Was Lech known as Cross at Pickfords??

[harry]

If Cross had said to Paul,"There is a drunken woman lying there",I doubt Paul would have stopped.That's all the clever kiler Cross had to do.Instead we are led to believe he did the opposite.He stopped Paul and drew attention to a dead or dying woman,and in consequence to himself.
What Cross did is indicative of innocence,not guilt.

[Robert St Devil]

I don,t have the answers to your questions, Fisherman . Suspicions became audible while reading thru The Echo press reports.

3 September 1888, Mary Nichol,s inquest: The Carman's Story

Charles Cross states, " I heard a man come up behind, in the same direction as I was going. He was about thirty or forty yards behind then. I stepped back to await his arrival. When he came, I said to him, "Come and look over here. There's a woman." We then both went over to the body. He stooped one side of her, and I stooped the other, and took hold of her hand, which was cold. Her face was warm. I said to the man, "I believe the woman is dead." The other man at the same time, put his hand on her breast over her heart..." (emphasis my own)

That should be physically impossible unless i,m not understanding ,stooping,. Polly is lying lengthwise aside Mr. Brown,s gate. According to PC Neil, her left hand is touching the gate.

In this positioning of her body against the gate, how is one man feeling her face and hands while the other man feels her heart and arranges her clothes?

[Pcdunn]

I don,t have the answers to your questions, Fisherman . Suspicions became audible while reading thru The Echo press reports.

3 September 1888, Mary Nichol,s inquest: The Carman's Story

Charles Cross states, " I heard a man come up behind, in the same direction as I was going. He was about thirty or forty yards behind then. I stepped back to await his arrival. When he came, I said to him, "Come and look over here. There's a woman." We then both went over to the body. He stooped one side of her, and I stooped the other, and took hold of her hand, which was cold. Her face was warm. I said to the man, "I believe the woman is dead." The other man at the same time, put his hand on her breast over her heart..." (emphasis my own)

That should be physically impossible unless i,m not understanding ,stooping,. Polly is lying lengthwise aside Mr. Brown,s gate. According to PC Neil, her left hand is touching the gate.

In this positioning of her body against the gate, how is one man feeling her face and hands while the other man feels her heart and arranges her clothes?

I think the illustration from the time showed Polly lying at least an arm's length distance from the gate to the yard.
Stooping may mean standing, but bending at the waist to reach something on the ground. I don't think it means kneeling or squatting, in this context.

[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?

I don't really have a good answer to your questions, other than if he didn't kill Nichols I would speculate the following:

1. He didn't know she was dead until he saw the article.

2. Mizen obviously didn't believe them and thought Nichols was just drunk. Besides why would he rush if he thought another PC was there?

Columbo

[Columbo]

If they were in cahoots with each other, Robert - why would Paul speak to the press and give away the story...? Why would they seek out a PC and tell him about the woman in Bucks Row?

I donīt think there was any blood on the killers hands, to be honest. The abdominal blood would have sunk into the abdominal cavity, and the pressure would go away. And just like you say, if Lechmere was the killer, then he had no blood on his palms, given that there was no blood found on Nicholsī face or hands - a good observation!

Leopold and Lobe. One liked talking to the press and cops which helped them get caught.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

Leopold and Lobe. One liked talking to the press and cops which helped them get caught.

Columbo

Yes, but not only is it a total exception, it didnīt go down as they made their escape, did it?

[Fisherman]

I stated I accepted it and I do. It's up to others decide if it holds water or not.

I already apologized. I read into something. No sarcasm. No taunt. My bad.

Apology accepted - it happens. Good to have it cleared up.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: A misunderstanding explains that equally as well, as does simple dereliction of duty.

However I settle for the misunderstanding:

Mizen misunderstands what he is told, and believes it to be unimportant, probably just another drunk, he carries on knocking up.

When he does arrive he finds police on site, and realizes his mistake, and tries to blur the events.

You will not agree I am sure, but the above allows for all the actions of those involved, and is plausible.

Plausible? Not totally implausible, perhaps. But the gist of the matter is that it is LESS plausible than ny suggestion. People NORMALLY do not mishear, and PC:s with excellent records NORMALLY do not make themselves guilty of protocol breach.

And this is what the whole debate is about - likelihoods. If Mike Tyson takes a punch at the chin of a ten year old girl, it is more likely that she will go down than that she will keep standing.

But she MAY keep standing.

However, it is complelety disingenuous to claim that we simply cannot weigh the matter beforehand - because we CAN do so, based on experience. The exact same applies here.

I could be right. You could be right. But I stand the much better chance of being right.

I can argue that Hitler was a nice guy, that black bears can fly and that Mount Everest was built by Dutch settlers, and you wonīt be able to decisively prove me wrong. Big deal!

