Was Lech known as Cross at Pickfords??

[Fisherman]

If you had read up, Sally, you would have known that even Edward was amazed as he counted them - he was originally of the meaning that they were fewer, and so you will be correct that a lower number has been stated before.

But that has changed, and Edward has told why, on these boards.

"You will not find 90 signatures Fisherman - at least, its highly doubtful. You may find the name Lechmere cited on several classes of document. That is not the same thing. The value of such citations to your argument will depend on their context. "

This too is something Edward has stated - some of the occasions are cited. But if he has not signed himself, one must assume that "Cross" was not what the people who DID sign heard. Each and every instance the name Lechmere is mentioned is thus a celebration of what you have been told many times - that this was the name he AND others knew him by.

"however many instances of officialdom you produce, you still cannot know whether he called himself Cross colloquially."

That is very, very true. And it is also true that the onus of proof lies on you if you wish to state that he called himself Cross at any stage. What CAN and HAS been said is that the members of the Lechmere family that have been spoken to in this regard do not have any recollection of any of the Lechmeres calling themselves Cross at any stage. And that is really as far as anybody can go when it comes to colloquially used names, since such names are not listed.
The second you find proof that he DID call himself Cross colloquially and in connection with murder investigations where he risked to become a suspect, I will listen with great interest. And you have every reason to look cheerfully on the task since half of that job has already been taken care of!

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

Liar liar pants on fire

Hi All,

I'm back! And what's this I see? Dirty great holes in the Mizen scam theory, dug by none other than Fishy & Lech, when they talk about his astonishing lack of co-operation and downright mendacity, in the immediate wake of this horrific case of murder and mutilation.

Let's get this straight: two carmen alert PC Mizen to a possibly drunk, possibly dead woman lying in Buck's Row. At that point it's fair enough to say he did not anticipate a murder having been committed, let alone in a fashion that would compete for brutality and horror with Tabram's, just three weeks previously. But in next to no time he would find that out for himself.

But instead of immediately reporting to his superiors with full details of his own involvement with the two witnesses, he says nothing at all about it, and when asked he tells the blatant lie that he saw nobody coming from Buck's Row trying to attract attention? He attempts to 'cover his tracks' for letting the men proceed without taking any identifying details, then failing to go straight to a (possibly) dying woman's aid?

If this is what the evidence tells us, then for pity's sake how can anything Mizen said be used against either Paul or Cross? They would have been the means by which he was caught out in a very serious omission about the night's events! Would he ever have admitted being approached by either man, if Paul hadn't blabbed about it first, followed by Cross going to the police with a similar account?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz.

"I'm back!"

Hooray!!!

"And what's this I see? Dirty great holes in the Mizen scam theory, dug by none other than Fishy & Lech, when they talk about his astonishing lack of co-operation and downright mendacity, in the immediate wake of this horrific case of murder and mutilation."

Ha ha! You´d wish, Caz!

"Let's get this straight"

Yes, let´s - the sooner, the better!

"Two carmen alert PC Mizen to a possibly drunk, possibly dead woman lying in Buck's Row."

Nope. Two carmen alert PC Mizen to a woman that has been found lying in Buck´s Row. I am listening to Mizen on this, and he says nothing about having been told that the errand was a severe one - which is in keeping with Lechmere´s attitude all over.

"At that point it's fair enough to say he did not anticipate a murder having been committed, let alone in a fashion that would compete for brutality and horror with Tabram's, just three weeks previously. But in next to no time he would find that out for himself."

Ah, Caz - you speak the words of truth. This was EXACTLY so.

"But instead of immediately reporting to his superiors with full details of his own involvement with the two witnesses, he says nothing at all about it, and when asked he tells the blatant lie that he saw nobody coming from Buck's Row trying to attract attention?"

Yep. That is it.

"He attempts to 'cover his tracks' for letting the men proceed without taking any identifying details, then failing to go straight to a (possibly) dying woman's aid?"

Ah, Caz - but you forget that he did NOT know that she was possibly dead, since nobody told him that. He complaints at the inquest that the carman said nothing about a murder or suicide, and this is because he is consternated - if the carman was truthful and a PC colleague of his WAS in place in Buck´s Row, then the carman would realistically have been told what was afoot - and still, he only says that Mizen is wanted in Buck´s Row, where a woman was lying.

You see, Caz, Lechmere has no interest at all of telling Mizen the severity of the situation, since that could make the good PC crave that Lechmere follows him back to the spot. Instead he paints a picture that tells Mizen that there is a woman in Buck´s Row who is so inebriated that she can´t stand on her own two feet - a standard problem that will not cause Mizen to think twice about letting the carmen pass, checked out as they must have been by that trustworthy colleague of his.

Lechmere scammed Mizen with ease, Caz - and now you are allowing him to make a fool out of you, 124 years down the line. It still works!

"If this is what the evidence tells us, then for pity's sake how can anything Mizen said be used against either Paul or Cross?"

Mizen would probably have realized that he had made a fool of himself by not halting the carmen or at least taking their names down, and he would have hoped (in vain) not to be revealed for what he did. It was an understandable mistake, and a very clever ploy on Lechmere´s behalf. But it does not make Mizen a man we cannot trust at all; he comes clear at the inquest, and if he had been a liar, he could simply have denied everything. This he does not - he instead tells the story.

"They would have been the means by which he was caught out in a very serious omission about the night's events!"

Yes, they would.

"Would he ever have admitted being approached by either man, if Paul hadn't blabbed about it first, followed by Cross going to the police with a similar account?"

