Was Lech known as Cross at Pickfords??

[caz]

"All he had to do after that was the same as Paul, and wait for the police to come to him, if they could find him again."

And why would he want to do that, if the police at that stage was looking for the man who had been alone with Nichols at approximately the time she had her neck cut and her abdomen ripped open?

Hi Fishy,

At that stage the police only had Paul's word for it (and only from the press article, as Paul really was the 'reluctant' witness of the two) that the other man had been there first. If Lechmere had never come forward and never been identified, Paul would now be seen as equally if not more suspicious, and talking to the press only to point the finger at this unknown second man.

Hereīs the choice:
1. A benevolent, helpful man that had the bad luck of stumbling over the body, and who reported this to a PC as soon as he could, and followed it up afterwards by contacting the police station and help with the inquiries, or...
2. A man that was seen standing by the victim on the murder night, at the time when she had her throat cut, and who breezed past a PC without giving his name, and thereafter vanished from the face of the earth.

Please tell me, Caz, that it is not beyond you to discern the difference inbetween these two characters!

Yes, at face value, and with no more evidence to go on, I think most reasonable people would conclude that 1. was a genuine witness with nothing to hide, while 2. would have been the natural behaviour of a killer who wanted to carry on killing.

I'd also have to say that vanishing 'from the face of the earth' is a rather good way of avoiding the hangman.

I rest my case for the defence, your Honour.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"Hi Fishy"

Hi, Cazzie!

"At that stage the police only had Paul's word for it (and only from the press article, as Paul really was the 'reluctant' witness of the two) that the other man had been there first."

Yeps.

"If Lechmere had never come forward and never been identified, Paul would now be seen as equally if not more suspicious, and talking to the press only to point the finger at this unknown second man."

Nope. Since Paul had stated that Lechmere WAS first in place without knowing if the police was able to get the latter in custody or not, he could not lie without risking being exposed for it. That spoke in favour of the police giving him the benefit of a doubt on the subject. A man that did NOT come forward and who took off after the event would of course be a lot more suspicious. The police would stake out Buckīs Row, and they would ask around for a probable carman leaving from east of that street, travelling west. They would also ask any employers west of Hanbury Street and within walking distance if a carman had suddenly left and disappeared.

He would not have gone unnoticed, Caz - he would be the man on whom they focused, and not Paul. It would also be reasonable to suggest that Paul could substantiate his claim of having left home at an hour that did not allow for any killing time.

"I'd also have to say that vanishing 'from the face of the earth' is a rather good way of avoiding the hangman. "

He may have been able to do so, should he choose to. But it would probably mean leaving his family behind and getting ready for a life on the run. And why would he do that - if he did not have to? If he was allowed to walk free, and keep killing in his comfort zone, no questions asked - why on earth would he expose himself, leave everything behind and opt for a life that would end in the hangmanīs noose once he made a tiny mistake or simply had an unlucky day?

And there, your Honour, I rest MY case for the prosecution. I can only advice you not to listen to the defence, no matter how charming she may seem.

Yours,
Fisherman

[caz]

Life On Mars

Hi Fishy,

Since Paul had stated that Lechmere WAS first in place without knowing if the police was able to get the latter in custody or not, he could not lie without risking being exposed for it. That spoke in favour of the police giving him the benefit of a doubt on the subject. A man that did NOT come forward and who took off after the event would of course be a lot more suspicious. The police would stake out Buckīs Row, and they would ask around for a probable carman leaving from east of that street, travelling west. They would also ask any employers west of Hanbury Street and within walking distance if a carman had suddenly left and disappeared.

It wasn't me who introduced the idea that a guilty Lechmere would have 'vanished from the face of the earth' or 'taken off' anywhere. That was you, and only a few posts ago you were arguing for how difficult a task it would have been for the police to track him down to his home or place of work with only a vague 'carman' description to go on. If he had been tracked down, instead of coming forward voluntarily and confirming Paul's account of who found the body first, it would only have been Paul's word against Lechmere's for what had really happened. And serial killers, if nothing else, are capable of lying their heads off to put the blame on the next bloke.

