Was Lech known as Cross at Pickfords??

[Mr Lucky]

How much attention had Mizen really paid at the time to what was being said by either of the carmen? It was a Godawful hour of the morning and he was busy knocking people up. All too easy after the event to imagine that PC Neil must have sent the two men for him, given who and what he found when he got to Buck’s Row.

The reality of the situation, when he was approached by Paul and Cross, is that there was no indication yet that the woman had been murdered, or was not simply drunk. The reality, according to Paul, Cross, PC Neil and everyone on the planet except Mizen, is that no policeman had seen the carmen in Buck’s Row or sent them for help.

The reality, according to Paul and admitted by Mizen himself, is that Mizen did not respond at once to whatever he was being told, but carried on knocking up for a bit.

This lacklustre reaction fits so much better with Cross simply telling it like it was - a woman lying in Buck’s Row, possibly drunk - than with the invention of a fellow officer in perhaps urgent need of Mizen’s assistance.

Hi Caz,

Yes, this all happens before all the autumn of terror panic about a killer on the loose, so that lacklustre response sounds reasonable even if Mizen has been told the woman is dead. For example Mizen doesn’t run to the scene, so there does seem to be a lack of urgency, but then, if the woman is already dead but there is a policeman at the scene then why run ?

The question you should be asking yourself is how in the whole world Lechmere would know, while spinning Mizen this bogus copper yarn, that PC Neil would oblige so graciously, by being at the scene when Mizen arrived and promptly sending him for an ambulance? How could Lechmere have ‘banked on’ the lie being given a superficial veracity in this way?

Unless Cross has seen Neil approaching the scene, I don’t see how he could bank on it. The local are grumbling in the press about the lack of police presence, Mulshaw says he only sees a policeman every two hours. I don’t think Cross could predict Neil's arrival just by knowing Neil’s beat

Do you see the elephant now?

Yes, it’s got a duck hunter’s kazoo stuck up its trunk.

[Lechmere]

Caz
“When Mizen finally related what he had been told by carman Cross, he did so with the benefit of hindsight.”

Eh? It was reported that Mizen said that Cross told him he was wanted by a policeman. Did Mizen employ hindsight when he said that? Who says? You dream up a lot of thought processes for Mizen.
I prefer to look at what was reported to have been said and see if it fits Lechmere’s potential guilt. And guess what? It does... without having to imagine that Mizen made it all up.

Mizen was a beat policeman who claims to have been told that a woman was down, but probably not dead, and that another policeman was with her.
He responded by taking his time getting to her and he failed to take either Charles Lechmere’s or Robert Paul’s details.

And... please note Mizen denied taking his time but was contradicted by both Paul and Cross/Lechmere who said he carried on knocking up. Mizen was under a cloud because of this.
However Mizen’s version – that he was not told that Polly was certainly dead and there was a policeman already there – is consistent with his failure to take the two carmen’s details and to hurry.
That is why Mizen’s version of events is believable.
Otherwise he was extremely lax in not taking the carmen’s details and extremely callous in not going to the aid of an unconscious woman.
And please – the streets of the East End were not chock-a-block with drunken prostitutes sleeping it off in the gutter.

Why didn’t Mizen make a fuss when Cross/Lechmere denied saying he was wanted by a policeman? No doubt because he wanted the matter to die a death as he was under a cloud anyway due to his conduct.

I have already explained how Charles Lechmere could have guessed that Neil would have got to the body before Mizen. However what would have happened if he hadn’t and Mizen got there first? Not much.
In any case I would submit that Charles Lechmere was flying by the seat of his pants when he met Mizen. He would have told Mizen that he was wanted by a policeman in Bucks Row as an immediate strategy to get past him. It just happens to have worked out for him.

As for your supposed elephant Caz, Paul’s newspaper story compelled Charles Lechmere to come forward. That was the least dangerous option for him once the story appeared. He could just deny saying to Mizen that he was wanted – as he did and he got away with it didn’t he as it wasn’t followed up, no matter how much you might huff and puff about it.
By the time Charles Lechmere came forward there had been no mention in the press about him and Paul’s presence being there - apart from in Paul’s interview. Neil as being heralded as the discoverer of Nichols. Charles Lechmere had no reason to be apprehensive that Mizen had said a word. That is why there was no elephant. Can you see this now Caz?

[caz]

Caz
“When Mizen finally related what he had been told by carman Cross, he did so with the benefit of hindsight.”

Eh? It was reported that Mizen said that Cross told him he was wanted by a policeman. Did Mizen employ hindsight when he said that? Who says? You dream up a lot of thought processes for Mizen.

