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

[Fisherman]

Fisherman
I was allowing a minute for the Mizen scam and I think Mizen walked less quickly than the late for work duo.

I think around ten minutes is where we will end up. I agree that Mizen probably did not hurry all that much - which was totally in Lechmereīs favour at the inquest.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"You are clearly not grasping ..."

Oh yes, I am. Thatīs not where we differ.

"If indeed, there was a woman in that room who required his assistance ( ie Polly ) i see no problem ..."

Donīt avoid the question - which of the two scenarios would be the more LIKELY?

"But here is something a little more in line with the actual events ..

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)

Please tell me you understand this Fish !!! "

Iīd cheerfully meet that request, Moonbegger. I understand it, and I think that most people would. What you postulate here is that if somebody points to a door and tells you "you are wanted in there", then that will make you expect somebody to await you inside the room. And no matter if the chief of police or your wife is inside, you will make the assumption that the person you find in there is the person who wanted you.

There is nothing at all strange with that.

If, however, we start the tape from the beginning again, and the person you speak with says "I left some lunch in there for you" and points to the door, then you would not make the assumption that somebody is inside the room, waiting for you to come in.
And when you open the door, hoping to find that luch, and instead meet your wife, then I donīt think that most people would go "Aha, so THAT was what my friend said, "that dish of a wife of yours is in that room".
Most people would say "Oh, hi honey, what brings you here today?" and then they would go looking for that lunch. We donīt rearrange our thoughts and adjust them to what happens. We allow for the unexpected. If we are told "thereīs a bicicle in the room", and when we open the door, itīs a car, then we donīt think that we have made a mistake. We instead think that the person who spoke of a bicicle was the one who erred.

What we are dealing with is of course a case where you are told by a guy that there is a bicicle in the room, whereupon you open the door and find that bicicle. Then, later, when the matter is brought up to discussion, you say that "this guy said there was a bicicle in the room, and sure enough, there was". And what happens? The guy says "No, I did not say that there was a bicicle in the room, cause I never saw one there".
Thatīs enough to confuse you. And an inquest. And at THAT stage you may start asking yourself if you had gotten it wrong. You would NOT, though, even think about it all as long as all the bits were in place.

Now, Mon, just as you had high hopes for me, I certainly hope that you can see what I am speaking about here? Can you see the differences in how it works, the levels, the ingenuity? You are looking at a marvel, created by Lechmere. Iīm prepared to give him credit for it. Are you?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Fascinating indeed. Where was he hiding?

[Cogidubnus]

Ingenious

An unlikely but fascinating thought Moonbegger!

But the fact that theoretically, at least, it's just about possible (and only if the crime is later rather than earlier) shows how little evidence we really have...

All the best

Dave

[moonbegger]

Let me remove my sensible common sense cap, for the briefest of moments , and have a crack at this ..

Whichever way we cut it, itīs a long, long time for a nearly decapitated woman to bleed!

What if the killer wasn't quite done , what if Polly was possibly still alive when crossmere & Paul left the scene , What if he waited for them to scooch, before diving back into his work ? If only to make sure she was dead, only to be disturbed once again by PC Neil .

[Lechmere]

Fisherman
I was allowing a minute for the Mizen scam and I think Mizen walked less quickly than the late for work duo.

[moonbegger]

You are clearly not grasping the diversity regarding speech and meaning , education , class , in short , Not everyone expresses themselves in the same way or manner Fish .. I was under the impression that you knew this already, though...?

Tell me, 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", what does that normally mean? That a woman needs help there or that his colleagues have asked to see him?

If indeed, there was a woman in that room who required his assistance ( ie Polly ) i see no problem , although i fail to see your analogy Fish ..

But here is something a little more in line with the actual events ..

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)

Please tell me you understand this Fish !!! It is purely the outcome of both scenarios that determine the conclusion the Policeman arrives at .


cheers

moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

For a killer other than lechmere a good ten minutes would have gone before Mizen got to the body.
Paul said four minutes for him to meet lechmere and then get to Mizen.
Double that to allow the same time back with a bit more for extra knocking up and time for the non lechmerian killer to skidaddle, and that would be about ten minutes by whoever's timepiece.

