Chas Lechmere/Cross/Crass/Brass/Glass/etc

[Fisherman]

I’m saying that in the particular & very risky situation he’d gotten himself into – an outdoor situation with a killer, a victim a possible witness and coppers being close by – he was extremely lucky to get away without him having too much influence on this outcome. Plus I believe that there are only few examples of similar cases - but I may be wrong there
I see what you mean but don’t completely agree with you here, Fish. If Cross would have paid enough attention to his surroundings, he would have noticed Paul earlier and wouldn’t have been exposed to the risks that situation obviously and irrevocably carried. So, he mainly had himself to blame for all of the things that weren’t on his wish list.I agree that stepping back & waiting for Paul did involve risks and he may well have gotten nervous over that, but the bottom line is that nothing actually did go awry on his way from the crime scene until he had left Mizen behind him (and even beyond that).

The best,
Frank

Once again, people sometimes ARE lucky. It belongs to the picture. And I donīt really think that he was either A/"extremely" lucky or B/ able to only influence the situation in a minor way.
On the contrary.
He checked Paul out, realized that he had not seen anything incriminating, and played him like a fiddle. Nobody came along as they were by the body, so they left. Maybe that was lucky to soe extent, but by and large, there was very little traffic on the street as witnessed by the policemen guarding it.
The they came to Mizen, and he lied himself past the PC with a seemingly inconspicous story. Not very lucky at all - and totally rules by Lechmere.

So no, I donīt agree, Iīm afraid. Some good luck, some bad luck - and a cool head, thatīs all.

And the stuff about him mainly being to blame? He chose between running or staying, and opted for the later since he believed that he ran the risk of getting caught running - if I am correct. There was no choice that involved no risks. Speaking about him having himself to blame for Paul being late ...? Not agreed either.

And things DID get awry, since Paul decided on trying to find a PC - that was not a good thing for Lechmere. Things got awry with the suggestion of a prop-up - not something Lechmere would have liked. There were the odd unwanted elements. But they were tended to with skill and very little drama occurred - thanks to Lechmereīs calm demeanor and cool head.

If he had ran, we would have had another game altogether.

No, Frank, we differ very much on these issues. But Iīm fine with that if you are.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Hello all .

Another odd thing for me is the time that a guilty Crossmere would have had at his disposal !

If we take as a guideline the Murder of Polly taking place just as the New cross Luggage train passes ( Harriet Lilley ) at 3.30am .

Then we look at Paul's "Exactly 3.45am as i was going up Bucks Row" .

That Would give Crossmere a rough 15 minutes to carry out his operation !

Baring in mind that The killer managed to carry out a hell of a lot more mutilations , dismemberment , and facial disfigurements on Catherine Eddows in Mitre square, all in apparently just under 10 minutes !

moonbegger.

[caz]

Hi All,

Given that PC Mizen carried on knocking up before proceeding to Buck's Row to find that the woman lying there had in fact been brutally murdered and mutilated, and he was needed to fetch an ambulance, he'd have had every reason to play down anything that was said to him by Cross (or Paul) about the woman being possibly dead. So it would be dangerous to infer that it was Cross playing this aspect down, out of Paul's earshot, for his own sinister purposes.

Furthermore, what would be the point of Cross playing down the seriousness of the affair, if he had just murdered Nichols and was sending PC Mizen back to the scene, where he would see for himself just how serious it was?

If Cross the ripper had PC Mizen all to himself, and could therefore have told him anything at all, did he really have to tell him about the woman he had just slaughtered, and where she could be found? Either Paul could have tracked him down later and exposed him as a liar, or he couldn't.

Love,

Caz
X

[FrankO]

Are you saying that Lechmere was luckier than any of the other known serialists?