If Lechmere had simply gone about his business, and the police had eventually found him, and asked for a fuller account of what had led up to his reporting of the woman to PC Mizen, he could then have done any vital bluffing, or 'readjusting' of Paul's account, but arguably with little need. You can't charge a witness for failing to realise that his duties had not ended with Mizen allowing him to proceed to work, and who could have proved him a liar, much less the murderer? They had no evidence against him then, whether he had come forward or not, and you have no evidence to fit him up with now.

Have you been taking policing lessons from Gene Hunt?

Love,

Cazzie
X

[Lechmere]

Cazzie
I am sure you noticed it posted up here that it was said that the police would not have realistically been able to find Charles lechmere within 12 hours of tge newspaper story that fingered him appearing. That is a different proposition to the police never realistically being able to find him.
Your credulity with respect to potential suspects does credit to the modern day police force.

[Mr Lucky]

You can't charge a witness for failing to realise that his duties had not ended with Mizen allowing him to proceed to work, and who could have proved him a liar, much less the murderer?

Hi Caz

I know you’re referring to Cross here, but the same applies to Robert Paul.

I’m just interested in why you think Robert Paul was fetched up in the middle of the night by the police if they can’t charge him ‘for failing to realise that his duties had not ended with Mizen allowing him to proceed to work.’

So, what has caused the police to raid him ? (Paul believes it’s because of his 'remarkable statement' published in Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper 2nd Sept. 1888)

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"It wasn't me who introduced the idea that a guilty Lechmere would have 'vanished from the face of the earth' or 'taken off' anywhere."

Not "would"! Could!!

"That was you, and only a few posts ago you were arguing for how difficult a task it would have been for the police to track him down to his home or place of work with only a vague 'carman' description to go on."

Yep - and how correct I was! Of course, just like Lechmere (the poster) says, this referred to the short time perspective. Otherwise, he could have legged it - but just like I said, why on earth WOULD he? Surely you can see the sense in choosing to stay put as long as not a living soul suspects you? He could go about his business instead of looking for a ticket to South America, and I think that would have been a very easy choice.

2If he had been tracked down, instead of coming forward voluntarily and confirming Paul's account of who found the body first, it would only have been Paul's word against Lechmere's for what had really happened."

Yes, it would - but at that stage he would have been involved in a very serious matter with a possible result of getting an unwanted necklace for Christmas. He avoided all of this by NOT running - surely you can see the advantage?

"And serial killers, if nothing else, are capable of lying their heads off to put the blame on the next bloke."

But their MAIN incentive for lying is not to implicate others, but to stay free and uncharged themselves - and he seemingly did EXACTLY this. As for possibly blaming Paul to boot - have a look at what happened on the 8:th of September, and where!

"If Lechmere had simply gone about his business, and the police had eventually found him, and asked for a fuller account of what had led up to his reporting of the woman to PC Mizen, he could then have done any vital bluffing, or 'readjusting' of Paul's account, but arguably with little need."

You repeat yourself, Caz! Let me do the same. He would reasonably have been suspected if doing so. He did NOT do so - and was not suspected! Win/win - but only for him.

"You can't charge a witness for failing to realise that his duties had not ended with Mizen allowing him to proceed to work, and who could have proved him a liar, much less the murderer? "

Nobody! But me oh my, would they suspect him! Especially when finally running that check they failed to run initially, finding out his namechange - and then thety would look closer at the Mizen scam - he would have been a "police solution" in no time at all, reasonably.

So why wasnīt he a "police solution"? Because, Caz, he out a stop to the suspicions before they surfaced. Having approached Mizen on the murder morning helped immensely - what killer goes to a PC and has a chat? One out of a million; the one who has to. And he had to, to convince Paul that he was a good guy.

"They had no evidence against him then"

Nor did they look for it - it was there, had they done so.

"...and you have no evidence to fit him up with now."