I donīt think we can double the four minutes, since they involved the examination of Nichols, something that was not involved in Mizenīs return trip. I make it four minutes from the discovery til they got to Mizen, then perhaps one minute for the knocking-up business, and then two, three minutes for Mizen to get to Buckīs Row. Thatīs 7-8 minutes. Then we add a minute for the "real killer" (was that Kosminski sneaking past the Schoolhouse ...?) to skip it and itīs 8-9 minutes. So I was not being generous enough before, it seems.

Whichever way we cut it, itīs a long, long time for a nearly decapitated woman to bleed!

The best,
Fisherman
off to bed

[Lechmere]

For a killer other than lechmere a good ten minutes would have gone before Mizen got to the body.
Paul said four minutes for him to meet lechmere and then get to Mizen.
Double that to allow the same time back with a bit more for extra knocking up and time for the non lechmerian killer to skidaddle, and that would be about ten minutes by whoever's timepiece.

[Fisherman]

And also fits perfectly with Crossmere disturbing the killer !

It actually fits worse with that scenario. If Lechmere did disturb the killer, we must add at least another minute to the time. Lechmere said that he would have noticed anybody leaving the scene if somebody did, so we must accept that the killer would have left perhaps even before Lechmere turned into Buckīs Row. The killer may have heard Lechmereīs steps even before he turned the corne at Brady Street, and made his escape at that stage. This would explain why Lechmere saw or heard nothing at all.
And if this was what happened, then we must add at least a minute to the time from when Nichols had her throat cut and up til when Mizen saw her, still bleeding. And she had had her belly ripped open and all the major vessels severed in her throat. I find it odd that she still bled when Mizen saw her, perhaps as much as six or seven minutes after Lechmere left. Any time we wish to add to this of course makes it less viable that she had not bled out.

So the disturbance fit is worse, Moon, however we look upon things.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

And speaking about details, please note how Mizen tells us that the blood was fresh and still running as he saw Nichols. The time factor will be crucial here, I think.

And also fits perfectly with Crossmere disturbing the killer !

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"But was it not the case that CrossMere , actually waited for Paul to advance , before Both men, "They both crossed over to the body" ?
Would this not explain CrossMere's thinking that, although it was he , who first noticed a figure laying on the other side of the street , it was actually he and paul who both advanced at the same time and discovered the the true severity of the situation .. i apologise for injecting a little unwelcome common sense here ."

Common sense is never unwelcome, Moonbegger. I always await it with much hope, and welcome it when and if it comes along.

They went over to the body together, yes. How does that tell us that Lechmere was not the first man in place, being alone with Nichols for an undeterminable period of time?
Thatīs all that counts here.

"who was the "us" he referred to ?"

Himself. But that does not enter the picture here, so we are not amused.

Tell me, 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", what does that normally mean? That a woman needs help there or that his colleagues have asked to see him?

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Simon
According to Neil he was there at 3.45 am.
My guess he got there a little later in fact. These odd minutes are difficult to prove but this murder happened in a time frame of a few minutes and Lechmere and Paul can only have missed Neil by moments.
Perhaps they passed each other somewhere within ‘Great Eastern Square’ with no one realising the other was there and none of them realising they were in ‘Great Eastern Square’!

Mizen’s finding of Neil almost certainly did make Mizen believe Lechmere was telling the truth when he said he was wanted by a policeman. Neil seems to have sent Mizen off immediately for an ambulance so any opportunity for a chat about whether Neil had seen two Carmen would have been lost.
Mizen also said that he hadn’t seen anyone pass by – or anyone suspicious. Clearly the Carmen were just part of the woodwork.

By the time Mizen returned with the ambulance my guess is that the police were too busy to stop and chat about what had happened. Mizen being from a different division cannot have helped communications either.

[Fisherman]

Mr Lucky:

"Hi Fisherman"

Hi Lucky!

"What are you suggesting here? 'Other papers divide these things into two bits' ?

The Daily Telegraph's report of Mizens testimony is about the shortest in length (except the 'Police-constable Mizen gave corroborative evidence.' references in some of the weekend journals). Yet you think all the other papers 'divide these things into two bits' rather than that the Daily Telegraph is the most heavily edited ?"

