Was Lech known as Cross at Pickfords??

[Lechmere]

Whatever you may think mizen should have said - the historical record shows that the police (collectively, not Mizen specifically) were ignorant of Mizen's conversation with Charles Lechmere on Saturday. Read the newspaper reports for Saturday evening (eg The Star, the Evening News or Evening Standard) and also read the Sunday morning papers. These include pre inquest press briefings from the police and on Sunday some of Neil's testimony - but not the detail about him bring asked about whether he was alerted by anyone. That detail from the inquest was first published (I think I am right in saying) on Monday morning.
To sum up - initially every account had Neil as the sole discoverer of Polly. It was not initially known that shehad been discovered by the cRmen.
Why? Because mizen clearly said nothing and there was a delay before Charmes Lechmere came forward and Paul's newspaper interview wasnt published till Sunday. Hence the carmen's involvement was not initially known about.
That is the inescapable conclusion based on the historical evidence.

[DVV]

DVV
I am afraid it is clear that Charles Lechmere did not appear at a police station on Friday as everyone still thought that Neil was the first to find the body up until Saturday at the earliest. The newspapers (apart from Lloyds) and everyone else were in ignorance of anything other scenario until Sunday evening.

Lechmere, I'm not saying that Lechmere (!!) went to the police on Friday : I said it could be on Friday evening, or on Saturday, or, but less likely, on Sunday. In fact, I'm saying that what prompted him to go to the cops was his realizing his involvement in a such a big case.

As for the newspapers and their ignorance of the two carmen, it has no incidence at all. (See below)

On the Saturday the coroner asked Neil if he had been told about Polly’s body being there prior to his finding her. That was the whisper. It was not at that stage realised that it was Mizen who was told.

And then Mizen and Neil never talked to each other ? - except : "Go fetch the ambulance !" - "Ok mate !"
And Mizen would not have reported on what he did that morning ???

I did not say that Charles Lechmere’s non appearance at the inquest on the Saturday was of any significance. I said that the details of his witness statement were unknown at that stage which means he had not given his witness statement by then.

Not sure. Even if Lechemere had not yet come forward, the police KNEW, thanks to Mizen, that two men, looking like carmen, had alerted a constable.

I did not say that Mizen had disappeared. I said that the detail that he had been alerted by the Carmen was not revealed by Saturday.

But "not revealed" to whom, Lechmere ? You think Mizen went fetching the ambulance and didn't tell his colleagues and superiors about the two carmen ? That is untenable, or, to say the least, a very hazardous speculation.
His position would have been VERY MUCH uncomfortable, then, towards his superiors.

[Lechmere]

DVV

I am afraid it is clear that Charles Lechmere did not appear at a police station on Friday as everyone still thought that Neil was the first to find the body up until Saturday at the earliest. The newspapers (apart from Lloyds) and everyone else were in ignorance of anything other scenario until Sunday evening.
On the Saturday the coroner asked Neil if he had been told about Polly’s body being there prior to his finding her. That was the whisper. It was not at that stage realised that it was Mizen who was told. It is in the newspaper reports on the Saturday’s inquest proceedings in black and white.

To clarify:

I did not say that Charles Lechmere’s non appearance at the inquest on the Saturday was of any significance. I said that the details of his witness statement were unknown at that stage which means he had not given his witness statement by then.

I did not say that Mizen had disappeared. I said that the detail that he had been alerted by the Carmen was not revealed by Saturday. He cannot have mentioned it, probably to cover his own tracks. However once he saw Charles Lechmere at the inquest on Monday morning Mizen had to go through a series of uncomfortable questions about how he was alerted to what had happened.
This is the inescapable conclusion based on Neil not knowing what the coroner was going on about when asked whether he (Neil) had been called to the scene by anyone.
Neil’s role in ‘finding’ Polly was known to the press before his inquest testimony. Before the inquest opened clearly the police told the press what they saw as the sequence of events and that did not include Mizen talking to two carmen and being alerted about what had happened. Read the Saturday press reports.

Yes Neil referred to Mizen based on what he knew – i.e. he signalled to Mizen and thought that it was his signal that resulted in Mizen arriving. Then that he, Neil, sent Mizen to get the ambulance. Notice that Neil did not realise that Mizen was on his way to the crime scene already, having been alerted to the event by the two Carmen.
Neil was in ignorance about the two Carmen alerting Mizen.

[DVV]

Hi Lechmere

DVV
Could it have been Friday evening – 31st August - after work?

