Was Lech known as Cross at Pickfords??

[DVV]

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

ALL probability? Yikes!
Fisherman

Hi Fish,

then Lechmere-the-Ripper read the Lloyds at tea time, and realizing how compromising was Paul's interview (which, by the way, never made Lechmere a suspect), rushed to the nearest station, where, in order to hide his identity, he gave the name of his stepfather.

All very convincing.

[Fisherman]

You know, David, I īve heard the exact same arguments from other posters before, so I wonīt answer it all again. Instead, I will tell you that I donīt find it very convincing that he used the name Cross colloquially and at Pickfordīs, while having "LECHMERE" written on his postbox - especially since we have not a iota of evidence that tells us that he EVER used that name otherwise - I donīt find it very convincing that Mizen would have gotten the scam all wrong, I donīt find it very convincing that Lechmere would have chosen Hanbury Street if he was pressed for time, I donīt find it very convincing that Nicholīs killer would cover HER wounds, but none of the otherīs, I donīt find it very convincing that Lechmere would feel Nichols for warmth but deny helping to prop her up if he had no reason for this, I donīt find it very convincing that the police would have found him at work, bringing him to the inquest clad in working clothes, and I donīt find it very convincing that he - by a wicked stroke of bad luck - should happen to have all the following murders occur along routes he had reason to travel on an everyday basis.

Cutting it short, I donīt find you convincing. I find you join the choir of naysayers who make it their business to point out that all of these things MAY have alternative explanations. And thatīs your prerogative. But then again, you KNOW that Hutchinson was not Toppy. Or you claim so.

Consequential?

I think not.

Correction - I KNOW not.

When you find a way to make things like these work nicely together, I will listen to you with a lot more respect. As it stands, no. Thatīs MY prerogative.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Here is what was printed in the Daily News on Monday, compiled and written on the Sunday, with my comments:

"Police constable Neil, 79 J, who found the body (NOTICE THAT NO CARMEN ARE MENTIONED - NEIL FOUND THE BODY), reports the time as 3.45. Buck's row is a comparatively secluded place, having tenements on one side only. There is little doubt that the constable was watched out of the street on his previous round. He has been severely questioned (FOR SOME REASON!) as to his "working" of his "beat" on that night, and states that he was last on the spot where he found the body not more than half an hour previously - that is to say, at 3.15. The "beat" is a very short one, and, quickly walked over, would not occupy more than twelve minutes. He neither heard a cry not saw a soul. Moreover, there are three watchmen on duty at night close to the spot and neither one heard a cry to cause alarm. It is not true, says Constable Neil, who is a man of nearly 20 years' service, that he was called to the body by two men (AND WE KNOW WHO THESE TWO MEN WOULD BE! THEY WERE WRITTEN ABOUT IN A LLOYDS WEEKLY ARTICLE ON THE DAY BEFORE THIS ARTICLE). He came upon it as he walked, and, flashing his lanthorn to examine it he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the street (AND HERE HE SPEAKS OF THAIN AND MIZEN!). These officers had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention (WHICH OFFERS SOME SORT OF ALIBI FOR MIZEN NOT HAVING COME CLEAR; MAYBE HE DID NOT CONSIDER THAT LECHMERE AND PAUL "ATTRACTED ATTENTION", BUT AT ANY RATE, HE HAD OBVIOUSLY NOT SPILLED THE BEANS YET), and the mystery is most complete."

All very simple, and any claims that it would have been very strange if Mizen had not come clear about the carmen are effectively put to rest. Itīs as always - a logical argument is quashed by the evidence. Mizen said nada - or he DID speak, and found universal support from his superiors that the carmen were not worth mentioning.

Take your pick!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Before anybody comes up with the ingenious idea that the Lloyds Weekly article would give away that only Mizen, and not Neil, could have been the PC the carmen spoke to, and that therefore Jonas Mizen would have been raked over the coals in combination with the publication of the Lloyds Weekly interview, we need to take a look at what it said, exactly, about the carmenīs search for a PC to communicate their find to. And here it is:

"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."

Are Bakerīs Row and Hanbury Street mentioned? Nope. Instead, "Church Row" is spoken of, and Paul specifies that it went down "just at the top of Buckīs Row" - which was Neilīs beat, and not Mizenīs. Small wonder then, that NEIL and NOT Mizen was the man who was asked about the revelations Paul had spoken of in Lloydīs Weekly. And equally small wonder if the police were very uncertain about the truthfulness of Paul - their own man, subjected to "severe questioning" absolutely denied such a thing. And this questioning would have been something Neil would never had had to endure if Lechmere had come forward on Friday or Saturday or early Sunday - it was not until he did so that the misconceptions were cleared up, by the looks of things.

