Was Lech known as Cross at Pickfords??

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I can't accept that any competent investigator would overlook the basic, crucial reality that I've outlined purely because Paul seemed a bit ruder and a bit naughtier. "

Fortunate, then, that we are all allowed to hold our own opinions.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

"Sour, said the fox about the sorbberries."

Old Swedish proverb, especially for you, Sally

The best,
Fisherman

Yeah Fish, I've seen little remarks about 'sour grapes' before. I have no idae what you're driving at really. Whatever little fantasies TL are having, let me assure you, your 'theory' has nothing that I want.

[Fisherman]

Since Dew is spoken of on the Lechmere threads, letīs take a look at how he portrayed Lechmere and Paul. This is from Dewīs book:

"No better illustration of East-End conditions at the time could be afforded than by the behaviour of Charles ______ , a middle-aged carman, who was the first to see the body.
The carman was on his way through Bucks Row to his day's work when he saw a huddled mass in the gateway of Essex Wharf. He crossed from one side of the street to the other to investigate.
The light was just sufficient to show him that the form was that of a woman and that she had been mishandled. Her clothing had been disarranged and her bonnet had fallen from her head. There was something strange too about the position of the woman's head.
In any other district of London such a discovery would have sent the man dashing for a policeman. But this was Whitechapel, where crimes of violence and outrage were of everyday occurrence.
The carman shook the woman. She did not stir. He decided it was a case of a woman who had fainted following assault, and, making a mental note to report the matter to the first police constable he saw, he went on his way.
A curious thing then happened. The carman had gone but a short distance when he saw another man on the opposite side of the street whose behaviour was certainly suspicious. The other man seemed to seek to avoid the carman, who went over to him, and said:
"Come and look here. Here's a woman been knocked about."
Together the two men went to the gateway where the poor woman was lying. The newcomer felt her heart. His verdict was not reassuring.
"I think she's breathing," he told his companion, "but it's very little if she is."
The couple parted, ________ promising, as he walked away, to call a policeman.
All this was afterwards told in evidence by the carman. It never had the corroboration of the other man. The police made repeated appeals for him to come forward, but he never did so.
Why did he remain silent? Was it guilty knowledge that caused him to ignore the appeals of the police?"

Interesting reading, is it not? Faulty on details to a significant extent, but taking in the difference in descriptions of Lechmere and Paul, we can learn a lot. Paul was showing a behaviour that "was certainly suspicious" and he may have done so because of a "guilty knowledge".

This alone tells us that the police, in spite of knowing that Lechmere was first on the spot, did not in any manner rule out guilt on behalf of Paul - at least this is what Dew seems to tell us.

On Lechmere, he has nothing negative to say. He made a mental note to tell a PC, he went to the police, he witnessed at the inquest - and Dew has forgotten his name. So insignificant was this man to him, that he never bothered to pick up on what he was called.

Paul, though - now THAT was another thing altogether, a suspicious character through and through, and quite possibly involved in what happened to Nichols.

It explains a lot, to my mind at least.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"I've seen little remarks about 'sour grapes' before."

Mmmm. But this is sorbberries. Has another meaning altogether, but that belongs to the finer points of Swedish proverbs - and classic fables.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

This tells us nothing about what the police thought at the time, and as a collective, Fisherman.

This is just Dew, yet again offering his own personal, independent thoughts on the matter, just as he was in the case of the Goulston Street Graffiti, where he opined that that it was unrelated to the murders, in contrast to the views of his senior police colleagues, which were expressed at the time of the murders, as opposed to the late 1930s. Perhaps if he hadn't confused himself and his readers into believing that Paul was already loitering on the opposite side of the road at the time of Cross' discovery, he wouldn't have considered the former so suspicious.

Of course it would not have helped Paul's credibility that he did not come forward, but that would not have obfuscated the reality that he was the second man at the scene of the crime, and not the first.

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

Sally:

"I've seen little remarks about 'sour grapes' before."

Mmmm. But this is sorbberries. Has another meaning altogether, but that belongs to the finer points of Swedish proverbs - and classic fables.

The best,
Fisherman

Oh, right.

That's interesting

[Lechmere]

Of course the police shudda checked Charles Lechmere out - then at least they would have found out that he wasn't called Cross.
But it is clear they didn't so there we are.
Of course the police are very fallible and can be spiteful as Paul found out to his cost. Are Ben and Sal the last remaining Inhabitants of Dock Green?

I expect that when they reinhabit a Hutchinson thread and discuss police action they will move to planet Skepto

[Ben]

Point missed by the looks of things, Lechmere.

I didn't pass comment either way as to whether or not Cross was checked out or should have been. I'm saying that if Paul was investigated as a suspect, Cross certainly would have been. Obviously Cross warranted checking out more than Hutchinson did. Cross was unquestionably the first person at the crime scene, as opposed to a discredited witness who in the minds of the police probably made up the whole thing and wasn't there at all.

[Sally]

Ed!

I expect that when they reinhabit a Hutchinson thread and discuss police action they will move to planet Skepto

Nah. No need for that - none at all.

By then, I expect we'll all have something else to say about Hutchinson.

As my old Grandad used to say, you should always watch out for icebergs.

P.S. Why do you always bring up Hutchinson? I think you lurve him...

[Sally]

Obviously Cross warranted checking out more than Hutchinson did. Cross was unquestionably the first person at the crime scene, as opposed to a discredited witness who in the minds of the police probably made up the whole thing and wasn't there at all.