I’m saying that in the particular & very risky situation he’d gotten himself into – an outdoor situation with a killer, a victim a possible witness and coppers being close by – he was extremely lucky to get away without him having too much influence on this outcome. Plus I believe that there are only few examples of similar cases - but I may be wrong there

How about Paul opting for fetching a PC? That would not have been on Lechmereīs wishlist - and not something he only had himself to blame for.

How about actually running into a PC? Same thing.

I see what you mean but don’t completely agree with you here, Fish. If Cross would have paid enough attention to his surroundings, he would have noticed Paul earlier and wouldn’t have been exposed to the risks that situation obviously and irrevocably carried. So, he mainly had himself to blame for all of the things that weren’t on his wish list.

There were a number of things that went awry for him, letīs not forget that.

I agree that stepping back & waiting for Paul did involve risks and he may well have gotten nervous over that, but the bottom line is that nothing actually did go awry on his way from the crime scene until he had left Mizen behind him (and even beyond that).

The best,
Frank

[Admin]

The Lechmere threads appear to be ground zero for the types of personality conflicts we are attempting to curtail on this board.

If you cannot keep yourselves from going personal in a debate, and going for the personal attack instead of arguing the subject, you may find yourself prohibited from posting on this particular topic or on the Casebook forum altogether.

If you have nothing of actual value to contribute to the conversation and are posting merely to take a swipe at another poster, you will be barred from the conversation.

This is the final warning we plan to give for some months to come, and we expect it to be remembered and followed:

Stop the personal attacks. Post on topic and relevantly.

Thank you.

[Mr Lucky]

Like I said -

For what ever reason, this difference appears to be something beyond your understanding, so yes perhaps we should just leave it at that.

Writing everything in bold is doing you no favours, either.

[Fisherman]

Mr Lucky:

"This is a grossly unfair allegation.

There is nothing similar about my claim that Cross gave his address at the inquest, and supporting my claims with the fact the it is clearly printed as part of his testimony, in the Star on the 3rd and your claims that Mizen tells us that Cross was in charge and Paul didn't speak.

Mizen doesn't 'tell us' that, it is something you have inferred."

But Mr Lucky, YOU infer that the Star mentioning Lechmereīs address is evidence to the effect that he gave it before an open court.

And in your case, ALL the other papers speak against this.

In my case, not even Lechmere speaks against himself being in charge! He himself makes it clear that he was the one speaking to Mizen, whereas Paul only filled in that he believed that the woman was dead. And he does not even do that in all sources, mind you!

Daily Telegraph:

" He and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's-row they met the last witness, 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."

That means that Lechmere did all the talking mentioned.

The Times:

"They went to Baker's-row, saw the last witness, and told him there was a woman lying down in Buck's-row on the broad of her back. Witness also said he believed she was dead or drunk, while the other man stated he believed her to be dead. The constable replied "All right."

Lechmere first fiddle, Paul second. Lechmere with the initiative, Paul filling in.

And when we listen to Mizen, he only mentions that Lechmere spoke to him. As per the Echo, there was another man present when the first man (Lechmere) spoke to him.

Present, Mr Lucky. Not speaking. Being there when man number one spoke to him.

A very good case can thus be made for Lechmere being the one in the driving seat. And a very good case can be made for the Star reporter picking the address up from a protocol.

But this comparison is all of a sudden a "grossly unfair allegation" ...???

Iīm sorry, Mr Lucky, but you are plain wrong. You may not LIKE the comparison, but it is a completely fair one.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Frank:

"Are you talking about just that morning, Fish, or the whole case (if we assume that he was the Ripper)?

If the former, then I think the only thing he had reason to curse was the fact that Paul came along. And if there were more things to curse, he only had himself to blame."

How about Paul opting for fetching a PC? That would not have been on Lechmereīs wishlist - and not something he only had himself to blame for.

How about actually running into a PC? Same thing.

There were a number of things that went awry for him, letīs not forget that.

I hope this helps: compare the Yorkshire Ripper etc. to someone who every now and then won the jackpot playing a slot machine, and Cross to someone who won the jackpot on, say, 5 different slot machines in one evening and 5 times in a row.

