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

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE]

Hi Fisherman,



Oh, in this case we can.

No we canīt. In all cases where we claim to know what "most people " think, we must show something for it. You have not.

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.

But that would be Lechmere who was wrong, Ben, not Mizen. He had no way to know if somebody waited for him in Buckīs Row.

If what you are suggesting is that Lechmere cannot have told Mizen that there was a PC waiting for him since there was not, you are totally missing out on the fact that bad people sometimes lie.

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.

And why would that be interesting - if we could confirm it?

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" until Cross became your favourite suspect a few months ago...apparently as a consequence of meeting up in London with another hobbyist who already subscribed to that theory.

It actually did not come up when I first met Edward more than a year ago. The Mizen scam was something I discovered much later.

I have absolutely no belittling motive in pointing out that the "Mizen scam" is a brand new, extreme minority-endorsed idea, and I only do so because you use "we" quite a lot when pressing your views.

Well, brand new ideas are often minority-endorsed, Ben. Thatīs how things work.

You say, for instance:
Whereas, in reality, "we" didn't need to try very hard at all, because "we" found very useful grounds for inferring a mistake on Mizen's behalf.

Yes, most probably because Cross didn't recall his exact words. He might, for instance, have said to Mizen something like, "you are wanted in Buck's Row", and the latter might have interpreted this to mean that his presence was requested by another figure of authority already at the scene, when it fact all Cross meant was that he needed to be there, i.e. that's where you ought to be. Extremely plausible misunderstandings like this happen all the time.

Iīm sure they do! But why in the world would Mizen add anything at all to the picture? If he read the "You are wanted in Buckīs Row" as "somebody wants you there", then a bit of the damage was already done. If he then noted a PC in place, I find it odd in the extreme that he should infer that the carman must have said that a PC was in place - such a thing would not go unnoticed by Mizen. He would not go "whoa - hereīs another PC! Then the carman must have said so". Instead, if he had not heard about the PC, he would have been surprised to find him - but he would normally not start thinking up that he had been told there WAS a PC in place - then why would he have been surprised in the first place?

No, all of these musings do not carry much weight. Itīs helium, more or less. And at the end of the day, whenever we read Mizenīs testimony, we will see that he DID claim to have been told that a PC was in place. This must take precedence over anything us hobbyists may come up with 125 years later. Evidence trumphs such things. Always.

That is not doing things "backwards".

That is doing things properly.

You work from a presumption of innocence.

It is perhaps doing things nicely - but not properly. Conjuring up something that we have no evidence of to save a person is not and can never be proper. The only proper thing to do is to acknowledge the evidence EVEN if it tells us that a person is potentially a killer.

It would be good if we could always rule this possibility out - but letīs be for real!

It's extremely clear that one very important person who thought Mizen was in error was Mizen himself. When corrected by Cross at the inquest, he raised no protest, and had there been the vaguest insinuation that Mizen persisted in his recollection of events, Cross would have found himself under the spotlight as a suspect - irrefutably so.

No, it is not extremely clear, Ben. It is a clear possibility. But it could all have been down to a number of different reasons, as outlined before.

If an earlier policeman really had discovered the body before the Mizen-Cross encounter took place, he'd have blown his police whistle and Mizen would have heard it immediately. He would certainly not have required one or two carmen to tell him he was "wanted" by another policeman. No, he evidently came to his senses.

Yes, Ben, that is true! A PC finding Nichols WOULD normally have blown his whistle. But keep in mind that the PC we are talking about here did not exist in the real world! He was a figment of Lechmeres imagination! He could not blow any whistle since he did not exist.
The only thing we can infer from the lack of a blown whistle is that Mizen, when told that a fellow PC awaited him, could be certain that the errand was not one that called for any whistle-blowing. And therefore, it could not be a very serious errand. However, a PC could still have needed assistance, even if the errand was of a less grave nature. Just like I suggested, Mizen could have formed the opinion that the PC in Buckīs Row could have been ordered to stay in place - a very usual detail in many a case - and that the policeman had requested his help to take the woman to the infirmary with a bad ancle or to place her in a cell on account of being drunk. The important issue here is to keep in mind that the fact that Mizen heard no whistle would probably kept him calm.