What are you on about, Lechy? Of course Mizen was speaking in hindsight when recalling what Cross is supposed to have told him, unless you think he had completely forgotten finding PC Neil at the scene, being sent for an ambulance and learning that the woman was not just drunk or asleep. That's what the benefit of hindsight means. He must have felt quite relieved that she was already way beyond help when he decided to carry on knocking up before going to the scene.

Everything else is conjecture on your part, that goes against the evidence, because Cross and Paul's versions both fit with the truth (no policeman in Buck's Row had sent them for assistance) and Mizen's version doesn't - and he was 'under a cloud', as you admit, for taking his time, so had a reason to say what he did.

Love,

Caz
X

[John Wheat]

Whats the probability that :

A) Lech was known as Cross at Pickfords?


B) The police found Lech at work the day of the inquest in which he appeared?



The reason I ask these questions, because one of the main points that those who favor Lech as a suspect is that he gave a "false" name. If he started work at Pickfords when he was still known as Cross then that could be an explanation for why he gave his name as Cross to the police, especially if they found him at work and brought him to the inquest (which would also explain why he was wearing his work clothes at the inquest).

A. Really wouldn't surprise me.

B. Maybe.

[Patrick S]

A. Really wouldn't surprise me.

B. Maybe.

He may have been known as Cross at Pickfords. We don't know. He may be been known as Cross by the police, as his stepfather (Thomas Cross) was a policeman and he may have maintained some friendships/acquaintances there. We don't know. He may not have been known as Cross by anyone. Remember, the Nichol's inquest testimony has been lost. All we have are press reports. In those press reports, Charles "Cross" is George Cross. Robert Paul is called Robert "Baul". PC Thain is called "Thail". Is it possible that Lechmere was asked if he went by any other names and he said, "Cross" and the press, deciding that "Cross" was easier to spell than "Lechmere" chose to report that name instead (while still managing to give his first name as George). We don't know. Maybe he was afraid of the killer and didn't want his real name in print. We don't know. This could go on an on BEFORE we get to a point at which he gives the name Cross because he's Jack the Ripper.

The fact is this: Christer and Edward have the name issue. That's it. Everything else is convoluted invention requiring massive leaps in logic to maintain any plausibility whatever.

The murders were on his way to work. Well, in 1888 London everyone walked everywhere. The murders were in a small geographic area. So, if one regularly walked near one murder (as he must've to have discovered Nichols) then he walked near all murders.

He called Paul over to see the body. He didn't run, hide, or just walk on in the darkness. He asked Paul to come see. A devious psychopath, they say.

He went with Paul to find a PC. He didn't turn and go another way. He didn't tell Paul (who had no idea from which way he'd come) he was going the other way and he'd look for a PC in that direction. He stayed with Paul until they FOUND a PC. A twisted genius, they say.

And when that PC fails to take the information seriously and when that PC's inquest testimony is not corroborated by Paul, well, Lechmere must have pulled that PC aside and told him - out of Paul's earshot - that the woman was likely NOT dead and that a PC was waiting for him in Buck's Row with the situation well in hand, making both the PC and Paul truthful men and Lechmere a liar. And a killer.

How do they handle the issue of Lechmere living to be a very old man, into the 1920s, and stopping his murders after Mary Kelly? Easy. He kept on killing. He was the Torso Killer. He was responsible for many murders that went unsolved. And he did all this while maintaining employment for 30 years, never being arrested, raising 10 kids, being married for 50 years, opening a shop in retirement, and leaving his wife a nice sum upon his death. And no one suspected him for more than a century....and there's good reason they didn't.

[Patrick S]

Paul’s newspaper story compelled Charles Lechmere to come forward. That was the least dangerous option for him once the story appeared. He could just deny saying to Mizen that he was wanted – as he did and he got away with it didn’t he as it wasn’t followed up, no matter how much you might huff and puff about it.
By the time Charles Lechmere came forward there had been no mention in the press about him and Paul’s presence being there - apart from in Paul’s interview. Neil as being heralded as the discoverer of Nichols. Charles Lechmere had no reason to be apprehensive that Mizen had said a word. That is why there was no elephant. Can you see this now Caz?

Why on earth would Paul's account in Lloyd's have compelled LECHMERE to come forward? Here is the full text:

It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. 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." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, 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. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head.

So you are saying that Lechmere's LEAST DANGEROUS option was to come forward and testify at the inquest in that he could "just deny saying to Mizen that he was wanted – as he did and he got away with it didn’t he as it wasn’t followed up". Yet, Mizen had not testified yet. He testified at the inquest the day AFTER Paul's story appeared in Lloyd's. Monday. The same day that Lechmere testified. Why would he show up to refute testimony that hadn't been given yet? Further, what is contained in Paul's comments that could possibly be "dangerous" to Lechmere, a "bombshell" that forced him to testify at the inquest? Lechmere is described twice in Paul's comments. I'll list them here:

1. A man.
2. The man.

So. Beyond identifying Lechmere's sex, Paul gives no description at all. Further, Lechmere was aware of the fact that Mizen didn't ask his name. He said, "Alright" and let the two men go about their business. So, you see the problem I'm having. You have Lechmere rushing to the inquest to refute testimony that had yet to be given, compelled to do so further by the description of him as a "man" given in Lloyd's by Paul.

