Was Lech known as Cross at Pickfords??

[Jon Guy]

Hi Christer

2. It is very, very clear that the police never coupled the PC Paul spoke of to Jonas Mizen, instead believing that it was Neil that was spoken of. This goes to tell us that Mizen carried on as he had started out - by not coming clear about having met the carmen. He would have been in a position to clear Neil in this respect but did not do so, at least not until late in the process. One may of course imagine a scenario where Mizen approaches his superiors inbetween the press conference and Charles Lechmere´s Jack-in-the-box appearance at the cop shop. It´s a small window of time, but it is there. And if Mizen used it, then this may explain why his superiors seems to have been none too harsh on him.

Poor old Mitzy!

Whilst he`s on his night shift beat in H-Division territory he`s told by some passer by`s that there`s a woman dead or drunk on the pavement in J-Div territory. He wanders over anyway and the first thing he see`s is J-Div`s PC Neal by the body who immediately sends Mitzy off to Leman St to fetch the ambulance. He returns and helps remove the body to Eagle Place mortuary.

Mizen naturally assumes that PC Neil had sent the two carmen to fetch assistance, or that Neil was in place by the body when the carman passed the spot.

Neal of J-Div naturally assumes he is the first to find the body.

Mizen of H-Div finishes his night shift and goes home to bed.

PC Neal of J-Div completes a report for Inspector Helson CID J-Div, both based over in Bethnal Green.


The Importance of Being Jonas!! ;-)

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Hmm. That seems like an awful lot. I've still to see those listed here, in spite of asking for citations several times. I do hope I won't have to count them myself. "

I believe Edward has mentioned how they are grouped and where they come from, roughly. If you don´t find that enough, but thinks he is trying to con you, then you should ask him to list them all, one by one. Maybe he will accomodate you.

In what manner would it make a difference, Sally, by the way? Will you think it less credible that he called himself Cross colloquially if you have all the ninetyish signatures in front of you, or are do you just want to make sure that you are not being lied to?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Ed

The Victorian period was one known for its stifling sentimentality over the sanctity of womanhood. This was no doubt predominantly a middle class affectation but nevertheless in any generation abandoning an unconscious woman and then compounding that act by failing to properly alert a policeman is a sign of extreme callousness.

That's literary sanctity. And Dave is right, is does belong to the middle classes. On the streets of Whitechapel, where the sight of dead-drunk or ill women was a common one, we can hardly expect Cross and Paul to presume that the one in front of them has been murdered. In fact, it appears entirely from the documentary sources as if nobody thought she had been murdered at the time. And why should they?

Cross and Paul had alerted a policeman - they had done their duty; and couldn't afford to be any later for work. No callousness is implied by their actions, contextually.

Fisherman

He used the name Lechmere in ninety-odd (!) recorded instances when communicating with the authoritites.

Hmm. That seems like an awful lot. I've still to see those listed here, in spite of asking for citations several times. I do hope I won't have to count them myself.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"I didn't say it was a fact that the police did not take paul's press interview seriously - however the helson-Neil 'press conference' certainly suggests that they didn't take it seriously as they were only concerned with denying that Neil had been sent to the scene by two men."

In a sense they of course DID take the interview seriously - from the outset. After having checked with Neil, however, they would have taken another path, relying more on their own man.

Two things are interesting in combination with this:
1. It may well be that the animosity (if we can call it that) from the police´s side towards Paul took it´s start right here; it seemed they were dealing with a man who made things up and blamed the police for shortcomings on - as the police would have thought - no good grounds at all.
2. It is very, very clear that the police never coupled the PC Paul spoke of to Jonas Mizen, instead believing that it was Neil that was spoken of. This goes to tell us that Mizen carried on as he had started out - by not coming clear about having met the carmen. He would have been in a position to clear Neil in this respect but did not do so, at least not until late in the process. One may of course imagine a scenario where Mizen approaches his superiors inbetween the press conference and Charles Lechmere´s Jack-in-the-box appearance at the cop shop. It´s a small window of time, but it is there. And if Mizen used it, then this may explain why his superiors seems to have been none too harsh on him.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Dvv
I didn't say it was a fact that the police did not take paul's press interview seriously - however the helson-Neil 'press conference' certainly suggests that they didn't take it seriously as they were only concerned with denying that Neil had been sent to the scene by two men.

[Lechmere]

Abbey
Sorry for not answering about the other murders - I think it need a fresh thread though.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"most people don't find the use of his stepfather's name odd or suspicious"

These are two different things, Ben, and you need to be able to tell them apart. Whether "most people" don´t find the use suspicious, I can´t really tell, maybe so.
But it is odd no matter how we look upon things.

He used the name Lechmere in ninety-odd (!) recorded instances when communicating with the authoritites.

When he communicated with the police in the Nichols murder case, he used the name Cross.

He has not been proven to use that name in any other context, official or unofficial.

It is therefore by definition odd. (Wikipedia: "Odd is an adjective denoting the quality of being unpaired, occasional, strange or unusual, or a person who is viewed as eccentric.")

Odd is something that goes against the general rule, something that deviates. That is the very definition of what odd is.

So leaving aside the question of how many people regard it as suspicious, it is and remains odd, no matter what people say. It is not a question of tastes or hunches, it is a matter of fact.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David:

"It shudd be an ascertained fact, Fish, that people are less likely to notice things when they hurry in the gloom than, say, when they're having a peaceful stroll after lunch."

You are not following me here, David - he may well have been frightened, and he may well have been finding it hard to notice anything at all. But that is of no consequence since it is what LECHMERE would have thought about this that ruled the show. He would have had no idea whether Paul was the least or most observant man in the world. That´s where you need to reconsider.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Your debating style seems to usually rely on claiming that more people agree with you or disagree with the point you oppose and so nah-nah-nah.

