Was Lech known as Cross at Pickfords??

[Lechmere]

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 isn’t far advanced from a child holding their breath until they get their own way.
But the inhabitants of these pages are a very narrow audience and the contributors to the threads you rely on for your statistical data are an even more miniscule and partial sample.

One small point about Fleming’s alias – it wasn’t known about until some time after the murders, but is it known that he ever used it at the time of the murders?

And what’s this?
“Lechmere used his stepfather's name, as he had on a previous occasion.”
You must have turned up a new record. When was this previous occasion that Charles Lechmere used his stepfather’s name?

[Lechmere]

Curious

“Somehow, he was located on his way to work on Monday morning and diverted to the inquest.”
So Charles Lechmere in the guise of Charles Cross was located, but Paul wasn’t? How did the police act so quickly to be able to track Charles Lechmere down within 12 hours?
This has been dissected before and the chances of it happening are none and slim. And Slim just left town.

You could argue that Charles Lechmere in the guise of Charles Cross voluntarily appeared at a police station on Monday morning rather than Sunday evening. This doesn’t do much to promote his innocence however.
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.
Yet this same man called into a police station to give an interview while on his way to work when he could have quite easily done it in his free time on Sunday? Doesn’t add up very well for an innocent man.
I would suggest that a guilty man would be consuming the papers and would have known that Lloyds covered Paul’s interview on Sunday evening.

Monty pointed out that theoretically the correct procedure for getting witnesses to an inquest was for a court to issue a summons. Clearly this procedure was economised on – as has been pointed out here before. Clearly whether Charles Lechmere appeared at the police station on Sunday evening or early Monday morning the exact procedures were relaxed.

[Lechmere]

DVV
Newspapers frequently broke stories during the Ripper investigation. Often their stories were found to be untrue. But there was extreme competition to get a scoop and that is why they did not tell the police. It happens still.
This business about Lloyds potentially getting in trouble for not telling the police about Paul is nonsense.
Incidentally I had assumed until just the other day that the Paul interview had leaked out due to as blabber mouthed journalist perhaps boasting about his scoop – but a correct reading of the relevant reports (which I reprinted here) shows that this was not in fact the case.
I was slightly unhappy with my perception that details of the interview had leaked out as I know it is the newspapers business not to leak scoops.
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. It also proves that they were in ignorance of the two Carmen up until this time and it seems that until Charles Lechmere in the guise of Charles Cross appeared, they did not give much credence to the Lloyds story. Incorrect news stories had already appeared by then (see thread ‘Discredited evidence’ in the Victims section).

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.

Sometimes we have conflicting accounts – for example Paul’s newspaper interview and his inquest testimony. In such cases we have to guess and use conjecture.
Sometimes accounts are unclear and we can also use conjecture to join up the dots.
Sometimes actions are open to interpretation and again conjecture can be useful.

However I personally avoid conjecture when the accounts dealing with the specific topic are unambiguous and clear.
One of the strengths of the Charles Lechmere case is that does not conveniently ignore any evidence or reputable accounts.

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?
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?
If you found a body in the street would you call out to a bystander or go up to them, wait for them to pass you and then tap them on the shoulder?

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.
Paul found a journalist and presented himself while on his way home. Difficult to work out that one wasn’t it?
Nothing can be taken from that to suggest that the police could have found Charles Lechmere.

[DVV]

Since we now have moved into the territory where "frightened, hurrying workers" are not likely to notice things (wudd NOT have, thus), I think I will ever so gracefully bow out of the ongoing discussion. Not least since the killer - who would have been the party interested in finding out what the newcomer had seen, would not have been privy to the information that he was dealing with a "frightened, hurrying worker".
Fisherman

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.
It follows that hailing Paul was certainly not the best thing Lechemere-the-Ripper could do.
All theories have their flaws, Fish - except mine -, and these are blatant ones, I'm afraid.

[Ben]

Personally, I'd expect you'd see a great deal of "ifs", Abby.