Are you saying that Lechmere was luckier than any of the other known serialists? I donīt think so. Apparently, Ridgway was able to spirit his victims away without anybody noticing. In Lechmereīs case, that backfired already with Nichols. And thatīs just one comparison that tells us that Lechmere was unlucky at times.
Anyhow, establishing mathematically (or-slot-a-matically) the amount of luck these men had visavi each other cannot be done. They ALL belonged to a group of people who killed and got away with it. In that respect they were all equally lucky - and there are many of them, so itīs not a rare thing to be a lucky serial killer, sadly.

The best,
Fisherman

[Mr Lucky]

Letīs just put this one out of itīs misery, Mr Lucky.

"That's your claim. that Mizen 'tells us' this, that there is a quote from Mizen that says "Cross was in charge, not Paul, - who did not even speak"

No again, Mr Lucky, I have never said that there is a quote from Mizen that says these exact words. I am saying that what Mizen tells us at the inquest, allows us to infer that "Cross" was the man he dealt with, and who was thus in charge of the carman company.
Nothing else.

This has you completely off balance, and you start going on about me having claimed that there is an exact quotation from Mizen saying "Cross was in charge, Paul did not speak".

After that, you top it off by on your own behalf claiming that it is clear that Lechmere stated his address in open court. This in spite of our (hopefully) combined knowledge that the only we thing we can be certain of is that the Star printed his address while no other paper managed to do so, not even in any corrupted form.

What we have is the address in the Star. Why it is there is not a settled thing. It can be EITHER because the Star reporter heard the address and reported it with exactly the correct spelling, whereas not one other reporter was able to pick up anything of it, and it can be because the Star reporter got the address from a protocol, whereas the others did not bother to do so. What we CAN say is that if your version is correct, then the occurrence as such is completely unique in the Ripper inquest saga.

At any rate, I find it interesting that you think it a useful idea to state that I have jumped the gun by claiming that there is a direct quotation from Mizen speaking of Cross being in charge - something that I have not done - whereas you think it an equally brilliant idea to jump the gun big time yourself in the Star issue.

So, as I say, letīs leave it before it gets any worse. Itīs bad enough as it is.

The best,
Fisherman

This is a grossly unfair allegation.

There is nothing similar about my claim that Cross gave his address at the inquest, and supporting my claims with the fact the it is clearly printed as part of his testimony, in the Star on the 3rd and your claims that Mizen tells us that Cross was in charge and Paul didn't speak.

Mizen doesn't 'tell us' that, it is something you have inferred.

For what ever reason, this difference appears to be something beyond your understanding, so yes perhaps we should just leave it at that.

[FrankO]

I think I have shown that he had BOTH good luck and bad luck, and I think yu will agree that if he was the killer, then there would have been a number of things he cursed along the way.

Are you talking about just that morning, Fish, or the whole case (if we assume that he was the Ripper)?

If the former, then I think the only thing he had reason to curse was the fact that Paul came along. And if there were more things to curse, he only had himself to blame.

But maybe you donīt oppose this - maybe you just think that these things should have had him caught.

I don’t think there’s any use in saying that this or that should have had him caught, simply because - as you say - obviously nothing did.

And as for the elements of luck involved, I donīt think they should be hard to overcome for anyone. The Yorkshire Ripper, Gary Ridgway, Joel Rifkin etc, etc, etc were also very lucky to stay undetected.

I see I still haven’t explained myself well enough, Christer. So I hope this helps: compare the Yorkshire Ripper etc. to someone who every now and then won the jackpot playing a slot machine, and Cross to someone who won the jackpot on, say, 5 different slot machines in one evening and 5 times in a row.

In my case, the luck involved is not as baffling as the lacking qualities of the police work, if it was what it seemed it was. Without that, he would have been caught.

But maybe you think we should write that down to luck on his behalf too?

