Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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 .

[Lechmere]

Frank
Regarding the Cross-Mizen conversation and Paul's ability to hear it, the only point that needs to be made in support of the 'Lechmere culprit theory' is that given what we know from the various accounts can a credible scenario be established where Paul did not actually hear exactly what transpired between Charleas Lechmere and Mizen.

We know from Paul's two newspaper interviews that he was anti-police and accordingly may have been reluctant to speak to Mizen or even go too close.
It is clear that the bulk if not all of the talking was between Cross/Lechmere and Mizen.
Paul was insistant that he was late for work and may have been eager not to tarry with Mizen.
We have one newspaper account which puts Paul walking off in front of Charles Lechmere from the Hanbury Street corner.
We have Mizen saying that Cross told him he was wanted by another policeman in Bucks Row. Charles Lechmere denied saying it. Paul wasn't asked. If Lechmere did say it then he was taking a risk if he did so in the hearing of Paul, whether he was guilty or not.
There is no real indication that Paul repeats any of the dialogue.

The simple explanation is that Paul couldn''t hear what was said. Certainly it cannot be denied that a credible case can be presented that Paul did not hear.

On the topic of witnesses at inquests, I somewhat doubt that all witnesses would have been routinely summonsed and expected to appear at all sittings, even after they have given their evidence. The court at the Whitechapel Lads Institute was small and cramped besides anything else.
There is something in Paul's treatment that suggests a gratuitous punishment from the police for his giving them the run around and because he slagged them off in the press.

Also Moonbegger we know that Paul wasn't apprehended as a result of a dragnet - he was dragged out of his bed.

[Fisherman]

Hi Moonbegger!

I see that you persist by posting this snippet:

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

If you had taken the trouble to post the whole thing, we could have read:

"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"

So, what Neil "said" was not a cry for Thain´s help - he was giving Thain directions AFTER the latter had come down to Brown´s Stable Yard. Neil even tells us that he did not whistle - a clear indication that he wished not to disturb the sleeping people along the street. So why would he start shouting instead?

Let´s put this one to bed, Moonbegger - it is high time.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Time for bed Moonbeggar

[Dave O]

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 ?

Hi Moonbegger,

No, it would have all been done at the end of each session. When they've heard all the evidence for that day, the coroner would propose adjourning, and that's when they'd have determined when the next session would be. The jury would have had some input on this. The witnesses who were there would be bound over to the next session. Essentially the coroner would have set an obligation on them, probably a financial one--"you owe the Queen this amount, but you can avoid paying it by being here at this date and time". (I'm paraphrasing the form of recognizance in Jervis, pg 225 of the 5th edition, 1888). And so on, each time they adjourn.

Hi Fisherman,

Me: "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!

Right, this is not fact and there's no certainty because we don't have have documentation of Baxter's expenses. This is merely my opinion and involves some speculation. I feel it's very likely based on the Lloyd's article (which shows some variance in the procedure with Davis), the research I'm doing with Macdonald's records, and contemporary reference books, but it's opinion all the same.

Here is a detail from one of Macdonald's inquests that adjourned, the expenses for the inquest on Abraham Wrigley held June 16 and 20 1888 (lma/mj/spc/ne 8a from Box 1). It illustrates some of what the Lloyd's article talks about, showing the lay witnesses receiving 2 shillings (there are more witnesses involved, but they were relatives or servants in the residence where the death took place, and received no payment). These people were there on the 16th and would have been bound over for the 20th, receiving a shilling for each day. The coroner's officer would've paid the 2 shillings to them on the 20th.

I've also attached the request for an inquest, showing the date for adjournment among other things (lma/mj/spc/ne 8b).

Hope this is helpful,
Dave

[Fisherman]

Thanks for posting this, Dave - much interesting and enlightening!

All the best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Hi Dave ,
Thanks again , for clearing up the inquest proceedings..

Fish ,
There really was no need for your last post .. I fully and appreciatively accepted your answer ! Thain's inquest statement put it to bed thanks ..

Lech,

Time for bed Moonbeggar

Said Zebedee .. What's this the Magic ****ing Roundabout

cheers

moonbegger .

[FrankO]

We know from Paul's two newspaper interviews that he was anti-police and accordingly may have been reluctant to speak to Mizen or even go too close.

He may have been reluctant to speak to Mizen, Lechmere, but that doesn’t mean he had to dislodge himself from Mizen and Cross, let alone out of earshot.

It is clear that the bulk if not all of the talking was between Cross/Lechmere and Mizen.

That seems to have been the case, yes.

We have one newspaper account which puts Paul walking off in front of Charles Lechmere from the Hanbury Street corner.

We have one paper that just says “The other man, who went down Hanbury-street”. It doesn’t state at what point exactly Paul went down HS. What was written in the Times of 4 September nullifies what the Echo said. And since there’s one paper, the Star of 3 September, that corroborates the Times in the sense that it says that both went down HS instead of just Paul, and there are none to corroborate the Echo, I put more stock in the Times than the Echo.

We have Mizen saying that Cross told him he was wanted by another policeman in Bucks Row. Charles Lechmere denied saying it. Paul wasn't asked. If Lechmere did say it then he was taking a risk if he did so in the hearing of Paul, whether he was guilty or not.
There is no real indication that Paul repeats any of the dialogue.

The simple explanation is that Paul couldn''t hear what was said.

Obviously, you’re entitled to your view, but I don’t see how one follows the other per se: Mizen claims Cross told him he was wanted by a PC, Cross denies this, Paul doesn’t seem to have said anything about it – so, Paul couldn’t hear what was said? No, the simple explanation is that Paul wasn’t asked anything about the meeting and conversation, which is a pity. If he would have been and the papers would have carefully recorded what was said, then we wouldn't have needed to discuss this point.

Certainly it cannot be denied that a credible case can be presented that Paul did not hear.

For what it's worth, it just won't be one that’s going to convince me, Lechmere.

All the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

!"Fish ,
There really was no need for your last post .. I fully and appreciatively accepted your answer ! Thain's inquest statement put it to bed thanks .."

Aha? Well, seeing as you reposted an uncomplete quotation that seemingly spoke of Neil calling out, I thought you were still on that track. So sorry for misunderstanding you, Moonbegger!

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Fisherman , Dave ,

Now i know this is a bit off the wall !! But is there the slightest of chances that Mizen was told twice , once by Paul ( almost flippantly ) and then more thoroughly by Cross who was a short distance behind ?

so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead.

It would certainly account for the confusion in regards to who said what !

If Paul was unaware of Cross following him up the road , it could well have been Paul that said to Mizen "your wanted in bucks row " meaning he thought the other man (Cross) was still there with the body ?

just a thought !

moonbegger .

[FrankO]

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.

Thanks, Christer. To be perfectly honest, I’m not denying there are oddities in this whole business with especially Cross, Paul and Mizen, and questions that I would have liked to have seen answered; questions that we – so far away from those gloomy and troubled nights in 1888 – are now unable to answer adequately. That doesn’t mean that I expect the answers to have pointed at Cross as at least Nichols, but who knows? I have left the door to that possibility just ajar.

Vi ses, Fish!
Frank