[Columbo]

Why on earth would Paul's account in Lloyd's have compelled LECHMERE to come forward? Here is the full text:

It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. 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." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, 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. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head.

So you are saying that Lechmere's LEAST DANGEROUS option was to come forward and testify at the inquest in that he could "just deny saying to Mizen that he was wanted – as he did and he got away with it didn’t he as it wasn’t followed up". Yet, Mizen had not testified yet. He testified at the inquest the day AFTER Paul's story appeared in Lloyd's. Monday. The same day that Lechmere testified. Why would he show up to refute testimony that hadn't been given yet? Further, what is contained in Paul's comments that could possibly be "dangerous" to Lechmere, a "bombshell" that forced him to testify at the inquest? Lechmere is described twice in Paul's comments. I'll list them here:

1. A man.
2. The man.

So. Beyond identifying Lechmere's sex, Paul gives no description at all. Further, Lechmere was aware of the fact that Mizen didn't ask his name. He said, "Alright" and let the two men go about their business. So, you see the problem I'm having. You have Lechmere rushing to the inquest to refute testimony that had yet to be given, compelled to do so further by the description of him as a "man" given in Lloyd's by Paul.

I think he went as a concerned citizen to make sure the truth about that night was accurate, or he was looking for 15 minutes of fame. I don't think so though.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

I think he went as a concerned citizen to make sure the truth about that night was accurate, or he was looking for 15 minutes of fame. I don't think so though.

Columbo

Why would a concerned citizen not come forward immediately?

Why would a concerned citizen not give the name he otherways always gave when speaking to the authorities?

If he was anxious to make sure that the night was truthfully recorded, why is it that he differs very much in his version from Mizens version? What if a PC made his best to have the night truthfully recorded?

[Patrick S]

Why would a concerned citizen not come forward immediately?

Could "immediately" be reasonably defined as reporting the finding of a body within minutes of the event to the first PC he found? Further, do you think he and the wife were following the case on the television? He and Paul reported the crime to Mizen and went to work. That was Friday morning. I assume they WORKED all day on Friday. The first day of the inquest was Saturday. No testimony was heard on Sunday. He showed at the inquest on Monday, almost certainly having read the press accounts that had come out late Friday and Saturday. When would you have had him appear to avoid suspicion?

Why would a concerned citizen not give the name he otherways always gave when speaking to the authorities?

That's a clever term you use consistently, "authorities". It implies "police". The truth is the man - as best we can tell - never appeared as a witness, suspect, or victim in ANY proceeding involving the POLICE. "Authorities" - as you use the term - means census takers, etc. I also found he used the name Lechmere when his son enlisted in the service. We don't know if certain people knew him as "Cross". We don't know if the press decided to report the name simply because "Lechmere" was more difficult (and they'd showed trouble getting names like Charles, Paul, Thain, and Mizen correct). We don't know if - since his step father (Thomas Cross) had been a policeman he was known be some at the Met as "Cross". Perhaps he used to the name to honor his stepfather, as he did when he named a son for him. Perhaps he used the name because he hoped for some special treatment, testifying immediately so he could be on his way to work. Perhaps he feared the killer or killers. Perhaps he was LEGALLY called Lechmere but everyone KNEW he as Cross because he preferred that name. Or..maybe he was Jack the Ripper.
If he was anxious to make sure that the night was truthfully recorded, why is it that he differs very much in his version from Mizens version? What if a PC made his best to have the night truthfully recorded?

There are three versions of the events in Baker's Row. Paul. Cross. Mizen. Only one says that Mizen was not told that the woman was "likely dead". Only one says ANYTHING about having been told a PC was awaiting Mizen in Buck's Row. ONE man's testimony disagrees with the other two: Mizen. Of course, it's clear why the man would bend the truth, telling what amounted a while lie of self preservation.

Read above bold.

[John Wheat]

He may have been known as Cross at Pickfords. We don't know. He may be been known as Cross by the police, as his stepfather (Thomas Cross) was a policeman and he may have maintained some friendships/acquaintances there. We don't know. He may not have been known as Cross by anyone. Remember, the Nichol's inquest testimony has been lost. All we have are press reports. In those press reports, Charles "Cross" is George Cross. Robert Paul is called Robert "Baul". PC Thain is called "Thail". Is it possible that Lechmere was asked if he went by any other names and he said, "Cross" and the press, deciding that "Cross" was easier to spell than "Lechmere" chose to report that name instead (while still managing to give his first name as George). We don't know. Maybe he was afraid of the killer and didn't want his real name in print. We don't know. This could go on an on BEFORE we get to a point at which he gives the name Cross because he's Jack the Ripper.