At any rate, we know that Neil avoided to whistle when finding Nichols - but that was on account on him seeing Thain in Brady Street, meaning he did not HAVE to whistle.

If anything required the attention of more than one policeman on beat, whistling was the means of attracting their attention, unless they were in visual range, in which case they could use their lamps. But sending carmen "messengers" is hardly the way they went about things, as Cross himself would surely have realised. Why instigate such a "scam" when Mizen could easily have responded with "Why didn't I hear a whistle then?".

Just answered that one!

Well, yeah, if we knew it was Gary Ridgway and knew he was a serial killer, of course we would. That's completely circular reasoning. This is Cross we're discussing, and nearly everyone accepts his role as an innocent first-on-the-scene witness. Somebody had to be.

Mmm - but we MUST look upon him from both angles. Anything else would be wrong. He was alone with a murder victim.

See above, but also because if this was another attack or murder, and the possibility must have occurred to him (woman, on back, needs police attention)

But if it MUST have occurred to Mizen - why did he not hear that whistle you tell me would have been there?

the sight of someone hovering out of earshot and slinking off down a street would have appeared suspicious, and Paul - unless he was really really stupid - wouldn't have risked incriminating himself this way either.

Maybe Paul did not "slink off". Maybe he did not "hover out of earshot". Maybe he just said "Iīll walk on ahead", and Mizen was satisfied that he was unsuspicious, Clearly, he did not mention the men at all when asked for suspicious men having come or gone.

Best then do ascertain just who was "in on it" if it did turn out to a prank, rather than allow Paul to resort to a "I didn't know he said that" defense if later identified.

We canīt ask for any totally watertight scenario, Ben - Lechmere would have done as best as he could and solved things as he went along.

If ANYTHING had occurred that required the immediate assistance of another PC, all he had to do was whistle. Sending on-foot members of the public as messengers would have been a comically pointless thing to do regardless of the gravity of the situation.

But if the matter the fake PC wanted help with was not any serious matter at all, then why would he blow his whistle in the middle of the night? Once again, notice how Neil avoided it. Notice how Pennant was very unwilling to use HIS whistle in Pinchin Street. It could be that the matter was not very pressing and not very dire, simple as that.
And in the end, why would Mizen question it?

It must have been something more serious then - something that would require the use of a whistle to alert other officers, and yet no whistle was heard, evidently because the body's discoverer, Cross, did not have one. Mizen would ultimately have realised this, and understood that he cannot have been wanted in Buck's Row by a policeman already at the scene.

Because that's what he did and that's where he went. No reason to think he buggered off during the conversation between Cross and Mizen.

But there IS reason to think so. The paper report saying "the other man, who went down Hanbury Street" IS that reason. Mizen spoke to one man, and the other man went down Hanbury Street.

Black on white.

Maybe, Ben, you and I should give it a rest now. It seems the same items reappear over and over again.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Oh, Ben, I do not think that we can allow ourselves any statements about what "most people" think.

Oh, in this case we can.

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" until Cross became your favourite suspect a few months ago...apparently as a consequence of meeting up in London with another ripper studies enthusiast who already subscribed to that theory.

I have absolutely no belittling motive in pointing out that the "Mizen scam" is a brand new, extreme minority-endorsed idea, and I only do so because you use "we" quite a lot when pressing your views. You say, for instance:

You see, Ben, however much we try, we can find no useful grounds to believe this was as a mistake on Mizenīs behalf.

Whereas, in reality, "we" didn't need to try very hard at all, because "we" found very useful grounds for inferring a mistake on Mizen's behalf.

No. Lechmere did not say how he worded himself, he just said that he told Mizen what had happened, but not how he clad this in words.

Yes, most probably because Cross didn't recall his exact words. He might, for instance, have said to Mizen something like, "you are wanted in Buck's Row", and the latter might have interpreted this to mean that his presence was requested by another figure of authority already at the scene, when in fact all Cross meant was that he needed to be there, i.e. that's where you ought to be. Extremely plausible misunderstandings like this happen all the time.

Do we know that Mizen on a regular basis misheard things?

No, we donīt.

Do we know that Cross on a regular basis lied or killed people?