Wrong. The name-change is evidence, the refusal to prop her up is evidence, the Mizen scam as given away by Mizen is evidence, etcetera. All what was said and done and recorded for posterity is evidence, Caz. Itīs how we put it together that matters, but I can find lots and lots of evidence to bolster my stance. Otherwise I would not have taken it.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Hello Fish ,

Perhaps he was watched until no longer suspected !

statements given by Elizabeth Allen and Eliza Cooper, of 35, Dorset-street, Spitalfields, certain of the authorities have had cause to suspect a man actually living not far from Buck's-row. At present, however, there is only suspicion against him.

cheers

moonbegger

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Moonbegger,

The full quote makes it sound to me like it's referring to the Tabram murder not Nichols.

'The Whitechapel murders are as inexplicable as ever, and at present the utmost energy on the part of the police has failed to secure sufficient evidence to justify an arrest in a quarter where suspicion lurked shortly after the commission of the fatal outrage at George-yard-buildings. Inspector Reid, Detective-sergeant Enright, Sergeant Goadby, and other officers then worked upon a slight clue given them by "Pearly Poll." It was not thought much of at the time; but from what was gleaned from her, coupled with statements given by Elizabeth Allen and Eliza Cooper, of 35, Dorset-street, Spitalfields, certain of the authorities have had cause to suspect a man actually living not far from Buck's-row. At present, however, there is only suspicion against him.' Echo 20th Sept. 1888

Robert Paul lived closer to Bucks Row than Cross, btw.

[Fisherman]

Yep, that passage is connected to the Tabram murder. And if Lechmere had been the guy who was watched, then all hell would have broken loose when he professed to have been the man who "found" Nichols!

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

Cazzie
I am sure you noticed it posted up here that it was said that the police would not have realistically been able to find Charles lechmere within 12 hours of tge newspaper story that fingered him appearing. That is a different proposition to the police never realistically being able to find him.

Hi Lechy,

Yeah, but Lechmere chose to come forward well before the police would have realistically had a chance of finding him again. Assuming he was the killer, and assuming he read what Paul had said about him, he could at least have waited for signs that he was being sought for the inquest. Then he could have come forward with a simple "Here I am gov, you wanted to speak to me again? I told that copper what I'd seen and he seemed happy to take it from there. What else would you like to know?"

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz!

I know you posted this to Edward, but I canīt resist!

"Lechmere chose to come forward well before the police would have realistically had a chance of finding him again."

Guess why!!! Thi is exactly what weīve been saying for the longest time, is it not. Proactivity, Caz - BEFORE they try to put two and two together, get your act in.

"Assuming he was the killer, and assuming he read what Paul had said about him, he could at least have waited for signs that he was being sought for the inquest."

Caz, he probably came forward after having read Pauls paper interview. When he read it, he read that Paul pinned him as "standing where the woman was". This would have made him think "Okay, so now the police know that there was a lone man standing right by the body at the more or less exact time when she died, a man of whom they know not what he was doing there". If this was what led him to the police, then this was because he realized that things looked bad for him. The cops would see that they had a man by the victim, his reason for doing so being totally unaccounted for.

Why would he wait for the cops to come looking for him? What good could that possibly do his cause? Is it not true that it could only harm him to stay away from the police? Every passing second increased the chances that the police would take an active interest in him as the potential killer.

He had one thing that worked very much in favour for him, though - he had voluntarily contacted the police on the murder morning. And the police knew that if there was one thing that a killer would try to avoid, then that thing would be a contact with the police three minutes after the murder.
And still, Lechmere actively sought out and contacted the police, informing Mizen about Nichols. This would be very, very much to his advantage - but only as long as he could be accounted for. If he stayed away, then the police would realize that he had not given Mizen his name, and that he had said something very strange to him: that another PC awaited Mizen in Buckīs Row.
But as long as he reported in himself, it was all good and well. That reinforced the impression that the police were dealing with a servant of the society, a benevolent man, a cooperator. He had one chance and one chance only to secure that this became the lasting impression with the Met - and that was to approach them himself, and on the double.

It cleared him from suspicion, and it enabled him to keep on killing, to stay at Doveton Street, to work with his family and carmanship as a cover - it was all benefits and no drawbacks. And the fact that he realized this tells us a lot about him, if he was the killer.

