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

[moonbegger]

G'day Fish ,

This clipping was a good few days after the murder , at which point everyone in the East End knew exactly where Polly was murdered ? or at least the stable yard where she was found , and believed to be murdered .

They had reached a point near to the scene of the murder of the woman Nicholls, when the man violently seized her by the throat and dragged her down a court. He was immediately joined by a gang of women and bullies,

cheers

moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

It was said that Nichols had been heard fleeing along Brady Street - and the clipping does not say that we are concerned with Buckīs Row. Could be any of the adjacent streets too, thus.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Moonbeggar
I know of various stories where such and such an event happened near a ripper murder site. But such things are relative, and the connection us often made for dramatic effect.
Accordingly the court mentioned in your clipping could be any of those turnings I mentioned. Or one further away.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE]

Fish ,

But those people Fish , dont have their colours nailed to the mast one way or tother , and are quite willing to take both sides of the conversation into consideration, where as you are limiting yourself to only half the evidence, because you are clearly ready to rubbish anything Crossmere says .. But what if he was not ?
And yes , i totally understand that Crossmere is indeed your Culprit , and you have already arrived at your conclusion .

You donīt have to "rubbish" anything because you think you have identified the culprit, Moonbegger - if evidence surfaces to the contrary, you must be able to take that on board.
I used to think that Stride was not the Ripperīs - but changed my mind, since there was good reason to do so. If I could not do so, I would have been hopelessly locked to a perhaps not very good idea.

You see, Moonbegger, even though SOME people may be narrow-minded and unwilling to keep an open mind, you donīt have to be because you favour a suspect. The two phenomenons are not mutually dependent on each other.

Crossmere informs Mizen " You wanted down there "
Mizen gets there and finds PC Neil ..
Mizen does the mental gymnastics and arrives at the conclusion , it is PC Neil who the Carman implied wanted him down there.
PC Mizen said as much at the inquest , before it all gets straightened out .

Only it didnīt get straightened out, Moon.

I fail to see how this analogy is not comparable to the chain of evens we are discussing ?

Thatīs not an analogy - itīs a theory, a suggestion. And who says it cannot be correct? Not me! I only say that the evidence points in another direction - unless we start changing it and begin musing about how we THINK it went down, instead of how Mizen SAID it went down.

Once we swop the evidence for our own suggestions, heaps of theories may seem like good ideas. Brilliant, even.

Really Fish !!

Really, Moon!!!


The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Fish ,

But there are actually a lot of people about who donīt think that Lechmere was the killer, but who manage to realize that a good case can be built for such a thing anyway. Iīd like to think that I am much the same - but the other way around.

But those people Fish , dont have their colours nailed to the mast one way or tother , and are quite willing to take both sides of the conversation into consideration, where as you are limiting yourself to only half the evidence, because you are clearly ready to rubbish anything Crossmere says ..

For one thing, we cannot go by what Lechmere said if he was the culprit.

But what if he was not ?
And yes , i totally understand that Crossmere is indeed your Culprit , and you have already arrived at your conclusion .

i can only see the end product, the outcome - and what it points to.

You can Fish ! so let me run this old chestnut by you again ..

if one policeman meets another policeman in the police house corridor, and if the first man says to the second, pointing to a door at the end of the corridor, saying "You are wanted in there .. on entering the room the first PC finds his commanding officer .. Now on being questioned a little while after the meeting , he is asked " who told you that your Commanding officer wanted to see you in the room ?" Policeman (A) would have no doubt that it was PC(B) that told him , But he would be wrong .. He was only told of someone wanting him in the room .. It is only on finding his CO in the room that he naturally assumes this is the person that he was told about who wanted him, and from that moment on, it gets sealed in his mind (two + two = 4)

Now if it was his Wife who was in the room waiting for him , we would have exactly the same result .. on being questioned a little while after the meeting , he is asked " who told you that your wife wanted to see you in the room ?" Policeman (A) would have no doubt that it was PC(B) that told him , But he would be wrong .. He was only told of someone wanting him in the room .. It is only on finding his wife in the room that he naturally assumes this is the person that he was told about who wanted him, and from that moment on, it gets sealed in his mind (two + two = 4)

you see, It is purely the outcome of both scenarios that determine the conclusion the Policeman arrives at .