No, we don't.

That, however, is to do things backwards - you choose to let Lechmere off the hook, and then you adjust the details accordingly afterwards.

That is not doing things "backwards".

That is doing things properly.

You work from a presumption of innocence.

Of course, the evidence also involves Lechmere stating that he never told Mizen about any PC. And here we need to make a choice of believing either Lechmere OR Mizen.

Indeed, and since there was no policeman waiting for Mizen and Buck's Row, pretty much everyone accepts that Mizen was in error, and that Cross was correct to inform the inquest that he never said anything about encountering an earlier policeman in Buck's Row. It's extremely clear, moreover, that one very important person who thought Mizen was in error was Mizen himself. When corrected by Cross at the inquest, he raised no protest, and had there been the vaguest insinuation that Mizen persisted in his recollection of events, Cross would have found himself under the spotlight as a suspect - irrefutably so.

If Mizen believed that Cross had lied under oath at the inquest, he would have alerted his superiors, and Cross would have been hauled in for interrogation. The complete lack of evidence that this happened is, to my mind, a near certain indicator that Mizen accepted his error. If an earlier policeman really had discovered the body before the Mizen-Cross encounter took place, he'd have blown his police whistle and Mizen would have heard it immediately. He would certainly not have required one or two carmen to tell him he was "wanted" by another policeman. No, he evidently came to his senses.

If anything required the attention of more than one policeman on beat, whistling was the means of attracting their attention, unless they were in visual range, in which case they could use their lamps. But sending carmen "messengers" is hardly the way they went about things, as Cross himself would surely have realised. Why instigate such a "scam" when Mizen could easily have responded with "Why didn't I hear a whistle then?".

If we have a recorded conversation where a policeman says "That was the man who picked Miss X up in his car" and where Gary Ridgway answers "Thatīs just wrong, I never did that", we all know what solution to opt for.

Well, yeah, if we knew it was Gary Ridgway and knew he was a serial killer, of course we would. That's completely circular reasoning. This is Cross we're discussing, and nearly everyone accepts his role as an innocent first-on-the-scene witness. Somebody had to be.

What would he do? Ask Paul "Is this true, what your companion says?" He had already been told that the carmen were sent by another PC, why would he doubt that?

See above, but also because if this was another attack or murder (and the possibility must have occurred to him - woman, on back, needs police attention etc), the sight of someone hovering out of earshot and slinking off down a street would have appeared suspicious, and Paul - unless he was really really stupid - wouldn't have risked incriminating himself this way either.

Furthermore, Mizen believed the two to be in company, Lechmere and Paul, so if it was a prank, why would the other carman not be in on it?

Best then to ascertain just who was "in on it" if it did turn out to a prank, rather than allow Paul to resort to a "I didn't know he said that" defense if later identified.

when we have a murderer on the stand, facing the hangmans rope, we must allow for the possibility that the killer will both swear the oath AND lie

Circular again, I'm afraid. When we have a pig in the sky, facing the clouds, we must allow for the possibility that the porker will both fly AND glide.

If the woman in Buckīs Row had represented another case of brutal and bloody murder, that fake PC would of course have blown his whistle - and since no such thing was heard in Hanbury Street, Mizen would have known that no imminent danger was afoot.

If ANYTHING had occurred that required the immediate assistance of another PC, all he had to do was whistle. Sending on-foot members of the public as messengers would have been a comically pointless thing to do regardless of the gravity of the situation.

If the woman was just drunk, then the PC in Buckīs Row should have been able to handle it all himself.

Good point, Fisherman.

Exactly so.

It must have been something more serious then - something that would require the use of a whistle to alert other officers, and yet no whistle was heard, evidently because the body's discoverer, Cross, did not have one. Mizen would ultimately have realised this, and understood that he cannot have been wanted in Buck's Row by a policeman already at the scene.

That seems very awkward. "The other man, who went down Hanbury Street". Why would Mizen say that about him if he went down afterwards?