I am not suggesting anything. I am pointing out that other papers did not bake these two elements together like the Telegraph did. Personally, I think it is telling that the Telegraph reporter - who was in place and formed his picture of the proceedings - came up with the conclusion that the two elements hung together in the way he deduced: The person that waited for Mizen in Buckīs Row was the fake PC.

I did not, however, want to implicate that this was some sort of consensus among the papers, so I pointed out that other papers split the thing up, stating that Mizen claimed Lechmere to have said "You are wanted in Buckīs Row" and "Another PC awaits you there". The possibility is that the one or ones that did the waiting was not the PC, but somebody else, hitherto unidentified.


"Paul wasn't at the inquest that day, Cross was."

Very true! But Lechmere was not in the inquest room either when Mizen told his story about who had approaced him. He was only brought in later on in the inquest. This is the Morning Advertiser of the 4:th of September 1888:

"Police constable George Maizen (sic), 55 H, said - On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row). The man appeared to be a carman. (The man, whose name is George Cross, was brought in and witness identified him as the man who spoke to him on the morning in question).
I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body.
The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman."

See what I mean, Mr Lucky? Mizen witnessed about the encounter and who had said what BEFORE "Cross" was brought in and identified. Therefore, there was no reason for Mizen to mention Lechmere and ommitting Paul. Unless, of course, Paul never spoke to him.

The Lechmere case is totally about keeping all these details in mind, since they all have a bearing on how we perceive what happened. This is a very good example of it.

And speaking about details, please note how Mizen tells us that the blood was fresh and still running as he saw Nichols. The time factor will be crucial here, I think.

All the best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Hello Caz ,

The fact that Paul went to the papers with his version of what Mizen was told argues strongly for him knowing what Mizen was told and knowing his own account would be compatible. Also, he must still have been close by and paying attention to notice that when Cross was done talking Mizen carried on knocking up.

Makes perfect sense Caz , and IF Crossmere did rehearse his lines with Paul regarding what to say in order to hoodwink their way past an inquisitive Bobby .. Then surely Paul would have have a few suspicions himself ! Enough maybe to come forward in later weeks to claim a substantial reward.

Abby,

I have the feeling if he had arrived and not found another PC already there his memory of what Lech told him would have been what Lech said he told him. I think Mizen simply extrapolates the PC already being in place and needing his help back onto the conversation af what lech told him when he tries to remember later. Which is why he probably does not raise much of a fuss at the inquest when he is contradicted by Lech.

I think this is the most probable scenario , you nailed it , in a nut shell .

Fish..

The mere fact that Lechmere did not confess to having found the woman himself speaks clearly of a wish to evade responsibility. This cannot be contested,

But was it not the case that CrossMere , actually waited for Paul to advance , before Both men, "They both crossed over to the body" ?
Would this not explain CrossMere's thinking that, although it was he , who first noticed a figure laying on the other side of the street , it was actually he and paul who both advanced at the same time and discovered the the true severity of the situation .. i apologise for injecting a little unwelcome common sense here .

We do have a very strange way of expressing ourselves here in London fish , and even though it may seem odd on the outside , on the inside , it actually does not sound that odd .. "Your wanted down there " [ A situation requires your immediate attention] Also , there is the distinct possibility that the woman could still be alive "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk," which again would validate a more universal use of the expression "Your wanted down there .]I remember when i was a youngster , my ol Grandad would take my brother and I down Club row, and Petticoat lane markets on a sunday morning .. And the Language , terminology , phrasing , that was thrown about by my Grandad and his ol mates is reminiscent of a scene or two , out of Pygmalion , Its a different word we live in now Fish , but your a smart man , and you dont need me to tell you that .. All i am saying in regards to the "Your wanted down there " Is you cant always use 21st Century reasoning to interpret 19th Century lingo and meaning ! check out Pygmalion .

Funny thing here , a friend of mine approached me in the pub the other night and asked "Lend us a score mate" ( 20 pounds ) ... he was alone, who was the "us" he referred to ? Also ( Her indoors ) is not always indoors

cheers

moonbegger .