Oh get with the programme will you Ben?

As everybody knows, Hutchinson was definitely checked out because he lived in a lodging house. I feel it is my solemn duty to tell you that because of this, every single thing ever regarding himself would've been known by the cops. Obviously.

And, as everybody also knows, it is blindingly obvious that Crossmere would never, ever have been checked out ever because he lived in a house. No need to ask questions, no Sir.

See? Its easy.

[Ben]

And, as everybody also knows, it is blindingly obvious that Crossmere would never, ever have been checked out ever because he lived in a house.

Ohhhh....

I think I'm slowly beginning to understand.

So...Crossmere being not suspicious at all is actually really really suspicious!

And with all those CCTV cameras and gestapo-like record-keeping that was common practice at the Victoria Hotel, Hutchinson couldn't have passed wind without attracting police attention.

Got it.

[caz]

Hi Fishy & Lech,

When Ben and I agree on something, it's wise to start questioning your own funny little arguments.

The police only had Paul's word for it that Cross was first at the scene; they only had Cross's word for it that Cross was first at the scene. If they had any suspicion that Paul was involved in the murder, they could not have done anything about it without going deeper into Cross's account and trying to establish where the truth lay. Cross had effectively - if unwittingly - given Paul an alibi. So the police would have needed to establish whether Cross was protecting Paul and therefore himself implicated as an accomplice.

Why? Because any case against Paul would have included the terribly unlikely proposition that he had returned to the scene, despite seeing that there was a man now standing by the body of his victim. Why would the killer have put himself through that, totally unnecessarily, unless he knew Cross was no problem, for example if the pair were in cahoots? It's even less likely than Cross being the killer and hanging around to bluff it out with an innocent Paul! Yet this is what the police would have had to ask themselves while investigating Paul's role.

Of course it all becomes clear if they were using phrenology to judge which one was the dodgier looking character of the two. Gawd help us!

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"This tells us nothing about what the police thought at the time, and as a collective, Fisherman."

If you with "this" mean Dewīs text, I beg to disagree. When retired policemen speak of their experiences, what they say will reasonably be coloured by the thoughts shared with the working comrades from their service time. Nothing strange with that. If I ever write my memoirs - God forbid - and speak of journalism and making papers, I fail to see why I would give a picture that has nothing to do with my empirically gained experiences, instead fabling away. If you suggest something else, then that is ... hmmm ... ah, strange is the word Iīm looking for. Look at any biography, written from a working manīs perspective, and you will see that what the writers give more or less correct pictures of what they did while working. Itīs not Alice in Wonderland we discuss - itīs biographies.

And no matter how you read Dew, the fact remains that he pictures Paul as a suspicious character and a potential culprit involved in the murder, whereas he gives a picture of Lechmere that produces a man who is a little rough around the edges, but patently honest. Likewise, no matter how you interpret that, it is in exact agreement with what I have said on the topic: Paul was regarded as a baddie by the police, whereas Lechmere was not.

I am not saying that the suggestion that Lechmere should have been first in line to be looked into is a bad one - on the contrary, you are quite right; he should have. But when we look at what we have, another picture emerges. So you make a good suggestion, but the evidence does not go along with that suggestion. Not at all, in fact.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"By then, I expect we'll all have something else to say about Hutchinson. "

Agreed!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"The police only had Paul's word for it that Cross was first at the scene; they only had Cross's word for it that Cross was first at the scene."

Me and I are the only one (or is it two) that understand this. Or not. Wanna rephrase yourself?

"If they had any suspicion that Paul was involved in the murder, they could not have done anything about it without going deeper into Cross's account and trying to establish where the truth lay. "

Thatīs wishful thinking, Caz. Apparently they DID suspect Paul of potentially foul play; Dew confirms it and the actions of the police, dragging Paul out of bed in the middle of the night speaks the exact same language. And in spite of this, they did not check "Cross" - or they would have called him Lechmere.

So, just like Ben, you have a logical point - that is chewed up and spat out by the evidence.

What anybody who says that Lechmere MUST have been checked - in spite of the blatant fact that his name remained undiscovered - needs to think about, is that the police knew in "Cross" case that he had sought out a copper instead of avoiding them on the murder night, just as he had gone to the police himself in a sitúation where they had embarrasingly missed to jot down his name. The man must have been regarded as the epitome on honesty. Twice he contacted the police! To even imagine that such a guy could be the killer must have seemed outright ridiculous to them.
Then again, they did not know that Paulīs appearance on the scene had called for this very thing - to speak to the police. Therefore, they did not realize the implications of the Mizen scam, Iīd suggest - a man that is as good a citizen as Lechmere would not suddenly set about fooling PC:s, would he? And sure enough, he only had to say "No, sir!" when asked if this had happened, and they troubled him no more.

"any case against Paul would have included the terribly unlikely proposition that he had returned to the scene, despite seeing that there was a man now standing by the body of his victim."

Yes - if he could indeed see that man in the darkness, which is hard to tell. But no matter how strange YOU think this is, the police, Dew included, apparently did NOT think so. Dew suspected him, and the contemporary police raided him, so they were anything but satisfied that he was in the clear. Unless you disagree, Caz?

And do you know what? This is ANOTHER point where you have a logical point - but where the evidence laughs you straight in the face.

"Of course it all becomes clear if they were using phrenology to judge which one was the dodgier looking character of the two."

Donīt even go there, Caz - history will laugh at you, not me. Thatīs the backside of ignorance.

The best,
Fisherman