It doesn't "usually" rely on any such thing, Lechmere, but the way in which the latest version of the Cross theory has been promoted tends to invite precisely that attitude. I'm not suggesting for a moment that you should accede to the views of the majority, but when, for instance, it is pointed out that most people don't find the use of his stepfather's name odd or suspicious, that ought to carry some weight. Similarly, it makes little sense to insist doggedly that there was some sort of "scam" involving PC Mizen when pretty much no-one else thinks there was. It really doesn't bother me, but if you're wondering why the theory's being met with such fierce resistance, that might have something to do with it.

Fleming is a proven user of an alias with no demonstrable family connection, in contrast to Cross who used his stepfather's surname. It is not conclusively proved that Fleming used that alias in 1888, but it is only fair to surmise that the only person reported to have assaulted the most brutally mutilated victim in the "Jack the Ripper" series escaped detection for that reason despite living, in all probability, in the Victoria Home at the time.

Cross did nothing callous in leaving Nichols, incidentally. He set off in the direction of his workplace knowing full well that he'd encounter a policeman en route. An unquestionably reasonable and un-suspicious thing to do under the circumstances.

All the best,
Ben

[DVV]

Precisely Ed...a predominantly pretentious and hypocritical middle class attitude...
Dave

According to Evelyn Waugh there is nothing callous like the upper-class.

[Cogidubnus]

Precisely Ed...a predominantly pretentious and hypocritical middle class attitude...I suspect you'd find the East-End working classes somewhat differently aligned...else why would folk such as Donovan unceremoniously dump non-paying females back on the streets?

All the best

Dave

[DVV]

Cog
The Victorian period was one known for its stifling sentimentality over the sanctity of womanhood. This was no doubt predominantly a middle class affectation but nevertheless in any generation abandoning an unconscious woman and then compounding that act by failing to properly alert a policeman is a sign of extreme callousness.

Extreme callousness has always been. Anyway, Lechemre/Cross did hail a passer-by and alert a constable. Extreme callousness ?

[Lechmere]

Cog
The Victorian period was one known for its stifling sentimentality over the sanctity of womanhood. This was no doubt predominantly a middle class affectation but nevertheless in any generation abandoning an unconscious woman and then compounding that act by failing to properly alert a policeman is a sign of extreme callousness.

[DVV]

DVV
This business about Lloyds potentially getting in trouble for not telling the police about Paul is nonsense.

Getting in trouble for having committed an offence isn't exactly a nonsense. The Coroner would have needed that info. Nothing compelled them to print the day Paul had been interviewed, Lechmere.

The actual sequence of events as now revealed (Helson and Neil held a ‘press conference’ on Sunday evening after the appearance of the Lloyds story) makes much more logical sense.

If I've well understood, the sequence of events would be :

1 : publication of the Lloyds
2: Helson & Neil' press conference
3: coming forward of Cross

More on this when I'll be sure of your sequence.

they did not give much credence to the Lloyds story

This, in the purest Inspector Reid's style, I challenge you to prove.

By the way, if you're correct (but you're not), Lechmere-the-Ripper would have been a complete fool to worry.

Incorrect news stories had already appeared by then (see thread ‘Discredited evidence’ in the Victims section).

Sure. But you see, it was only the first days of the Ripper season, and they were desperate for clues.

On the Friday morning Neil seems to have sent Mizen off straight away to get the ambulance so he would have quite likely had no opportunity to have a discussion about the circumstances surrounding Mizen’s appearance. Neil assumed he summoned Mizen with his lamp. Mizen assumed that Neil had sent the two men to call him –that is what he testified Charles Lechmere had told him.
But policemen do lie under oath. They are often derelict in their duty. They are humans.

Ok.
Mizen was then guilty of a serious offence, but nobody cared.
That's almost May 68 in the reign of Victoria.
Remember Chandler, demoted to Sergeant for some cups.
Mizen would have fooled both the coroner and all the investigators in your scenario.

One of the strengths of the Charles Lechmere case is that does not conveniently ignore any evidence or reputable accounts.

I can't agree. But I know you mean it.

Why shouldn’t Charles Lechmere have touched Paul on his shoulder?
I presume you think his hand was bloodied.
Do you know which hand he used?
Do you know that his hands were bloodied?
Do you think he may have had the opportunity to wipe his hands before touching Paul?

No, nothing to do with blood. It's simply about hailing Paul instead of letting him go. I think I've made myself clear on this (talking with Fish).

Do you think it is normal to approach a stranger for the first time in a lonely dark street by tapping them on the shoulder?

He should have tackled him.

Seriously, I guess Cross was at a loss, having just discovered what was perhaps a dead woman, and since Paul was giving him that memorable wide berth, he (Cross) just hurried after the hurrying Paul and tapped his shoulder.
From behind, not the worst choice.

And how did the reporter find Paul if the police were not able to?
Hmmm how long will it take me to suss that difficult question out?
One second later.

You obviously need more than one second to come up with something convincing, Lechmere. (See below)

Paul found a journalist and presented himself while on his way home.

Quite a lucky journalist.
Unless it's a hazardous theory.... Which is more likely ?

[Cogidubnus]

When he ‘found’ Polly’s corpse on Friday morning Charles Lechmere didn’t hang around as he claimed he didn’t want to be late for work – supposedly. He was so keen to get to work that he abandoned a woman who he thought may have been raped and was unconscious and then failed to properly alert a policeman as to her vulnerable state.

Be careful - You are attributing late 20th/early 21st Century moral values on late 19th Century persons. I suspect (although I don't know for sure) that 21st century folk would find many late Victorian offhand views uncomfortably "black and white"...

All the best

Dave