

I see you are still defending the undefendable - that Lechmere and Paul would have been close together throughout.

Much like you, Fish, because, on balance, there’s nothing in the evidence pointing in the direction that Paul was dislodged out of earshot from Mizen and Cross.

Unfortunately, you do so by writing:

"The context here is that these men were late for work, found a woman who was quite possibly dead, after which the men agreed that the best course to pursue was to tell the first policeman they met, that they walked on until they met a PC at the corner of Old Montague Street, that they briefly spoke to Mizen and that afterwards they walked on together.

This holds much water - but leaks at one of the seams: the most important one. You claim that "they briefly spoke to Mizen", but that would not be true.
.............
.............
.............
Once again, just the one man spoke.

It is very, very clear what Mizen said on this affair. And once again, accompanied by is not a phrasing that lends itself to any estimation of distances. It is one thing and one thing only: a verification that Mizen was of the meaning that the two men were in each other´s company. If Paul had walked ahead fifty yards, stopped, and shouted back to Lechmere "Come along, pal! We haven´t got all day", Mizen would STILL be able to say that they were in company. And they would still have been so.

You could have saved yourself the trouble, time and space of writing all this, Fish, because I’m not, and have not been claiming that both Cross and Paul spoke or even must have spoken to Mizen. So, sorry for putting you through all that, although I wrote to you last Friday:
‘Besides, reading all the different versions of Mizen’s inquest testimony the picture emerges of a quick affair. Mizen was in the middle of knocking people up when Cross and Paul came around the corner. Cross addressed Mizen, a few sentences were spoken between them with possibly an addition from Paul and they were on their way again, while Mizen finished knocking up at one house.’

And on Saturday to Lechmere:
‘It would indeed seem that Cross did at least the best part of the few sentences that were spoken, but I don’t preclude the possibility that Paul did add something here or there. Unfortunately, both Mizen and Paul weren’t thoroughly questioned on the point of whether Paul actually spoke.’

The reason I wrote ‘that they briefly spoke to Mizen and that afterwards they walked on together’ was just to keep the text shorter and because I was basing it on Paul’s testimony: they ‘told him what they had seen’. As much as this might mean that not both of them spoke to Mizen, it may just as well mean that they did.

There is absolutely no way that we can establish a single thing about how close that company was physically, but the Echo wording about "the other man, who went down Hanbury Street" gives us a clear pointer that they were not very close. It is in fact the only paper that makes any sort of call in the distance department, whereas the others just speak of "in company" or "accompanied by" that can mean anything inbetween an inch and many, many yards.

How much stock should we put into the Echo phrase when there’s two other newspapers who had them both go down Hanbury Street, one of which after the brief conversation had finished? To me, this clearly means that Paul didn’t walk ahead. And if he didn’t walk ahead, where would he be? I would presume: fairly close to Mizen and Cross. How close? I don’t know, but it’s very reasonable to suggest that it wasn’t out of earshot, unless Cross whispered.

What about Paul, does HE say that he spoke to Mizen? He would if he did, one would think. But no, he only says that they found themselves a PC and informed him - which is true, even if he said not a iota himself.

We only know what the newspapers say. It doesn’t follow that they printed all that Paul said, and they sure didn't do so ad verbatim. Otherwise they would all carry the same statement version, which is clearly not the case.

So, yes, Paul may not have said a iota, but then again, he may just the same have said something, even if only an addition to what Cross said.

Why could it not have been a simple unanimous affair, where Lechmere said that he and Paul both spoke to Mizen, where Paul said the exact same, and where Mizen said that" two men passing came up to me and the first man said, whereas the other man said..."

That would have been wonderful, yes, and since it isn’t the case, we are left with very little and incomplete information, which makes me cautious to take what the newspapers wrote at face value. And in that respect we differ.

Do you really thing that this rapist will have just as good control of the surrounding environment as the burglar - who still had difficulties taking it all in?
Which of the two do you think are more likely to hear somebody from 130 yards away, and which is more likely not to hear that until he is in deep ****?
Which of the two do you think are more likely to focus very much on his own, internal driving forces and urges?
Which of the two is more likely to be doing what he does in a "bubble"?

To me, these questions answer themselves.

I honestly think this is not a good comparison, Christer, because the rapist deals with a living victim who needs his full attention in order to get what he wants. During the initial attack, I think the Ripper probably would have had a similar problem, but once he had them dead and down he would be able to focus on his surroundings, especially listen for sounds of possible coming danger, for which in this case the circumstances seems to have been very good indeed. But, that's just my take on it.

My best, Fish!
Frank

[moonbegger]

Fisherman ,

Yes i am fully aware Saturday was a non starter , my suggestion was the 22nd which is the only other date he could have been called for ?