The one thing I agree about is the one thing you suggested: That if somebody tell us that somebody awaits us inside a room, then we expect somebody to await us inside that room.

It is not rocket science and I totally, totally agree that this is so.

It does not, however, have any bearing at all on the Mizen scam.

Crossmere informs Mizen " You wanted down there "
Mizen gets there and finds PC Neil ..
Mizen does the mental gymnastics and arrives at the conclusion , it is PC Neil who the Carman implied wanted him down there.
PC Mizen said as much at the inquest , before it all gets straightened out .

I fail to see how this analogy is not comparable to the chain of evens we are discussing ?

i can only see the end product, the outcome - and what it points to.

Really Fish !!


Edward,

It wasn’t specifically mentioned that any of the gates had been checked, but I would take it as one of those things where the absence of comment suggests that the ‘normal’ situation prevailed and the gates were locked.

Here is a report of another mugging/assault in bucks row , any idea's on the whereabouts of this apparently ungated/unlocked court ?

They had reached a point near to the scene of the murder of the woman Nicholls, when the man violently seized her by the throat and dragged her down a court. He was immediately joined by a gang of women and bullies,

cheers

moonbegger .

[Lechmere]

OK Rob you could probably just see a tiny part of Baker’s Row from the other side of the road to the crime scene.
But as you mention it, you will note that Neil thought he did signal Mizen (in the same way as he signalled Thain) and he did think he signalled him on Baker’s Row.
Neil thought Mizen had come in response to his signal just as Thain came in response to his signal.
The only difference is that Neil also says he heard Thain.

[Rob Clack]

As Simon pointed out, you cannot actually see Baker’s Row from the murder scene (nor actually from the other side of the road as can be confirmed by a visit to Durward Street).

Actually you can.

Rob

[Fisherman]

Hi Rob,

Thanks, but I already knew that to be the answer.

What I want to know is why PC Neil said he did, telling the inquest that on "seeing another constable in Baker's-row, I sent him for the ambulance."

Regards,

Simon

Hereīs my answer to that one, Simon:

Mizen was sent by Lechmere to Buckīs Row. In Buckīs Row, Neil was in place. He signalled down Thain in Brady Street, knowing that his fellow PC walked that beat and hearing him come by the junction.
As for the other direction, Neil knew that his own beat ended up at Bakerīs Row. He also knew that another PC - Mizen walked Bakerīs Row. And he knew that just as his own beat reached itīs Westernmost point at Bakerīs Row, Mizenīs beat probably reached itīs Easternmost point at the same place. Therefore, Mizen would not venture into Whiteīs Row.

It was very dark, and what Neil would have seen in the distance as he looked to the West would be Mizenīs lantern as this PC worked his way towards Buckīs Row. And not being able in the darkness to tell exactly where Mizen was, Neil naturally anticipated that he was up at Bakerīs Row SINCE HE KNEW THAT WAS AS FAR EAST AS THAT PC WOULD GO!

Clearly Neil believed that he was the person that summoned Mizen. And he also knew that Mizenīs beat did not take him into Whiteīs Row.

It is very easy, thus!

The best, Simon!
Fisherman

Beaten to it again! Sigh ..!

[Rob Clack]

Hi Simon,

Obviously an error. Mizen came from Bakers Row. Nothing sinister.

Regards

Rob

[Lechmere]

Regarding PC Neil’s testimony at the inquest on 1st September 1888...

The Times
“Seeing another constable (i.e. Mizen) in Baker's-row, witness despatched him for the ambulance.”