Once again quite, quite simple. And Mizen, not having recorded the names of the men, would have been none too happy about the state of affairs ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Dvv
The police gave their account of what transpired to the press - that account was that Neil discovered the body. The two carmen do not feature. The police chose to tell the press what they thought had happened. It is as simple as that.
I am afraid it is utterly impossible for Charles Lechmere to have given his statement on Friday.

[DVV]

I find you join the choir of naysayers who make it their business to point out that all of these things MAY have alternative explanations. And thatīs your prerogative. But then again, you KNOW that Hutchinson was not Toppy. Or you claim so.
Fisherman

Actually, Fish, I did not join anybody, but I just find the Lloyds-theory COMPLETELY unconvincing, for reasons already given.
But since you were unable to counter my arguments, you just can accuse me of being a "naysayer". As you like.

However, you're not a fool because you believe in Lechmere, Fish. And I'm not a naysayer because I consider highly unlikely that Mizen had concealed his Friday night encounter with two carmen to his colleagues and superiors, nor because I consider equally improbable that Lechmere rushed to the station right after the publication of an interview in the Lloyds - which interview, as already pointed out, never made him a suspect.

Hutchinson ? What is he doing there ?

[Fisherman]

David:

"since you were unable to counter my arguments"

Not unable, David - unwilling. Just as I pointed out, the questions you ask have been answered umpteen times already. So I must ask you to do the job yourself and read the threads. Repeating everything ad nauseum would not be a good thing to do. Read - itīs there, each and every counterargument to all you have thrown forward.

"you're not a fool because you believe in Lechmere, Fish"

Indeed not!

"I'm not a naysayer because I consider highly unlikely that Mizen had concealed his Friday night encounter with two carmen to his colleagues and superiors"

You only have to go back a single post to see you are wrong. Itīs all there, in black and white.

"nor because I consider equally improbable that Lechmere rushed to the station right after the publication of an interview in the Lloyds"

He very apparently did, as outlined schedulewise in the clearest in manners by the press. Once again, go one step back and read up.

"which interview, as already pointed out, never made him a suspect."

Crafty stuff, David! No, he was never a suspect - but having it pointed out that he had stood by Nichols, having had time alone with her SHOULD of course have made him a suspect at any rate. That he apparently never became so was NOT because Paulīs inteview cleared him in any fashion at all.

Think, David. Read and think. And do NOT start by thinking "what is the most logical chain of events?", for a serial killer is not logical from the outset. Change the preconceived notions and all of them cudda-shudda-wuddaīs for what the evidence tells you, and maybe - just maybe - you will see the light.

Fisherman
with high hopes

[Fisherman]

By the bye, David, here are some questions for YOU that have not been posed before:

Why would the police severely question Neil about his role? He must have said exactly what happened - that he found Nichols lying on the pavement, neck cut. Why would his colleagues not simply accept this?

Why would anybody suspect that Mizen would have been the PC Paul spoke of, given that Paul stated that he found his PC at the end of Buckīs Row?

Why would it not all have been cleared up on Sunday afternoon, if Lechmere had spoken to the police earlier? Why was it that the Daily News claimed that Neil fervently denied having spoken to two men? Why had HE and not Mizen been approached in the matter?

Why would it not all have been cleared up on Sundayt afternoon if Mizen had spoken to his superiors about the two carmen on Friday or Saturday?

Why did the police say that the two PC:s who had covered the entrances to Buckīs Row had said that they had not seen any strange men leaving the street if this was not so? Did the police lie about this? Had Mizen spilled the beans, whereas the police had kept it under wraps? If so, why?

Any ideas?

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Oh, dear Fish, now you start preaching.

See you in Hyde Park... Speaker's Corner...

[Fisherman]

...and THAT is what happens when dear David has no answer to offer.

Then I am "desperate" or "preaching".

Pssst, David: It shows! Big time...

Come on now; answer the questions, please?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Then again, no answer at all is ALSO an answer, of course...!

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Please Fish, read your questions again...these are not questions... It's a mess, really.

[DVV]

Then again, no answer at all is ALSO an answer, of course...!

The best,
Fisherman

Last time you destroyed my nap, today my diner.

Chill, mate

[Fisherman]

Thank you, David! It was exactly the answer I hoped for!