That would be slot machine number 5. It obviously worked to his advantage, so of course that was his luck.

All the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Mizen reported the essence of the conversation and so did Mizen..."

Hmmm...?

"... and both "versions" were aired at a public inquest. Thus any opportunity to discuss any obvious, insurmountable contradiction was presented there and then. No such discussion occurred in this case, evidently because nobody recognised any contradiction between the two men's accounts."

That will be roughly correct. And it would have owed to the proximity in wording. In both cases a scenario emerges with a woman on her back.

"Also, the revelation that a woman had been found "on her back" was bound to precipitate questions from Mizen as to what condition the woman was in, especially given the recent murder of Martha Tabram."

I really donīt think so. Lechmere was clever enough to state that another PC was in place, and he did not lead on that there was any emergency at all. And that would have painted a picture of a rather harmless case. Keep in mind that Mizen says at the inquest that the carman said nothing about any murder or suicide - so he is surprised by this. Why? Because he had been led to believe that there was no emergency, thatīs why.

"The evidence is quite clear that Cross did inform Mizen of his opinion that the woman was dead."

Iīm afraid it is nothing of the sort. There is Lechmere who says he DID inform Mizen about this, and there is Mizen who would not have any reason at all not to admit this at the inquest - but who simply speaks of a woman on her back and a PC in place. All taken care of, therefore.

"Had he attempted to suppress this detail, Mizen had only to question Robert Paul (who almost certainly wasn't hovering suspiciously in the shadows) for the lie to be exposed, and the same is true of the proposed "a policeman wants" you "scam". It would have been a gamble that stood only a very slim, unlikely chance of coming off."

Once Paul was out of earshot - as per the Echo implication (the other man, who went down Hanbury Street) - how would Mizen guess that Lechmere was not telling the truth? How would he anticipate that he was lying about the PC? Why would he call Paul back: "Hey, you - is it true as this bloke says, that there is a PC awaiting me?"

Lechmere had contacted the PC by his own free will. He said noting alarming or controversial. So why would Mizen be suspicious?

And remember, Ben, that Mizen thought the carmen working comrades - if this was so, then why would not the other man (Paul) corroborate his chum, even if it was a lie?

Of course, it is nonsense to claim that the chance of pulling this off was slim or unlikely. It was nothing of the sort. The lie was instead very unlikely to be revealed, given itīs harmless nature.

"And...?

We have only one (1) source and one (1) source only for Mizen's recollection of events too - himself."

Yes, but you see, when we ADD it to the Lechmere recollections, we have not one but TWO stories. And they differ! Thatīs the trouble I had with you leaning on the carman only.

"But these divergent pieces of testimony were aired in public, and yet we have no evidence of Mizen offering any protest. Had Mizen heard Cross' version of events and thought "You lying hound! You DID tell me I was wanted in Buck's Row, and you DIDN'T tell me that the woman was probably", he would have made a song and a dance about it, rightly so, because he'd have known full well that Cross was lying under oath. He would have alerted his superiors, which would probably have opened the floodgates to Cross being investigated as a suspect. The fact that this none of this happened is an excellent indication that Mizen simply accepted his error regarding being "wanted" in Buck's Row."

To you, yes. But we are very much different, you and me, Ben, as you will appreciate. I would say that there is a chance that Mizen DID tell his superiors, but without having their full confidence after the knocking-up business and the failure to report the carmen from the outset.

There is also the chance that he started to doubt what he had heard when Lechmere witnessed. Or that he decided that he himself was already in trouble, given the above points.

There is a number of alternative explanations that do not fit the scenario that you propose MUST have been acted out. Thatīs just the nature of the beast, Ben. No matter how "clear" things look to you, actually.

"What's this stuff about Cross being "in charge"?

Doing the talking, Ben. Taking care of the conversation with Mizen, leaving aside Paul. But you will find it all in the thread.