Because that's what he did and that's where he went. No reason to think he buggered off during the conversation between Cross and Mizen.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Hello Fish ,

Ahh, so this Explains a few things Fish .. Because you have already made up your mind regarding Crossmere's guilt .. Any of his counter claims become automatic lies , in effect , you are drawing all your conclusions from only one side of the argument . I can see how doing this may well point a guilty finger at a lying , deceitful , Crossmere . My problem with this is .. Are you basing all your negative opinion regarding Crossmere , solely on his decision to use a name that he once had, and was known by previously , and may well have still been known by at work ?

I am just curious to know if this is the catalyst , the one foundation that all your conclusions rest upon ?

Well spotted, Moon - I DO think that Lechmere was the killer.

But you are drawing a lot of conclusions from that which had better be avoided. For one thing, it is quite possible to believe in a manīs guilt, but still look upon things from all angles. To think I always do "my worst" is a bit too simple. I weigh both sides.

Moreover, it could easily have been said by me, if I was a tad simplistic myself, that people who defend Lechmere all work from a onesided angle and adjust all things to that perspective.

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.

That is why I donīt turn "counter claims" into lies. I simply point out that if Mizen was correct, then Lechmere DID lie, both at the murder scene and at the inquest. And I also take great care to point out that the wording Mizen speaks of is perfectly consistent with a scenario with Lechmere as a liar, every little bit of it.

You ask me for a catalyst, although I have over and over again pointed out that it is the collected weight of the anomalies that condemn Lechmere in my eyes: The covered body, the refusal to prop up, the lie to Mizen, the false name, the secrecy about his address, the correlating paths, the correlating times, the consistent picture of a psychopath, the choice of a slower route on the murder evening, the appearance in working clothes at the inquest ...

Thatīs ten different accusation points. We need ten different excuses to free the man. We need to have a mistaken PC, we need to have Lechmere using the name Cross with no other record of it than on the murder night, we need all sorts of excuses. It calls for a complicated storytelling. It calls for us dismissing out of hand what Mizen said. It calls for the great unknown, not least.

The moment we look upon things as if Lechmere was the culprit, we get an explanation for each and every one of the details, and we donīt have to change one tiny bit.

I opt for the latter solution. In that sense, Iīm truly simplistic. I donīt change a word in the evidence, and I donīt postulate that what was said by the law enforcement in the shape of Mizen must have been wrong. It must not have.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Hello Fish ,

We donīt know this at all, Iīm afraid. For one thing, we cannot go by what Lechmere said if he was the culprit.

Ahh, so this Explains a few things Fish .. Because you have already made up your mind regarding Crossmere's guilt .. Any of his counter claims become automatic lies , in effect , you are drawing all your conclusions from only one side of the argument . I can see how doing this may well point a guilty finger at a lying , deceitful , Crossmere . My problem with this is .. Are you basing all your negative opinion regarding Crossmere , solely on his decision to use a name that he once had, and was known by previously , and may well have still been known by at work ?

I am just curious to know if this is the catalyst , the one foundation that all your conclusions rest upon ?

Edward ,

The killer would have had to wait for Paul and Lechmere to pass, emerge and get to Nichols’s body. Paul and Lechmere can only just have missed PC Neil. As soon as they turn into Baker’s Row, Neil must have turned into Buck’s Row from Thomas Street. He would have been on Buck’s Row walking towards Brown’s Stable Yard roughly as the murderer was cutting her throat about 150 yards away.
It was dark so Neil would not have seen the culprit, but he would have only been say 100 yards away by the time the cutting was done. The culprit would have to make his escape in an easterly direction – towards Brady Street as Neil would have been approaching from the west.
Neil would have got to the body before the culprit would have been able to get down to Brady Street. PC Thane was on Brady Street. He soon after passed the end of Buck’s Row. The killer would have virtually bumped into Thane and Thane says he saw no one.

Yes , well laid out , It does indeed seem a bit of a stretch ..

Did PC Neil ever comment that all the gates were locked ? especially the Ones in the immediate vicinity bordering the rail tracks ?

However I will say this much – there are grounds for proposing that the abdominal wounds preceded the throat wound. But not I think in the manner you suggest

.

Are you suggesting that , as Paul states in his Lloyd interview " so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw" Crossmere then cut her throat to make sure she was dead .. before catching Paul up ?

Cheers

moonbegger .