So why then do you suppose Paul was called twice ? And if indeed he was summoned to appear on the 22nd as well , why would not Cross receive the same treatment ?

Paul was then summoned to give evidence at the inquest on two different days, and he had to pay a man 5s. each day to do his work, or he would have lost his place. At the close of the inquest he got two shillings, being a shilling for each day.

HOLD YOUR HORSES !

UNLESS ! The TWO times Paul talks of being summonsed to appear was in fact on that Monday 3rd along with Cross ? (but for some reason wasn't called) And the time after that when he was actually called to the stand .

Does this not make perfect sense ?

So indeed that [ Drag net ] that we talked of , may of actually been set up after all , pulling Paul in as well as Cross on that Monday morning ?

The police had all day Sunday to contemplate it , after Pauls Morning outburst in the Advertiser !

You know it makes sense Rodney

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"So can we take from this that Cross was also summoned on more than one occasion ?"

I would not think so. The first day of the inquest was the Saturday after the Friday morning murder, and the coroner would not have known the names of the carmen at that stage. And people you don´t know the identities of, you can´t summon.

Otherwise, it would have been feasible, perhaps, that Lechmere could have been called to witness twice. But that summons could have been issued at one stage only, I think. In fact, if the police were aware of the carmen´s comings and goings on Friday evening, then if the suggestion that Lechmere was picked up on his route to work had held any water, one might have expected him to have been picked up and delivered at the inquest on Saturday.
The fact that he was not seemingly shows that this was not something that was done - or that the delegation purportedly sent out failed to find him ...

Either way, Lechmere could not be summoned to the Saturday, he probably called in himself on Sunday or before the inquest on Monday, and if it was felt that he had no further information to offer than he had already given, then he would not be called a fortnight later.
One person only was recalled to give evidence two weeks after his first appearance, and that was - understandably - Llewellyn, who had been called upon to establish that no parts of the viscera were missing. This renewed investigation on his behalf was of course led on by the Chapman inquest, where this detail had surfaced.

Arguably, if Lechmere had been found to be a potential source for further evidence, then he WOULD have been re-summoned for the later stages of the inquest, but this never happened. If it HAD, though, the summons would have been issued in the name of Cross, since that was what the coroner and the police had been led to believe he was called.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Hello All ,

Paul was then summoned to give evidence at the inquest on two different days, and he had to pay a man 5s. each day to do his work, or he would have lost his place. At the close of the inquest he got two shillings, being a shilling for each day.

So can we take from this that Cross was also summoned on more than one occasion ? even if it was just the last one on the 22nd would that not mean that a summons arrived his home, addressed to Charles Cross ?

cheers

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

Interesting stuff, Dave!

Trying to digest this, and put it into context, what seems to be obvious here is that the processes involved in the inquest business were very varying at times, depending on a number of factors, not least the coroner.

Thanks for sharing!

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

You're? Bloody predict text.

Coroners court seems to be at the mercy of the coroner to me. Must confess, my dealings have predominantly been with Magistrates and Criminal court.

Monty

[Dave O]

Thanks Monty, and right back at you. I was a bit confused about why she was going back to get that summons until I saw your previous posts in the thread. For something that was held in public many times six days a week, inquests are pretty mysterious things, doubly so for this American trying to figure out an English system from over a century ago.

Dave

[Monty]

You're input is always welcome Dave.

Thanks for shedding some light, I appreciate it.

Monty

[Dave O]

So I don't know what the case was with Cross/Lechmere. What I'm doing is trying to give examples of a procedure that I think varied.

As it happens, I do have an example of a communication between a witness and Dr. Macdonald that seems to straddle informal and formal (lma/mj/spc/ne 358c). This comes from a case where the death has occurred the morning of Saturday Nov. 3. In this note, the witness describes visiting a police station on Sunday the 4th. The witness also mentions having to return to the station on Monday the 5th to get the summons, as I read it. So evidently the witness knows that their presence will be required, with no summons issued as Sunday is dies non juridicus--no judicial acts valid on Sunday as Monty has written. But the witness knows the summons will be issued. Meanwhile the witness was in communication with not only the police, but Macdonald as well.

The interesting thing is that the witness has been led to believe the inquest wasn't going to take place until Tuesday the 6th. In fact, the inquest was held on Monday, the same day as the communication was written. The inquest was the first of two held that day; my assumption is that this would have been a morning inquest. And this person is about to miss it.

In the record, I found testimony for Harriet Corner, the grandmother of the deceased, at the address given in this note. I have a hard time with the signature on the note, but I believe in light of the testimony, that it's signed "H. Corner" and this is a note that Harriet's sent. Apparently, as she's misinformed or confused about the day, they've had to go out and find her. I don't know whether they've found her at home or elsewhere as she seems to be prepared to be away from home all that day.

Dave