"As for your list of so-called "coincidences", I'm not sure what they're supposed to "coincide" with to make Cross appear suspicious."

A good thing that I am, then!

"We "believe" them"

No. "We" are of a different meaning, Ben.

There, now I have answered the same questions all over again! That will do for my part. New questions, yes - old questions, I must ask you to look in the threads.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Mizen does not acknowledge that Lechmere told him that the woman was dead or drunk.

Interesting, is it not?

Not really. One can hardly expect the two men to quote each other verbatim. Mizen reported the essence of the conversation and so did Mizen, and both "versions" were aired at a public inquest. Thus any opportunity to discuss any obvious, insurmountable contradiction was presented there and then. No such discussion occurred in this case, evidently because nobody recognised any contradiction between the two men's accounts. Also, the revelation that a woman had been found "on her back" was bound to precipitate questions from Mizen as to what condition the woman was in, especially given the recent murder of Martha Tabram. She was unlikely to have been sunbathing, for instance!

You see, this is exactly in line with the overall scam Lechmere presented. He did NOT wish Mizen to think that the woman was dead, since that would potentially involve risks on his own behalf. He is therefore extremely economical with the truth.

I just don't buy it, Fisherman.

The evidence is quite clear that Cross did inform Mizen of his opinion that the woman was dead. Had he attempted to suppress this detail, Mizen had only to question Robert Paul (who almost certainly wasn't hovering suspiciously in the shadows) for the lie to be exposed, and the same is true of the proposed "a policeman wants" you "scam". It would have been a gamble that stood only a very slim, unlikely chance of coming off.

Your brisk assertion that Lechmere and Paul made it clear to Mizen that they believed the woman to be dead or drunk was something that one (1) source and one (1) source only claimed.

And...?

We have only one (1) source and one (1) source only for Mizen's recollection of events too - himself.

Now, you say that the Mizen scam was probably Mizen mishearing or misinterpreting things. But here we have it again! Lechmere says one thing, Mizen says another, and the public - in this case you - choose the words of the carman over those of the police.

These divergent pieces of testimony were aired in public, and yet we have no evidence of Mizen offering any protest. Had Mizen heard Cross' version of events and thought "You lying hound! You DID tell me I was wanted by another policeman in Buck's Row, and you DIDN'T tell me that the woman was probably dead!", he would have made a song and a dance about it, rightly so, because he'd have known full well that Cross was lying under oath. He would have alerted his superiors, which would probably have opened the floodgates to Cross being investigated as a suspect. The fact that none of this happened is an excellent indication that Mizen simply accepted his error regarding being "wanted" in Buck's Row.

What's this stuff about Cross being "in charge"?

Nobody said or implied he was "in charge" of anything. He might have been the carman with whom Mizen had the most dialogue, but that hardly made him the big boss man. I certainly reject the notion that Mizen ignored Paul completely and allowed him to hover in the near distance or slink away down Hanbury Street without having to corroborate Cross' disclosures, just as I reject the notion that Paul would deliberately make himself appear as suspicious as possible in so doing.

As for your list of so-called "coincidences", I'm not sure what they're supposed to "coincide" with to make Cross appear suspicious. If it's a round-a-about way of saying you think they point to guilt, then I'm afraid you'll continue to find that it's pretty much just you and Lechmere (the poster) who thinks so.

So who do we believe?

Lechmere or Mizen?

We "believe" them both insofar as neither of them willingly peddled a lie, but also we accept that Mizen made an understandable error and accepted as much when corrected by Cross at the inquest - at least everyone apart from the Crossers do.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

An excellent post Ben,

Quite on the money.

Cheers, Monty.

One does one's best!

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"I'll get me coat"

Donīt be too long, Moonbegger - you do have some fresh ideas and you think (way) outside the box.

But I would recommend at least a sobering five minute stroll ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

... ooooh, I get it, Frank - you were not speaking of Lechmere this time.

The best,
Fisherman