[Lechmere]

Moonbeggar
The openings you refer to weren’t open - they were gated. It would have been Neil’s job to check they were locked.
We do know pretty accurately what Buck’s Row was like – it was bare arsed.

I don’t think you can read too much into the ‘vacant spaces’. What were the police looking for?
A bloody knife, bloody footsteps – that sort of thing. I suppose a potential hiding place might also have foot the bill – but we know of no such place being found.

In terms of practicalities, for the killer to have returned after Paul and Lechmere abandoned Nichols on the pavement, his hiding place can only have been either in Woods Buildings, Court Street or up Queen Ann Street or Thomas Street. The culprit would have had to have gone west to avoid the approaching innocent Lechmere, but could not go too far down Winthrop Street where there were various witnesses.

The killer would have had to wait for Paul and Lechmere to pass, emerge and get to Nichols’s body. Paul and Lechmere can only just have missed PC Neil. As soon as they turn into Baker’s Row, Neil must have turned into Buck’s Row from Thomas Street. He would have been on Buck’s Row walking towards Brown’s Stable Yard roughly as the murderer was cutting her throat about 150 yards away.
It was dark so Neil would not have seen the culprit, but he would have only been say 100 yards away by the time the cutting was done. The culprit would have to make his escape in an easterly direction – towards Brady Street as Neil would have been approaching from the west.
Neil would have got to the body before the culprit would have been able to get down to Brady Street. PC Thane was on Brady Street. He soon after passed the end of Buck’s Row. The killer would have virtually bumped into Thane and Thane says he saw no one.

However I will say this much – there are grounds for proposing that the abdominal wounds preceded the throat wound. But not I think in the manner you suggest.

Jon
To echo Fisherman (is that allowed?), the treatment of the Nichols murder and the circumstances surrounding the first few minutes is invariably treated in the most cursory and inaccurate manner in nearly every book I have ever read on the Whitechapel Murders, and in every documentary.

FrankO
Lechmere’s primary task would have been to get past Mizen without being searched.
No doubt if they had bumped into Neil a bit sooner, he would have tried to same tactics. Whether they would have been successful is another matter.

It sounds as if Lechmere did make some effort to keep Paul from the throat wound. He positioned himself by Nichols’s head while Paul was by the body.
It would have been Neil’s job to check they were locked.
Rather unusually we know lots of these details as they were gone into in some detail, which of itself is to me suspicious.
As I have often said, in my opinion the initial contact between Lechmere and Paul, with Paul trying to avoid Lechmere as he thought he was about to be mugged, immediately established a relationship of dominance and subservience between the two.
When two strangers, men, meet in such circumstances primeval instincts often come into play unless both parties go out of their way to demonstrate their non atavistic, civilized (I am tempted to say effete) character by various displays of body language.

I don’t know why you think that allowing Paul to touch the body mitigates against the theory that Lechmere had covered the victims abdominal wounds. I would suggest the touching was controlled with Lechmere almost daring Paul to touch, enticing him to touch - to have excuses for blood transfers and to insinuate Paul into the scenario. In the course of his touching Paul came to think that she may be alive hence the unwelcome suggestion to prop her up.

I agree that if he was really doing his job properly Mizen should have asked more questions. Lechmere was lucky in having Paul come up and not a more potentially aggressive male, and lucky that Mizen was not super efficient.

But if it wasn’t Lechmere, whoever did it was lucky. Lucky that Lechmere didn’t come along a few minutes earlier. Lucky that Neil wasn’t a bit quicker on that round. Lucky he didn’t get noticed by Thane or Mizen if he disappeared down either end. Lucky that none of the other witnesses in the area saw or heard him. The same goes for the other murders.

Then again the Yorkshire Ripper was lucky the Wearside Jack hoax tape at sent to the police and lucky that Oldfield was in charge of the investigation.

In the early 1980s a friend of a friend went back for a drink with some bloke he met in a pub to 23 Cranley Gardens, in Muswell Hill. He apparently was feeling down hearted as he had split up with his girlfriend and had family problems and discussed this with his new buddy, who was called Denis Nilsen. This bloke was very lucky as Nilsen must have felt sorry for him and he lived to tell the tale.