All the best,
Fisherman

[caz]

Hi Caz

I know you’re referring to Cross here, but the same applies to Robert Paul.

I’m just interested in why you think Robert Paul was fetched up in the middle of the night by the police if they can’t charge him ‘for failing to realise that his duties had not ended with Mizen allowing him to proceed to work.’

So, what has caused the police to raid him ? (Paul believes it’s because of his 'remarkable statement' published in Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper 2nd Sept. 1888)

Hi Mr Lucky,

There was no more evidence against Paul than there was against the man he spoke about to Lloyd's - who then came forward voluntarily to identify himself as the man who had found Nichols. But clearly the police still wanted to track Paul down and check out his story, so they would have wanted to do the same with the other man, had he not already come forward. But when Paul was 'fetched up in the middle of the night' he wasn't charged with failing to go to the police of his own accord, was he? So why would it have been any different for Lechmere, if he too had been 'fetched up in the middle of the night'?

The fact is, they treated Paul as a person of interest in their enquiries, so they would have treated Lechmere likewise, especially as he was already at the scene when Paul arrived. Therefore they would have satisfied themselves that there was no evidence, and nothing in the men's statements, that could be used against either of them.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Allo Allo

Caz:

"It wasn't me who introduced the idea that a guilty Lechmere would have 'vanished from the face of the earth' or 'taken off' anywhere."

Not "would"! Could!!

So what, Fishy? I wasn't saying that a guilty Lechmere would or could have legged it. It's not part of my argument. Clearly he didn't leg it if he was guilty.

Otherwise, he could have legged it - but just like I said, why on earth WOULD he? Surely you can see the sense in choosing to stay put as long as not a living soul suspects you? He could go about his business instead of looking for a ticket to South America, and I think that would have been a very easy choice.

Again, I don't know where you got the idea that I thought otherwise. My whole argument has been that he could have stayed put as long as he wasn't suspected of anything, and if the police had become suspicious, simply because, like Paul, he hadn't reported to them again of his own accord after that night when he had spoken to PC Mizen, what difference would it have made to what they could have done about it?

...at that stage he would have been involved in a very serious matter with a possible result of getting an unwanted necklace for Christmas. He avoided all of this by NOT running - surely you can see the advantage?

For the last time, I never even considered this 'running' option of yours, so let's move on. What I can't see is why he would have feared getting 'an unwanted necklace for Christmas' by merely staying put and letting the police come to him if they could find him, like they did Paul. How would that have provided the police with any more evidence of his involvement in the murder than identifying himself when he did and attending the inquest? He can't win, can he? He's damned in your eyes because he came forward, and he'd have damned himself in your eyes if he hadn't!

"And serial killers, if nothing else, are capable of lying their heads off to put the blame on the next bloke."

But their MAIN incentive for lying is not to implicate others, but to stay free and uncharged themselves - and he seemingly did EXACTLY this. As for possibly blaming Paul to boot - have a look at what happened on the 8:th of September, and where!

If you are suggesting that Lechmere lured Annie Chapman to Hanbury St to try and get Paul suspected, I find that highly unlikely. He had already given what you maintain was a 'false' name to the cops, while effectively exonerating Paul from the Nichols murder by admitting to have found her first before Paul even reached the scene. That was the time to have dropped Paul in it, if it was ever his intention, not give him an alibi! It would have been most unwise to draw police attention back to Paul after that, and consequently back to himself, as the other crucial witness in Buck's Row. It would have virtually made him an accomplice, if they believed Paul was the killer and this 'Cross' had protected him by putting himself at the scene first. What-a-mistaka-ta-maka.

As for the name change, you have yet to turn this into evidence for murder. If a guilty Lechmere had sat tight until the police had managed to find him, resulting in them suspecting him, the name change wouldn't have come into it, would it? They'd either have learned his real name by then, or he'd have been a fool to suddenly adopt a different one at that stage.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"So what, Fishy?"

??? Would or could are very different - thatīs what.