Initially no, I think we may safely rely on that. After some time, a sore conscience may have prompted him to spill the beans, but it is of course no certain thing. What worries me here is that somebody should say "We can´t rely on Mizen, so HE must have been the one who scammed Lechmere!". That does not follow at all - Mizen got to keep his job, it seems, and therefore, I think that he DID perhaps come clean at a late stage, possibly in the window of time between the Helson/Neil press conference and the moment when Lechmere set foot in the cop shop.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

It should be remembered that Mizen was from a different division to Helson and Neil and that will not have helped communications.

[DVV]

I think that he DID perhaps come clean at a late stage, possibly in the window of time between the Helson/Neil press conference and the moment when Lechmere set foot in the cop shop.
Fisherman

And now Mizen....

That Sunday evening starts resembling an overloaded donkey, my friend.

[DVV]

Hi Caroline

If this is what the evidence tells us, then for pity's sake how can anything Mizen said be used against either Paul or Cross? They would have been the means by which he was caught out in a very serious omission about the night's events!
Caz
X

Exactly.
And what would be the reason for such an omission ?
Wasting one or two minutes, at worst, knocking-up people...
As far as we can make out, Mizen reached Bucks Row only seconds after Thain.
Was Mizen fool enough to cover something absolutely negligible by a serious offence ?
To this question the Lechmere-the-Ripper theory has to answer : Yes - as unlikely as it seems.

[Fisherman]

David:

"That Sunday evening starts resembling an overloaded donkey, my friend."

Keep trying, David!

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

You know I'm doing my best.

[Fisherman]

David:

"As far as we can make out, Mizen reached Bucks Row only seconds after Thain."

After Thain LEFT presumably? And we may speak of a minute or two here. Or seconds.

"Was Mizen fool enough to cover something absolutely negligible by a serious offence ?"

I don´t think that he covered the time loss only, David - it would have dawned on him that letting two men slip past him without even asking theri names when somebody has been murdred is not a good idea. And he will have had things happening on him, in an unlucky chain of events, stumbling when trying to make the best decisions. It must have been a very confusing night for him.

"To this question the Lechmere-the-Ripper theory has to answer : Yes - as unlikely as it seems."

When the evidence clearly tells us that the unexpected (well...) has happoened, then I am pretty much a sucker for such things. I try to stay away from trying to "mend" the evidence or twist it into saomnething that it is not.
Mizen was asked about whether he had seen any men leaving Buck´s Row. We know this, since it is in the evidence.
He denied that this had happened. We know this, since it is in the evidence.

You seemingly prefer to believe that this never happened, since it shudd not have.

Well, David, **** happens.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David:

"You know I'm doing my best."

Then you are not trying hard enough. Or you are doing your best to look away from the evidence - I can buy that, Sunny!

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

David:

Mizen was asked about whether he had seen any men leaving Buck´s Row. We know this, since it is in the evidence.
He denied that this had happened. We know this, since it is in the evidence.

You seemingly prefer to believe that this never happened, since it shudd not have.
Fisherman

Hi Fish,
I don't know what you're talking about. Mizen never denied having been alerted by two men, who, obviously, came from what would soon turn out to be a crime scene... in Bucks Row.

[Fisherman]

Sly one, David!

Then again, I did not write that he HAD denied "being alerted by two men who came from Buck´s Row", did I? I instead wrote that he denied having seen any men leaving Buck´s Row. And that is why we have it on print that neither of the PC:s who guarded the in- and outlets of Buck´s Row, and who were signalled by Neil, admitted to having seen any men drawing attention to themselves while entering or leaving Buck´s Row at a time relevant to the murder.

But why do you nitpick like this? And if you must, why not look at what I read instead of feeding it to me in false retrospective? Sure enough, if/when Mizen was faced with the knowledge of his superors that two carmen HAD left Buck´s Row in his direction and that they DID claim to have spoken to him (one of them, that is), then he would not have denied this. But he DID earlier deny the more anonymous suggestion that ANYBODY should have left Buck´s Row. That is apparent, wouldn´t you say?

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Sly one, David!

Then again, I did not write that he HAD denied "being alerted by two men who came from Buck´s Row", did I? I instead wrote that he denied having seen any men leaving Buck´s Row. And that is why we have it on print that neither of the PC:s who guarded the in- and outlets of Buck´s Row, and who were signalled by Neil, admitted to having seen any men drawing attention to themselves while entering or leaving Buck´s Row at a time relevant to the murder.

But why do you nitpick like this? And if you must, why not look at what I read instead of feeding it to me in false retrospective? Sure enough, if/when Mizen was faced with the knowledge of his superors that two carmen HAD left Buck´s Row in his direction and that they DID claim to have spoken to him (one of them, that is), then he would not have denied this. But he DID earlier deny the more anonymous suggestion that ANYBODY should have left Buck´s Row. That is apparent, wouldn´t you say?

The best,
Fisherman

Fish, I just can repeat : what are you talking about ?
Mizen admitted having been alerted by two men, and took place where you know it took place.
Then he went to Bucks Row, and crossed nobody coming from there. And as you said, he neither saw any suspicious men leaving or entering Bucks Row that night.
All that is quite simple. What's the point you're trying to make ?

[Fisherman]

When did he admit so, David?

Did he at any time deny having met any man who´d attract attention to himself leaving Buck´s Row, David?

Clearing up, eh?

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Abbey
Sorry for not answering about the other murders - I think it need a fresh thread though.

Hi Lech
will do.