The fact is this: Christer and Edward have the name issue. That's it. Everything else is convoluted invention requiring massive leaps in logic to maintain any plausibility whatever.

The murders were on his way to work. Well, in 1888 London everyone walked everywhere. The murders were in a small geographic area. So, if one regularly walked near one murder (as he must've to have discovered Nichols) then he walked near all murders.

He called Paul over to see the body. He didn't run, hide, or just walk on in the darkness. He asked Paul to come see. A devious psychopath, they say.

He went with Paul to find a PC. He didn't turn and go another way. He didn't tell Paul (who had no idea from which way he'd come) he was going the other way and he'd look for a PC in that direction. He stayed with Paul until they FOUND a PC. A twisted genius, they say.

And when that PC fails to take the information seriously and when that PC's inquest testimony is not corroborated by Paul, well, Lechmere must have pulled that PC aside and told him - out of Paul's earshot - that the woman was likely NOT dead and that a PC was waiting for him in Buck's Row with the situation well in hand, making both the PC and Paul truthful men and Lechmere a liar. And a killer.

How do they handle the issue of Lechmere living to be a very old man, into the 1920s, and stopping his murders after Mary Kelly? Easy. He kept on killing. He was the Torso Killer. He was responsible for many murders that went unsolved. And he did all this while maintaining employment for 30 years, never being arrested, raising 10 kids, being married for 50 years, opening a shop in retirement, and leaving his wife a nice sum upon his death. And no one suspected him for more than a century....and there's good reason they didn't.

Hi Patrick

A very sensible post and one that I agree with.

[Harry D]

Read above bold.

Don't expect a response, Pat. Love the fact that you've got Christer running scared. He knows as well you do that you'll school him in this debate.

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Fisherman;398764

Why would a concerned citizen not come forward immediately?

Lechmere had seen the killer at the murder site and was afraid. He therefore did not want to come forward at all but he had to, since the was wanted as a witness.

Why would a concerned citizen not give the name he otherways always gave when speaking to the authorities?

Lechmere had seen the killer at the murder site and was afraid that the killer would find his family. He therefore did not want to give his real name. His wifes and his childrens surname was not Cross, so the killer would not find them if he used that name.

If he was anxious to make sure that the night was truthfully recorded, why is it that he differs very much in his version from Mizens version?

Lechmere had seen the killer at the murder site and was afraid. He therefore wished he had not found the murder victim and therefore he was a reluctant witness.

[Patrick S]

Don't expect a response, Pat. Love the fact that you've got Christer running scared. He knows as well you do that you'll school him in this debate.

There will never be a debate, sadly. Of that I'm certain. I would never debate a topic that I don't feel that I know inside and out. I feel like I've taken the time and effort to know and understand - the greatest extent possible - the events in Buck's Row, Baker's Row, at the Nichols' inquest, Lechmere's life before and after August 1888, etc. I went into all this wanting to believe in Christer's and Eddie's theory and it went precisely in the other direction. I found nothing that seemed, to me, so much as curious or suspicious (aside from the "alternate" name issue which I feel could be explained any number of ways before we even begin to suspect anything criminal, much less that it means Lechmere was JtR, the Torso Killer, et al). Going further, looking at Lechmere's life I discovered the man had lived a pretty admirable life, especially considering his time and place on earth. The man lived 70+ years. He was married for 50 years and raised 10 children. He maintained employment at Pickford's for twenty-plus years. We can find no record of his having been arrested, committed. He retired, opening a general shop. He died of natural causes, leaving his wife a comfortable inheritance. An interesting footnote: His son Thomas Allen died in the 1943 Bethnal Green Tube Disaster along with his wife Florence and their son Thomas Charles.

[Fisherman]

Don't expect a response, Pat. Love the fact that you've got Christer running scared. He knows as well you do that you'll school him in this debate.

It is up to me to decide who I engage in debate with and who I will not touch with a pair of pliers, Harry. But don´t let that worry you: pick up the points made that have me "running scared" and put them to me yourself, Harry. It should be easy enough. And then we will see who schools who.

It´s easy enough for a jester like you to try and use my refusal to debate with some posters as a sign of how I dare not do so. Here´s your chance to prove yourself correct - or not.

Let´s hear it, Harry. Now, please.

[Fisherman]

Nothing yet, Harry? Thinking, are we? PM:ing? Go on, let´s get it overwith.

Keep in mind that if you produce nothing, I may resort to your own awfully clever and respectful tactics and call yourself too scared to even try. If you can do it, then so can I.