[John Wheat]

I can argue that Hitler was a nice guy

Arguing Hitler is a nice guy is like arguing Lechmere was the Ripper.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;398979]

A misunderstanding explains that equally as well, as does simple dereliction of duty.

However I settle for the misunderstanding:

Mizen misunderstands what he is told, and believes it to be unimportant, probably just another drunk, he carries on knocking up.

When he does arrive he finds police on site, and realizes his mistake, and tries to blur the events.

Hi Steve,

Some questions for you here, if you do not mind.

1. What was the "mistake" made by Mizen, according to you - continuing to knock up people?

2. Do you think that this idea / historical fact (if you want to establish it as such), i.e. that he did so, has a substancial significance, or is the significance a lightweight significance?

3. Based on what statements in the sources - i.e. what do you base the significance on exactly and why?

4. How extensive in time was that continuation to knock up people?

5. Based on what statements in the sources?

Thank you, Steve.

Best wishes, Pierre

[Pierre]

Arguing Hitler is a nice guy is like arguing Lechmere was the Ripper.

But the historical problem with that comparison is that some people during the lifetime of Hitler did think he was a nice guy.

That is just an historical fact for which there are historical sources.

But there are no historical sources showing us that anyone thought that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper.

[Elamarna]

Plausible? Not totally implausible, perhaps. But the gist of the matter is that it is LESS plausible than ny suggestion. People NORMALLY do not mishear, and PC:s with excellent records NORMALLY do not make themselves guilty of protocol breach.

.

It is less plausible to you. Not to others

People do mishear, often in my experience

I am not however claiming just mishearing, but of course that can come into play; rather I am talking about comprehension,understanding.


People in all walks of life make protocol mistakes everyday. That includes those with previously clean records.

However, it is complelety disingenuous to claim that we simply cannot weigh the matter beforehand - because we CAN do so, based on experience. The exact same applies here.

I would agree completely and of course no one is claiming anything like that.

Why you raise such a unrealistic example I do not know? It is certainly not comparable in any sense to scenario I proposed

I could be right. You could be right. But I stand the much better chance of being right.

Simple opinion

I can argue that Hitler was a nice guy, that black bears can fly and that Mount Everest was built by Dutch settlers, and you wonīt be able to decisively prove me wrong. Big deal!

Fisherman, what really poor examples to quote:



Bears cannot fly, they do not have the required anatomical appendages to do so, or even to be able to glide.

Physics will demonstrate that such a claim is impossible.

And experience will show that this event has never been recorded, except where they are transported by plane as cargo.




Mount Everest can demonstrably be shown to have once been on the sea floor, sea fossils are found in its rocks, and this once ocean floor area can by the study of geology /tectonics be shown to have been forced up to its present height by the immense forces produced by the movement of the Indian subcontinental land mass north in to the Asian land mass.

Science will prove both examples are easily demonstrated to be untrue. And yes it is no big deal, its just reality.




your first example is far better, being a personal observation on an historic person,and using a subjective term such as "nice".
There is indeed anecdotal evidence that he was nice to Dogs and children.

However the evidence of the 1946 War Crimes trials would suggest that given he was the head of a regime which conducted crimes against humanity he was extremely unlikely to have been "nice" in an overall sense, as judge by most people.



Steve

[John Wheat]

But the historical problem with that comparison is that some people during the lifetime of Hitler did think he was a nice guy.

That is just an historical fact for which there are historical sources.

But there are no historical sources showing us that anyone thought that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper.

I agree Pierre I was merely pointing out how ridiculous it is to say Lechmere was JTR.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

Elamarna

It is less plausible to you. Not to others.

Sorry, but you are wrong. There have been many experiments made in this discipline, and it is very clear that people will normally not mishear or misunderstand. It happens, yes, but it is far less likely.
We should also consider that Mizen was a professional of the game - he would have heard panicking people, drunk people, foreign peiople and people with speech impediments talking to him, and it would have been an important thing for him to get things right. It was part of his professional role.

In order to entertain an idea of equal chances of Mizen mishearing/misunderstading as him getting it right, we must accept that people mishear/misunderstand half of that they hear.

Do they, Steve? Honestly?

People do mishear, often in my experience

Fifty per cent of the occasions? Because thatīs what you need to get on an equal footing.

I am not however claiming just mishearing, but of course that can come into play; rather I am talking about comprehension,understanding.

Fifty per cent of the times? No.


People in all walks of life make protocol mistakes everyday. That includes those with previously clean records.

You are making one right now, so I am not saying it never happens. People CAN and WILL mistake things - but they are far less likely NOT to. Itīs a given thing.


Simple opinion

No, a very qualified truth, no opinion at all.


Fisherman, what really poor examples to quote:

Not at all - I wanted to reach the extremes to exemplify the folly of your argument.