Various people were attacked by Nilsen yet survived. Several even went to the police that should have established a pattern, yet nothing was done.

The point I am making is that luck very often plays a major part in these sorts of event. Good luck for the killer, bad luck for victims. Sometimes good luck for potential victims. If they continue the killer’s luck invariably runs out and they get caught.

[Fisherman]

FrankO

"I don’t agree, Fish. Even if you think his primary goal was to tell a PC and get past him without any questions, then his luck up to that point still didn’t just depend on his interaction with Paul and Mizen. To no effort of his own they still didn’t’ walk into Neil or any other PC before they reached Baker’s Row. And it’s unlikely that he could have known this."

It would be impossible to secure a scenario in which all risks were excluded, Frank. What Lechmereīs behaviour points at is a psychopath, a willing risktaker, a man who was convinced that he was cleverer than all the rest and he was therefore prepared to take the risks he did. He would not have thought that he even needed luck, for all we know, Frank. We cannot identify a level of availabe luck at twhich he would not have killed. It is not up to that, it is up to the killerīs willingness to take the risk.

"Cross clearly didn’t prevent Paul to get near the throat wounds, so (by slapping her face or shaking her) Paul could have discovered Nichols’ head was almost cut off before Cross knew it."

We donīt know this at all, Iīm afraid. For one thing, we cannot go by what Lechmere said if he was the culprit. And Paul only says he touched her hands and face, but in all honesty, Frank, can we tell exactly under what circumstances? Do we know that Lechmere did not hold his hand over her throat as Paul felt her face? Does Paul say how he was positioned when he felt her?

And please remember, Frank, that we canīt even tell if Lechmere thought from the outset that Paul WOULD notice what had happened to Nichols. That still would not give away Lechmere as the killer, would it? Maybe Lechmere decided that if Paul did NOT notice what had happened, heīd let him live, otherwise not.
The options are innumerable. I am just pointing to how I think it went down and how it COULD have gone down, if Lechmere was the killer. But there is a lot of space for alternative thinking here!

"Judging by the available information it seems fair to assume it took little to get Paul to accept that Cross wasn’t going to help propping Nichols up. He just said 'no' and Paul left it at that, didn't do anything else."

Yes, but HOW did he say it? Softly, sharply, threateningly, forbidding? Did he put an arm out to avoid any contact between Paul and Nichols at that stage? Once again, alternatives, alternatives ...

"Point no. 1 also doesn’t fit with the notion that Cross pulled down Nichols’ dress to keep Paul from discovering she was murdered."

How so?

"So, played him like a fiddle? I seriously doubt that."

I donīt.

"The same really goes for Mizen. Mizen didn’t ask any questions, while the vagueness that you see in what Cross told him does call for further questions, if only 1 or 2 check questions. Like if this PC was already there when Cross arrived or if they knew what was the matter with this woman lying flat on her back in the street."

That would have been useful if Mizen did it. But he didnīt. One has to wonder why? I think the personality of Lechmere taken together with what he said was what guided Mizenīs actions. I would have given a lot to hear and see it!

"That Mizen in that instance wasn’t the PC who asked any further questions isn’t something Cross should be credited for."

Of course not. But IF Lechmere was the killer, what more could he have done? How could he have made sure that no follow-up questions arrived? Thatīs right, Frank - he couldnīt. But he may well have sneaked past that too. "Iīve no idea whatīs the matter with her - that other PC just told us to hurry along and look for a PC, but he didnīt say why" and "Yes, the PC was there when we arrived". And then Mizen would bid the two gentlemen goodnight and get on his way.

The type of killer I envisage is a resorceful one, as shown by how he shaped his conversation with Mizen, Frank. He would not be scared by another question or two, and once again - he was willing to take risks. He may even have enjoyed them, for all we know.

"I never said Cross had himself to blame for Paul being late. That would be nonsense. It’s really very simple. Cross had only himself to blame because he didn’t pay enough attention – if he was the killer. And once he kept his hand in the beehive for too long, he couldn’t blame the bees for starting to sting, now could he?"

Thatīs absolutely true, if that was what you meant!

"Indeed we differ very much on these issues, Fish. Even though the aspect of luck is but one of the points that make me doubt Cross as the Ripper. But I’m fine with the fact that we don’t see eye to eye on this."