IF he was the murderer...

IF he killed and disposed of his victims along his work route, which no other serial killer has ever done for obvious reasons...

IF he took a route to work which we have no evidence for him ever taking...

IF, as seems highly unlikely, his employers allowed him to be hours late for work, or absent on certain days, or didn't notice if he was late or absent!..

I'm not hopeful, but I could be pleasantly surprised.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

Hello Fish, Lech

Since much is made of the murders happening along Lechs walk to work route I would like to see what your specific scenarios of each murder are including all the murder victims you think can be attributed to Lech. Please include details like when lech left his house, where you think he encountered the victim , when the victim was murdered etc.
Basically, how you think each murder went down. You can skip Polly here obviously.
Thanks in advance and am very interested to see your response.

[Fisherman]

Since we now have moved into the territory where "frightened, hurrying workers" are not likely to notice things (wudd NOT have, thus), I think I will ever so gracefully bow out of the ongoing discussion. Not least since the killer - who would have been the party interested in finding out what the newcomer had seen, would not have been privy to the information that he was dealing with a "frightened, hurrying worker".

Maybe such things and this kind of logic do not apply here.

Shudd have, though.

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

David:

"Only an idiot, if the murderer, would have hailed the guy."

Was that all? I´m disappointed, David. I have been over that point a hudred times already. Didn´t you know?

Didn't you read my post ?
I'm shedding tears.

Answer this point: Who would have the best possibilitites to slip past the police if a murder was discovered: A single man or two workmen travelling in company?

You know, maybe he was not that daft after all...?

I've lost my concentration and don't understand.

One must also consider the possibility that Lechmere - if the killer - was unceratin whether Paul had seen anything or not. And if he sensed that Paul COULD have - how wise would it be to let him go?

A frightened hurrying worker in the gloom ?

And this would have been less risky to hail him and fetch a constable with still the knife in his pocket ?

You must be pulling my leg, Fish.

You may need to rethink this, David. Thoroughly.

You sure ?

[Fisherman]

David:

"Only an idiot, if the murderer, would have hailed the guy."

Was that all? I´m disappointed, David. I have been over that point a hundred times already. Didn´t you know?

Answer this point: Who would have the best possibilitites to slip past the police if a murder was discovered: A single man or two workmen travelling in company?

You know, maybe he was not that daft after all...?

One must also consider the possibility that Lechmere - if the killer - was unceratin whether Paul had seen anything or not. And if he sensed that Paul COULD have - how wise would it be to let him go?

You may need to rethink this, David. Thoroughly.

"I love my shuddas, yunno."

I DO know that.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

"Another relevant "shudda" of mine, then."

Yes, David, absolutely - they ALL are more or less relevant.
Fisherman

Thanks for that, Fish.
I love my shuddas, yunno.

[DVV]

Robert Paul talks :

"It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman."

Only an idiot, if the murderer, would have hailed the guy.
Nothing new and still telling.

[Fisherman]

David:

"You don't seem completely at ease, Fish. In all fairness, I can undestand why."

Never better, David, let me assure you! And why would I not be? I´m completely on the clear with Mizen, and the evidence supports me all the way. So never better, my friend!

"Another relevant "shudda" of mine, then."

Yes, David, absolutely - they ALL are more or less relevant. But they are out of sync with the evidence! And that is troublesome. We can´t allow ourselves to go against the evidence because we can suggest more commendable actions on behalf of people we KNOW took other routes.

" It's about law and rules."

Exactly which law do you mean applies here? The let´s-ban-Mizen-law? You know as well as I do that these matters are decided from case to case.

"Oh ! "He may have" ?? Means I may be right ???"

If you are, then you are so in conflict with what the evidence tells us.

"Now you need to theorize "that Paul knew a Lloyd's reporter" to answer a shudda that was supposed to be futile. "

Not "need" David - like I said, it is one of hundreds of possibilities that may explain why the reporter knew but not the coppers. And you know what? I think you are intilligent enough to realize this, but chose to paint me out in a bad light. Shame on you, ma chèr. Naugthy, naughty!