It is inconceivable that an innocent Charles Lechmere would not have appreciated the severity of what had happened by the time he made his way home. He worked next to Broad Street Station and will have passed the front concourse of Liverpool Street Station. The evening papers were full of the news of the latest Whitechapel murder. The news vendors would have been barking like mad.

That's true. On Friday evening Lechmere knew he was involved in quite an extraodinary murder case. This, I've already pointed out.

However it is certain that Charles Lechmere did not at this time go to the police.
The inquest convened on the Saturday and the court was ignorant about what his and Robert Paul’s role. PC Neil was presented as the first discoverer of Polly Nichols.

No, it is far from certain that Lechmere did not go to the police at this time. What is certain is that Baxter had already decided that the inquest would take more than one hearing. That's why other people involved were not summoned on Saturday as well : Henry Tomkins and PC Thain, for example.
Do you seriously think that they were on the run too ? or that the police didn't know where to find them ?
So, you see, the fact that Lechmere did not appear at Inquest Day 1 doesn't prove anything.

There was however a whisper that a policeman may have been sent to the crime scene by passers by as Neil was asked about this, but he knew nothing about it. In all probability this rumour resulted from Paul’s interview.

A mere "whisper" ?
Are you suggesting that Mizen did vanish just as you suppose Lechmere did ?
Of course you're not, and you know PC Neil did refer to Mizen on Saturday : "Seeing another constable in Baker's Row, witness despatched him for the ambulance."
Mizen's role was no secret to the police. It's just that Baxter decided to hear him (as well as others) on Monday.

[Lechmere]

DVV
OK let’s look logically at when Charles Lechmere may have gone to the police station.

Could it have been Friday evening – 31st August - after work?

It is inconceivable that an innocent Charles Lechmere would not have appreciated the severity of what had happened by the time he made his way home. He worked next to Broad Street Station and will have passed the front concourse of Liverpool Street Station. The evening papers were full of the news of the latest Whitechapel murder. The news vendors would have been barking like mad.
We know Robert Paul spoke to a journalist on Friday evening – almost certainly who he bumped into on his way home from work at Bucks Row (this report was not published until Sunday). There was a considerable hull-a-baloo in Bucks Row that day. Charles Lechmere would have walked right passed this.
However it is certain that Charles Lechmere did not at this time go to the police.
The inquest convened on the Saturday and the court was ignorant about what his and Robert Paul’s role. PC Neil was presented as the first discoverer of Polly Nichols.
There was however a whisper that a policeman may have been sent to the crime scene by passers by as Neil was asked about this, but he knew nothing about it. In all probability this rumour resulted from Paul’s interview.
It is interesting that Paul chose to pipe up – even if he did not speak to the proper authority - but Charles Lechmere at this stage clearly chose not to.

Could it have been on Saturday evening – 1st September – after work?

The evening papers carried very little information about the inquest that had just convened. For example Neil’s testimony was not covered, although it was reported that Neil was the discoverer.
I originally thought that it was most probable that Charles Lechmere would have gone to a police station after work on the Saturday – probably Commercial Street as it would have almost been on his way home. There could have been a suitable officer there at that time – after the inquest had closed for the day – to arrange for his summons to the Monday session.
It is possible that the summons was delivered to his house on the Sunday but that introduces the awkward possibility that his real name – Lechmere as opposed to Cross would have been discovered. We know that his real name was not discovered as it would have been recorded in the internal police files.
It is also inconceivable that he would not have been told – whether he was given the summons at the police station on Saturday evening or at his house on the Sunday – that he would not be able to disappear off to work. We know Robert Paul was told for example. Hence his attendance at the inquest in his work clothes complete with his apron is still a mystery.
Given that Charles Lechmere was not prompted to speak out about his involvement on the Friday what would have encouraged him to do so on the Saturday? Had anything occurred which might have encouraged him to do so? I don’t think so.

Could it have been on Sunday daytime – 2nd September?

This was his leisure time. Bethnal Green police station was the closest one to him. He could have presented himself and been summonsed for the inquest there and then. However again nothing had changed for him so there is no particular reason why he would have suddenly developed a public conscience that had been lacking on the Friday evening.

Could it have been Sunday evening – 2nd September?

The only new factor was the publication of Robert Paul’s story which mentioned Charles Lechmere’s role in discovering Polly’s body. Although not mentioned by name, this story was potentially compromising. It seems to me that guilty or innocent it is most likely that the publication of this story was what provoked Charles Lechmere into coming forward. As I have already discussed it is virtually impossible for him to have been summonsed to attend the inquest the very next morning at any other time than while he was at the police station (probably Bethnal Green) after me made his statement.
As I have pointed out this still leaves the difficulty of his wearing his work clothes at the inquest.