So am I - it means that I receive a very seasoned and skilled critical voice. If there are any real obstacles standing in the way of regarding Lechmere as the killer, you are a person I rely on to find them for me. Let me just say that I donīt think you will. If he WAS the killer, then each and every thing we find out about him will rhyme with this perspective. So far, it holds very true.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer



39 years. That`s the time since I first read the accounts of the murders.
I was maybe ten years old and very keen to solve the crime, focusing on the people that were named in the books I had to hand, and especially the first people at the scene of the crime. Didn`t everyone do this? Didn`t we all run through every possible scenario? I still hold my alien organ harvesting theory close to my heart.

Most comprehensive books on the subject cover the exchanges between Cross, Paul and Mizen. There is no new information regarding this exchange that has surfaced that points to a scam, this is your interperation of events.

Your points are all valid if one looks at the details with a view that Cross was the killer, and yes, there should be a bid for Cross being the killer as he was first to find the body, but like a number of other individuals to follow.

Aha! That was what you meant! I was concerned that somebody had interpreted the conversation between Mizen and Lechmere as a scam back in 1974.

You are right that no new information pointing to a scam has surfaced. Nor did it need to, since what is in place already is quite enough for the interpretation to be made! What has surprised me, though, is that nobody else has made it, seemingly. You write that "most comprehensive books on the subject cover the exchanges between Cross, Paul and Mizen." And yes, the exchanges are mentioned - but which of the books take up the "another PC is awaiting you there" and discusses the possible implications of it?

You are quite right in saying that it is not until we look upon Lechmere as a bid fot the killerīs role that my points become truly valid. It is also not until we do so that these points become parts of a logical chain of events. Take, for example the scam, the fake PC - I am told that "most people" write it up to a misunderstanding om Mizensībehalf. But no rational explanation to why he would have made this mistake is thrown forward. And that is, of course, because people do not look upon Lechmere from the perspective of him being the killer. They opt for him being an innocent man, and therefore, what Mizen said he was told by Lechmere, makes not a iot of sense at all.

But turn the tables around, accept his as the killer, and each and every syllable looks like something that is totally connected and perfectly shaped to allow him escape.

So what is it that tells us that we should NOT regard him as the culprit ...? His honesty when giving his name? The fact that the paths he walked did not coincide with the murder sites? His willingness to help prop Nichols up?

Cast him in the killerīs role, and it all fits, Jon.

The best,
Fisherman

[FrankO]

Hi Fish,

It's been a while, but here's my reaction to your post #132

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.

I don’t agree, Fish. Even if you think his primary goal was to tell a PC and get past him without any questions, then his luck up to that point still didn’t just depend on his interaction with Paul and Mizen. To no effort of his own they still didn’t’ walk into Neil or any other PC before they reached Baker’s Row. And it’s unlikely that he could have known this.

He checked Paul out, realized that he had not seen anything incriminating, and played him like a fiddle.

1. Cross clearly didn’t prevent Paul to get near the throat wounds, so (by slapping her face or shaking her) Paul could have discovered Nichols’ head was almost cut off before Cross knew it.
2. Judging by the available information it seems fair to assume it took little to get Paul to accept that Cross wasn’t going to help propping Nichols up. He just said 'no' and Paul left it at that, didn't do anything else.
Point no. 1 also doesn’t fit with the notion that Cross pulled down Nichols’ dress to keep Paul from discovering she was murdered.

So, played him like a fiddle? I seriously doubt that.

The same really goes for Mizen. Mizen didn’t ask any questions, while the vagueness that you see in what Cross told him does call for further questions, if only 1 or 2 check questions. Like if this PC was already there when Cross arrived or if they knew what was the matter with this woman lying flat on her back in the street.

That Mizen in that instance wasn’t the PC who asked any further questions isn’t something Cross should be credited for.

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.

I never said Cross had himself to blame for Paul being late. That would be nonsense. It’s really very simple. Cross had only himself to blame because he didn’t pay enough attention – if he was the killer. And once he kept his hand in the beehive for too long, he couldn’t blame the bees for starting to sting, now could he?