"what a reporter can find in less than one day, the police can't find in 3 days ?"

Don´t stick your head out like this - I WILL chop it off! History is crammed with cases where reporters have withheld vital information from the police for weeks and months on end, preparing articles for their papers.

"No Fish. Not a matter of blood.
But much worse for your theory.
Read that Paul's interview again."

Okay. Done. Now, dazzle me, David! What is it you secretely know that I don´t? I´m holding my breath in anticipation!

"The murderer who touched Paul's shoulder wasn't cunning, that I can tell you."

Yes you can - you just did, actually. But to little avail, I´m afraid.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

"Mizen should have been asked why he went to Bucks Row, but he was not"

He may well have been - and said he was signalled by Neil.

"Mizen should have told his superiors about the carmen, but he did not"

As evidenced!

You don't seem completely at ease, Fish. In all fairness, I can undestand why.

"Mizen should have been asked by Baxter why he didn't give that important info before Inquest Day 2, but he was not"

Or it would have been in the records, most probably.

Another relevant "shudda" of mine, then.

"Mizen should have been banned (from the boards) for the commited offence, he was not"

Not your choice, or mine.

Not a matter of choice, Fish. It's about law and rules.

And sometimes it is wiser not to cause too much smoke, since the public will sense the flames. Any which way, there you are.

Well, another valid Shudda, then.

"The Lloyds reporter should have told the police about the carmen, he did not"

We don´t know, David. He may have - but he may have waited for Lloyds to be sure of an exclusive. After that, he may have told the police - there´s no knowing. But the evidence is in accordance with him keeping the information back.

Oh ! "He may have" ??
Means I may be right ???

"The police should have known about the carmen (since the Lloyds reporter proves that the story had leaked out as soon as Friday afternoon or evening), but they knew nothing"

That all depends on the character of the leak. Let´s theorize that Paul knew a Lloyds reporter and told him he had a smashing story - for a very cheap payment. That´s just one explanation, hundreds of others may exist.

Now you need to theorize "that Paul knew a Lloyd's reporter" to answer a shudda that was supposed to be futile.
Awesome.

"The Lloyds reporter should have been Chief-Inspector, he was not"

Easy, David, easy ... don´t let your frustration get the better of you!

Easy ? Not that much, since you didn't understand...or pretended to.

I'll make it clear for you, Fish.

It means : what a reporter can find in less than one day, the police can't find in 3 days ? (that's what your theory is suggesting)
So here you are.

"We should also play shuddas, or shuldas, with Paul's interview, Fish."

Any day, David. Any day.

" if Cross was the Ripper, he should have never touched Paul's shoulder."

Which hand, David? And are you saying that he "must" have had blood on it?

No Fish. Not a matter of blood.
But much worse for your theory.

Read that Paul's interview again.

"Was your Ripper cunning or not ?"

In many a sense, he was.

The murderer who touched Paul's shoulder wasn't cunning, that I can tell you.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Mizen, along with every other policeman on the streets of Whitechapel, routinely saw drunk prostitutes - often in a critical condition - on those streets."

Maybe so. And?

"Every time his attention was called to one of these unfortunates, he was tasked with taking her to the police station for processing - to sober up, sleep it off; or, if one of the worse cases, to take her to the infirmary."

If it was bad enough, yes. And?

"When presented with news of a woman who was 'dead or drunk' its a distinct possibility that he thought 'Gawd, not another 'un' and couldn't be arsed to rush."

Yes, Sally. And?

"A mundane, simple, and quite likely explanation for his tardiness."

Absolutely. And?

"How was he to know the woman had been murdered? He wasn't."

Of course not. And?

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Yes, Fish. Cudda been the solution, but it's not.

What about the Shulda ? Paul's shoulda, I mean.

edit : can't delete, sorry (just saw reply)