[DVV]

Fish, although I realize day after day how poor is my English, I'm sure you got my point(s). For instance, when you answered "Paul. Why ?" you had already quite understood what I meant : that BOTH carmen, in a way or another, weren't 100 pcent sure she was dead. So why one would be suspicious, and the other innocent ? (for that matter)

Check Paul and Lechmere's words : you won't find "murder". They fancied whether she was dead or not, but murdered : no.

Now you're saying, about Paul, that both accounts "can't be right". True. Paul apparently told the press that the woman was cold. I know. But that wasn't my point. Perhaps the journalist did embellish the story. But I don't think he fabricated everything, and certainly not Paul's bitter comments on the PC. Conclusion ? I'm right from the start : Mizen didn't care that much, and did not rush to Buck's Row like Chandler was to rush to Hanbury Street.

More importantly, my main point at the beginning of the discussion was that when they met that morning, neither Cross, nor Paul, nor Mizen had yet realized that they were involved in a murder case - and quite an extraordinary one.

I have then suggested that, logically, once Cross realized that he was a witness in an important murder case, he decided to come forward. It could have been on Friday night, but more probably on Saturday or Sunday, as I said.

In all probability, the Sunday (afternoon) paper has nothing to do with his coming forward.

[Fisherman]

David:

"So we have to discuss every point according to Who-You-Favour-As-A-Suspect ?
Lechmere's guilt has to be a prerequisite ?"

You know, David, I have searched and searched my posts, and I cannot find one single instance where I say this. Therefore, I wil kindly ask you not to misrepresent me!

What I think, David, is that it would be naïve in the extreme to buy what Lechmere says, all along the way. Therefore, I strongly recommend each and every poster to look at things from a perspective of guilt on Lechmere´s behalf.

If they don´t want to try it, I won´t loose any sleep over it.

But if they DO, they will see that a whole new picture emerges. You see, the one person who always rushes to Lechmere´s help is nobody but himself. HE is the one who says both he and Paul spoke to Mizen, HE is the one who claims that Mizen was told the woman was probably dead etcetera. Nobody at the inquest confirms it. On the contrary. They give a picture that is anything but innocent.

If we dare to theorize that Lechmere was the killer, this makes for interesting reading. If we don´t then we look away comfortably. End of THAT story. Take your pick and be done with it.

"when Paul said : "I think I have felt a movement", it has to be meaningless...."

Why would I think it is meaningless? I think he may well have been correct - since Nichols would have been cut seconds before he felt her.

"now an innocent carman is unjustly accusing a constable of not having done his job properly."

Not too thick, David! We don´t know much about Paul, do we? But we DO know that what he told the press does not correlate fully to what he told the inquest. From there it follows that both accounts CAN´T be right. One or both are wrong. It´s not rocket science. And the whole police force knew that Paul DID accuse them for not taking care of their duties properly, so that´s nothing new.

Unless you are getting at something else? If you are, do tell me and I will straighten it out for you. But it may take some time - I have other things to do right now.

The best
Fisherman

[DVV]

David:

"it didn't look a crime scene. Neither Lechmere nor Paul thought a murder had taken place. They saw no blood. Would you agree ?"

Given who I favour as a suspect, what do you think?

Have you checked who it was that spoke of "either dead or drunk"? If not, please do so!

"who thought he had detected a faint movement as he touched her breast ?!

Paul. Why?

Ho ho ! that's interesting, Fish !!

So we have to discuss every point according to Who-You-Favour-As-A-Suspect ?

Lechmere's guilt has to be a prerequisite ?

And worse : when Cross said "she just could be drunk", it should mean : He's the Ripper. But when Paul said : "I think I have felt a movement", it has to be meaningless....
Wow.....

"Then Robert Paul lied to the press ?"

OR to the inquest. No other options exist. And I favour the former, since Mizen confirms it.

Ah, now an innocent carman is unjustly accusing a constable of not having done his job properly.

[Fisherman]

David:

"it didn't look a crime scene. Neither Lechmere nor Paul thought a murder had taken place. They saw no blood. Would you agree ?"

Given who I favour as a suspect, what do you think?

Have you checked who it was that spoke of "either dead or drunk"? If not, please do so!

"who thought he had detected a faint movement as he touched her breast ?!

Paul. Why?

"It's quite clear that Mizen didn't rush to Buck's Row as if he had been told : "Hey, another woman has been butchered !"