Bears cannot fly, they do not have the required anatomical appendages to do so, or even to be able to glide.

Put them in a plane, and they will.

Didnīt see that one coming, did you?

Physics will demonstrate that such a claim is impossible.

Not at all, Steve.

And experience will show that this event has never been recorded, except where they are transported by plane as cargo.

Ah - you did see it coming!


Mount Everest can demonstrably be shown to have once been on the sea floor, sea fossils are found in its rocks, and this once ocean floor area can by the study of geology /tectonics be shown to have been forced up to its present height by the immense forces produced by the movement of the Indian subcontinental land mass north in to the Asian land mass.

I think that is just a hoax. Were you there when it happened? No. And Dutch settlers are very hardworking people.

You see, I CAN drive some sort of bargain nevertheless. A bad one - like yours. But you donīt seem to mind?
What I am saying is that we should not deny that things weigh in favour of Mizen having been lied to. Statistics tell us that this was probably so.


Science will prove both examples are easily demonstrated to be untrue. And yes it is no big deal, its just reality.

So is the fact that we normally hear and understand what we are told. But this you deny?

[Elamarna]

1. What was the "mistake" made by Mizen, according to you - continuing to knock up people?

Pierre, it is only an alternative suggestion.

The "mistake" is more of a misunderstanding, it goes that when told there was a woman lying in the street and Bucks row and he was needed, he interpreted that he was being requested by another person, a police officer, and the situation was not serious..

Due to his assumption the case was already being taken care of he continued on his duties on his way to Bucks Row. He did not proceed as if it was an emergency of any kind.
Upon his arrival at the site the conversation with Neil, allowed him to realize that that no officer had called for him.

He then covered up his failure to proceed as a matter of urgency.

It gives a plausible version of events.

2. Do you think that this idea / historical fact (if you want to establish it as such), i.e. that he did so, has a substancial significance, or is the significance a lightweight significance?

Certainly not an historic fact, this is purely hypothesis/idea.

The significance is that it would explain why he said he was told another Officer was already there, and why he carried on slowly, and allow for the statements of Lechmere and Paul, in itself it is small.



However to the differing theories of yourself and Fisherman I would contend that it is highly significant if it could be established.

However looking at the available data, I see no way of doing such. The data in the sources is not consistent, and therefore some or all of it may be viewed as unreliable.


The irresolvable issue being which?

3. Based on what statements in the sources - i.e. what do you base the significance on exactly and why?

Based purely on the contradictory inquest statements,


From Mizens testimony:

" said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body. "


In addition, the Evening news quotes Mizen as saying he was told:

"You are wanted in Buck's-row."



From Lechmere:

"whom they informed that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row. Witness said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on."



and

"Replying to the coroner, witness denied having seen Police-constable Neil in Buck's-row. There was nobody there when he and the other man left. In his opinion deceased looked as if she had been outraged and gone off in a swoon; but he had no idea that there were any serious injuries."


And in response to a question from the Jury:

"A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?
Witness: No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row."





We not only a disagreement about who was requesting help:

Mizen that a police officer had requested his assistance. (and the Evening News quote does raise the question of exactly what Mizen beleived he had been told).


Lechmere that he was simply needed.




We also have a disagreement about the state of the woman,

Mizen that a woman was simply lying,

Lechmere that she was lying, either dead or drunk, and later that he had no idea there were serious injuries.


Paul's inquest testimony is far less informative;, although his newspaper article is more revealing:

"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 common ground between Lechmere and Paul is that Mizen appeared not to take much notice of what he was told and carried on with what he was doing.





The testimonies cannot all be correct, so we either have either:



1. Your view, which I agree is viable, if we accept your theory.


2. Fishermans theory, which also is viable if Mizen is telling the truth.


3. My suggestion, which allows for an initial misunderstanding which is compounded at a later date by false testimony.



There does appear to be a latitude in the testimony which could show a misunderstand:

At least in one report Mizen does not say he is requested by a police officer, just that he is needed,

Similarly while Lechmere says he believes she may have been dead,he also says she could be drunk.

He later says he was not aware of injuries, just how clear was he?



What appears to be undeniable is that Mizen, carried on with what he was doing, and did not show any urgency in responding.




I do not see any way in which one could construct an hypothesis which does not have someone not being economic with the truth.

If that person is Mizen the parts of the theories based on his testimony must fail.

4. How extensive in time was that continuation to knock up people?

According to Mizen, if my memory serves right, a matter of a few minutes, Not significant in itself, but people often do invent and cover up, when they make mistakes.

We see it here all the time , do we not?

5. Based on what statements in the sources?

Sorry Pierre, I cannot at the moment find the source which gives an idea of how long Mizen continued Knocking up, that is not in itself significant i believe.





Steve