Daily Telegraph
“seeing another constable in Baker's-row, I sent him for the ambulance.”

Daily News
“the witness seeing another constable pass along Baker's row, sent him for the ambulance.”

But at some sort of press conference held on the evening of Sunday 2nd September it was stated by PC Neil that:
“He came upon it as he walked, and flashing his lantern to examine it, he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the street.”
(This is from The Times)

The Daily News also reported it...
“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.”

The only viable conclusion is that Neil thought that Mizen was signalled by his lamp from Baker’s Row. He probably thought – mistakenly - that you could see Baker’s Row from Brown’s Stable Yard and in the inky darkness misjudged the distance
As Simon pointed out, you cannot actually see Baker’s Row from the murder scene (nor actually from the other side of the road as can be confirmed by a visit to Durward Street).
When he was ‘flashed’ Mizen would have probably been on White’s Row, near the junction of Thomas Street as he was already on his way to Brown’s Stable Yard in the aftermath the Mizen-Lechmere conversation.
However Neil was unaware of this – and remained unaware of this.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

Thanks, but I already knew that to be the answer.

What I want to know is why PC Neil said he did, telling the inquest that on "seeing another constable in Baker's-row, I sent him for the ambulance."

Regards,

Simon

[Rob Clack]

Hi Rob,

I merely asked how PC Neil saw "another constable in Bakers Row".

Regards,

Simon

I don't think you would have been happy with the answer "He didn't".

Regards

Rob

[Lechmere]

Ah Madam Retro – long time no see.
I had forgotten about that event that gave world-wide (and well received) publicity to the Lechmere theory. How remiss of me.
But in any case, as usual young Ben was not addressing the issue I raised.

I said:
“Contrary to your confident assertion, very few ‘commentators’ have discussed on the conflicting inquest evidence of Mizen and Lechmere. I am unaware of it being mentioned or the various issues arising being contemplated in a single book on the case.
Or perhaps you think this discussion board is representative?”

This was in response to the following assertion by Ben:
“The overwhelmingly vast majority of commentators on this subject accept that Mizen was wrong, for the simple reason that we know there was no policeman already waiting for him in Buck's Row. It's pretty much just you and maybe a couple of other Cross-as-ripper fanciers who believe he really did tell Mizen that his presence was requested by a fellow policeman. As Jon points out, the details of the Mizen-Cross encounter have been noted and discussed for decades, but apparently nobody, in all that time, inferred any "Mizen scam””

Ben set up a situation where he alleged that the conversation between Charles Lechmere in the guise of Charles Cross and PC Mizen had been mulled over by a veritable army of commentators, only for them to conclude that Mizen must have been mistaken.
Whereas the reality is that very few people ever noticed that there was a discrepancy between Mizen and Lechmere’s testimony and I believe I am right in saying that this discrepancy has never been discussed in any work published on this case (apart from in Fisherman’s Ripperologist article of course).
Furthermore to believe Mizen rather than Lechmere, one must be a ‘Cross-as-ripper fancier’ apparently.

[Fisherman]

Mizen was not signalled to the spot by Neil. He set off from a point in Bakerīs Row where he could not have seen the light at all; up at the Hanbury Street junction. It was therefore Lechmere and not Neil that brought Mizen to Buckīs Row.
We must remember that as Mizen left the junction, he did so in anticipation of having another PC awaiting him in Buckīs Row. He would therefore not have been surprised to see Neil wawing his lamp as Mizen approached the spot. Neil, however, did not know that Mizen had been summoned to the street, so he would have been under the impression that his light was what made Mizen come down to Buckīs Row.
If Mizen had been attracted to the spot by Neilīs lamp, I think he would reasonably have said so. But as he had another reason for his shortish trek, he did not mention any signal.

All the best,
Fisherman

Ah! Rob beat me to it! Well done, Rob!

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

I merely asked how PC Neil saw "another constable in Bakers Row".

Regards,

Simon