Yes. It´s much more as if he had only been told that a woman had been found there, but nothing about her being presumably dead.

"By the way, I said : almost nothing out of the ordinary."

Dead people littering the pavements were very much out of the ordinary. Always.

"Then Robert Paul lied to the press ?"

OR to the inquest. No other options exist. And I favour the former, since Mizen confirms it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Back again so soon, Sally?

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

You think that a PC would "not really care" about a potentially dead woman lying in the street? Nothing out of the ordinary, eh?
Fisherman

Then Robert Paul lied to the press ?

[DVV]

David:
"It even didn't look a crime scene - hence the carmen saying that there was a woman lying in Buck's Row, possibly dead, possibly drunk"

Have a check, David - and find out who claims that this information was given to Mizen!

Hi Fish,
it didn't look a crime scene. Neither Lechmere nor Paul thought a murder had taken place. They saw no blood. Would you agree ?

And have a check at this, too : who thought he had detected a faint movement as he touched her breast ?

"that was why, I think, Mizen did not really care. "

You think that a PC would "not really care" about a potentially dead woman lying in the street? Nothing out of the ordinary, eh?

It's quite clear that Mizen didn't rush to Buck's Row as if he had been told : "Hey, another woman has been butchered !"
By the way, I said : almost nothing out of the ordinary.

[Sally]

Fisherman

SOME posters find it "lacking", while other posters find it a good solution. And over the last several months, things have been added, scrutinized and compared. During this time, nothing at all has surfaced that disenables the theory to be spot on, albeit a lot of shudda-cudda-wudda has been offered, as Edward so aptly put it.

Whatever. In that time nothing at all has surfaced that enables the theory to be 'spot on' either. It is, and remains, pure conjecture.

What is is not about - and should never be - is to offer "Ha ha - I don´t believe you", since that is a thoroughly anti-intellectual approach to any theory.

So now, Fisherman, you will be good enough to point the post in which I said that will you? No? What a surprise....

Another example of what it should not be about is saying "You need to add something new!", and when you have it pointed out to you that no matter how we look upon it, I am the one who actually lies behind the whole discussion (together with Edward, who has done far more research than I have on the man),

Actually, the vast majority of what you have said has already been said by others - years ago. It wasn't enough to convince then, and it isn't now. So you've been out and had your 5 minutes of fame. And? What does that prove? That your'e a self-publicist. It certainly hasn't added anything to your argument.

you say I should refrain from "posturing"...? It is a deplorable manner of discussing things, and just as lacking as ever of any REAL contribution to the core issues of the case.

Yep, I agree with that.

[Fisherman]

David:

"It even didn't look a crime scene - hence the carmen saying that there was a woman lying in Buck's Row, possibly dead, possibly drunk"

Have a check, David - and find out who claims that this information was given to Mizen!

"that was why, I think, Mizen did not really care. "

You think that a PC would "not really care" about a potentially dead woman lying in the street? Nothing out of the ordinary, eh?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"that's exactly what other posters have been doing for the last several months - looking at the inherent qaulities of the material, and generally finding it lacking."

SOME posters find it "lacking", while other posters find it a good solution. And over the last several months, things have been added, scrutinized and compared. During this time, nothing at all has surfaced that disenables the theory to be spot on, albeit a lot of shudda-cudda-wudda has been offered, as Edward so aptly put it.

That, Sally, is exactly as it should be. It is what the boards are for. It is what discussing is about.

What is is not about - and should never be - is to offer "Ha ha - I don´t believe you", since that is a thoroughly anti-intellectual approach to any theory.

Another example of what it should not be about is saying "You need to add something new!", and when you have it pointed out to you that no matter how we look upon it, I am the one who actually lies behind the whole discussion (together with Edward, who has done far more research than I have on the man), you say I should refrain from "posturing"...? It is a deplorable manner of discussing things, and just as lacking as ever of any REAL contribution to the core issues of the case.

Next example:

"We cannot change what happened 124 years ago - None of that makes a jot of difference to the fact that you have only your personal conviction"

I´m sorry, Sally, but I have LOTS more. I have the scam, the name swop, the background of the man, the geography of the murder sites, the testified about moves of him on the murder night, his appearance at the inquest, the interaction with Paul... I have mountains and mountains of information and facts that easily work together in an accusation act against Charles Lechmere. So don´t tell me I have nothing, Sally - it is patently wrong. Or uninformed. Or ignorant. Or whatever, but it is not the truth at any rate.

"I'm done with it, I think."

I´m not.

The best,
Fisherman