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Re-reading the Daily News of Monday 3rd September I realise that PC Neil’s denial that he had been called to the crime scene by two passers occurred at some sort of press conference held on Sunday evening – 2nd September. The same ‘press conference’ revealed that at that time the police still thought that Polly was discovered by Neil.
The ‘press conference’ seems to have been attended by Inspector Helson and PC Neil himself. Here is the transcript as recorded in the Daily News:

Inspector Helson, at an interview yesterday evening, said that the report that blood stains were found leading from Brady street to Buck's row was not true. The place was examined by Sergeant Enright and himself on Friday morning, and neither bloodstains nor wheel marks were found to indicate that the body had been deposited where found, the murder being committed elsewhere. Both himself and Inspector Abberline, indeed, had come to the conclusion that it was committed on the spot. That conclusion was fortified by the post mortem examination made by Dr. Llewellyn. At first the small quantity of blood found on the spot suggested that the woman was murdered in a neighbouring house. Dr. Llewellyn, however, is understood to have satisfied himself that the great quantity of blood which must have followed the gashes in the abdomen flowed into the abdominal cavity, but he maintains his opinion that the first wounds were those in the throat, and they would have effectually prevented any screaming. The blood from those wounds Inspector Helson considers was held by the dress and the ulster, and it is evident, from that view of the matter, that the woman was lying on her back when her throat was cut. It is, moreover, considered unlikely that the woman could have entered a house, have been murdered, and have been removed to Buck's row within a period of an hour and a quarter. The woman who last saw the deceased alive - and whose name is Nelly Holland - was a fellow lodger with the deceased in Thrawl street, and is positive as to the time being 2.30. Police constable Neil, 79 J, who found the body, reports the time as 3.45. Buck's row is a comparatively secluded place, having tenements on one side only. There is little doubt that the constable was watched out of the street on his previous round. He has been severely questioned as to his "working" of his "beat" on that night, and states that he was last on the spot where he found the body not more than half an hour previously - that is to say, at 3.15. The "beat" is a very short one, and, quickly walked over, would not occupy more than twelve minutes. He neither heard a cry not saw a soul. Moreover, there are three watchmen on duty at night close to the spot and neither one heard a cry to cause alarm. It is not true, says Constable Neil, who is a man of nearly 20 years' service, that he was called to the body by two men. He came upon it as he walked, and, flashing his lanthorn to examine it he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the street. These officers had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention, and the mystery is most complete. Nevertheless, the utmost efforts are being used, a number of plain clothes men being out making inquiries in the neighbourhood, and Sergeants Wright and Godley have interviewed many persons who might, it was thought, assist in giving a clue. The inquest is to be resumed today, but must rather hamper the action of the police, whose whole time is required to trace any information whilst the scent, if any, is still fresh. The deceased, it is understood, will be buried tomorrow.

This tells us that at the time this 'press conference' was conducted (Sunday evening, 2nd September), Helson and Neil were still in ignorance about Charles Lechmere’s role. I would suggest that the 'press conference' was conducted after the Lloyds story appeared. This clears up the mystery about how the ‘two men’ came to the police’s attention.

I had (again mistakenly!) assumed that the reference to ‘two men’ had leaked out on the Saturday following Paul’s interview on the Friday. However it is actually clearly the case that the Helson/Neil 'press conference' happened after the appearance of the Lloyds story which would have been in the late afternoon of 2nd September.
Charles Lechmere must have appeared at the police station to give his statement more or less while this 'press conference' was being conducted!

Incidentally the same issue of this newspaper covered the Saturday 1st September session of the inquest. The proceedings concluded in this manner:

This being the whole of the evidence to be taken that day, Inspector Abberline asked for an adjournment of some length,, as certain things were coming to the knowledge of the police, and they wished for time to make inquiries.
The coroner replied that he should like to hear on Monday the two butchers who had been referred to, as well as evidence as to the departure of the deceased from the situation at Wandsworth.
Inspector Abberline - The butchers have been summoned.
Inspector Helsby remarked that the deceased's departure from her situation at Wandsworth had to do with a case of larceny. The evidence for which the Coroner asked should be produced. A juryman - Can we have the husband?
Inspector Abberline - Yes, sir.

Again, nothing there about the real discoverer of Polly being called.

The Times report of 3rd September gives a similar account. It is more ambiguous about when this statement was made:

It is not true, says Constable Neil, who is a man of nearly 20 years' service, that he was called to the body by two men.

This led me to believe that it was part of his inquest statement but the Daily News makes it clear that this was not the case.