"My whole argument has been that he could have stayed put as long as he wasn't suspected of anything, and if the police had become suspicious, simply because, like Paul, he hadn't reported to them again of his own accord after that night when he had spoken to PC Mizen, what difference would it have made to what they could have done about it? "

Suspect him/not suspect him. Thatīs the difference weīre talking about.

"For the last time..."

Promise?

"What I can't see is why he would have feared getting 'an unwanted necklace for Christmas' by merely staying put and letting the police come to him if they could find him, like they did Paul. How would that have provided the police with any more evidence of his involvement in the murder than identifying himself when he did and attending the inquest?"

It could well have turned him into a suspect, and thatīs a big step towards the gallows as such. Even if there had been no direct proof, he would have had all the reason in the world to try and avoid suspicion. To me, thatīs all very easy and obvious.

"If you are suggesting that Lechmere lured Annie Chapman to Hanbury St to try and get Paul suspected, I find that highly unlikely."

I would not say that he lured her there. He could have found her there. But the next strike after the Buckīs Row strike took place a hundred yards or so from Pauls work-place - of which Lechmere was aware. So the implication is there, no matter if it holds true or not. And letīs not forget that Paul would have been a major nuisance to him if he was the killer.

"As for the name change, you have yet to turn this into evidence for murder."

My take on things is that YOU have yet to provide the evidence that it was innocent, and that people who regularly called themselves X in authority contacts normally/plausibly/habitually called themselves Y in murder case inquiries. Good luck with that one!

"They'd either have learned his real name by then..."

And what would it tell them, finding out that he was Charles Lechmere and not Charles Cross? Any thoughts?

Now please honour the "for the last time" passage and avoid telling me once again that he would had legged it in Buckīs Row, that he would not have gone to the police if he was the killer, and that name swops are perfectly innocent.

Thanking you in advance,
Fisherman

[caz]

Caz, he probably came forward after having read Pauls paper interview. When he read it, he read that Paul pinned him as "standing where the woman was". This would have made him think "Okay, so now the police know that there was a lone man standing right by the body at the more or less exact time when she died, a man of whom they know not what he was doing there". If this was what led him to the police, then this was because he realized that things looked bad for him. The cops would see that they had a man by the victim, his reason for doing so being totally unaccounted for.

Why would he wait for the cops to come looking for him? What good could that possibly do his cause? Is it not true that it could only harm him to stay away from the police? Every passing second increased the chances that the police would take an active interest in him as the potential killer.

Hi again Fishy,

All this is fair enough, but it would apply equally if Lechmere had innocently come across the body of Nichols, thought he had done his bit by alerting PC Mizen, then saw what Paul said in the papers and realised the police might suspect him if he didn't give them his own account.

He had one thing that worked very much in favour for him, though - he had voluntarily contacted the police on the murder morning. And the police knew that if there was one thing that a killer would try to avoid, then that thing would be a contact with the police three minutes after the murder.
And still, Lechmere actively sought out and contacted the police, informing Mizen about Nichols. This would be very, very much to his advantage - but only as long as he could be accounted for. If he stayed away, then the police would realize that he had not given Mizen his name, and that he had said something very strange to him: that another PC awaited Mizen in Buckīs Row.

But the fact that he did come forward doesn't change anything about his reported behaviour on the night in question, and that is what the police had to satisfy themselves about. If they had found any reason to question his role in the affair, his co-operation afterwards would not in itself have stopped them doing so.

But as long as he reported in himself, it was all good and well. That reinforced the impression that the police were dealing with a servant of the society, a benevolent man, a cooperator. He had one chance and one chance only to secure that this became the lasting impression with the Met - and that was to approach them himself, and on the double.

I don't believe it would have been 'all good and well', and enough to clear himself, if they would otherwise have considered his actions on the night suspicious, or 'very strange'. And with this 'one chance and one chance only' to secure a lasting impression of himself as a decent, law-abiding citizen, he nearly blows it all with a silly false name that nobody would know him by?

Surely some mistake!

Love,

Caz
X