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

Indeed we differ very much on these issues, Fish. Even though the aspect of luck is but one of the points that make me doubt Cross as the Ripper. But I’m fine with the fact that we don’t see eye to eye on this.

All the best,
Frank

[Jon Guy]

Hi Christer

39 years? Who brought it up then, Jon? I have searched my books, and I cannot find one single writer that brings up the very obvious possibility that Lechmere framed Mizen. If youīve got a name for me on that score, Iīd be very interested to see it!

39 years. That`s the time since I first read the accounts of the murders.
I was maybe ten years old and very keen to solve the crime, focusing on the people that were named in the books I had to hand, and especially the first people at the scene of the crime. Didn`t everyone do this? Didn`t we all run through every possible scenario? I still hold my alien organ harvesting theory close to my heart.

Most comprehensive books on the subject cover the exchanges between Cross, Paul and Mizen. There is no new information regarding this exchange that has surfaced that points to a scam, this is your interperation of events.

Your points are all valid if one looks at the details with a view that Cross was the killer, and yes, there should be a bid for Cross being the killer as he was first to find the body, but like a number of other individuals to follow.

[Fisherman]

moonbegger:

"I am happy to see , you now find nothing strange regarding Mizen's conclusion , under very similar circumstances !"

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.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"It's very important to make clear that this is only your personal theory talking here."

I donīt think I have left anybody in doubt about that, Ben. I never speak of this as any proven thing.

"Most people accept that Cross never mentioned anything about "another PC (who) was in place", and that the whole idea of a PC already being present in Buck's Row was merely the result of Mizen's memory playing tricks on him."

Oh, Ben, I do not think that we can allow ourselves any statements about what "most people" think. To do so, we must establish that this is true. Otherwise, we make ourselves guilty of the exact thing you just warned me about - trying to pass a guess of as a truth.
If you have made a worldwide inquiry and have results to bolster your proposition, then I must ask your forgiveness. But I would dearly like to see it in such a case.

Now, what I do know from experience is that there are SOME people who write it all down as a mistake on Mizenīs behalf. And that is their prerogative, but it raises one question that begs an answer:

On WHAT GROUNDS do these people choose to believe in a mistake on Mizenīs behalf? There are, in cases like these, a variety of possible grounds, some better, some worse.
Letīs see what possible good grounds we CAN identify!

Does Lechmere let on that he used an exact phrasing that could well have been misinterpreted for "Another policeman awaits you there?" Like, say, "Do bother, policeman, to take yourself there!"

No. Lechmere did not say how he worded himself, he just said that he told Mizen what had happened, but not how he clad this in words. So this is not a ground we can use.

Do we know that Mizen on a regular basis misheard things?

No, we donīt.

Can we establish that the event was a very hurried one, making it harder for Mizen to catch what was said?

No, we canīt. There was nothing said about any hurry, and the street was a nightly, empty one, meaning that accoustically, they would be fine.

You see, Ben, however much we try, we can find no useful grounds to believe this was as a mistake on Mizenīs behalf. Not, at least, when it comes to the factual bits and pieces.

Of course, many people will choose to believe in a mistaken Mizen for another reason - they donīt think that Lechmere was the killer, and therefore they donīt see why he would have wilfully mislead the PC. That, however, is to do things backwards - you choose to let Lechmere off the hook, and then you adjust the details accordingly afterwards.

Now, some will of course point their fingers at me and say: "But look at you - you choose to see Lechmere as the villain and then you adjust the details to that end!

But do I? Actually no. What we have on record is Mizen very clearly implicating that Lechmere lied to him, and therefore it is ONLY the ones who free Lechmere of the charges that do any adjusting. I stay with the evidence.

Of course, the evidence also involves Lechmere stating that he never told Mizen about any PC. And here we need to make a choice of believing either Lechmere OR Mizen. And I have said it before: A serving PC must be awarded the higher credibility here, not least since we actually know that Lechmere used a false name when speaking to the police.

If we have a recorded conversation where a policeman says "That was the man who picked Miss X up in his car" and where Gary Ridgway answers "Thatīs just wrong, I never did that", we all know what solution to opt for.

A further indication which way to go in this errand, is the fact that Lechmere said not one, but THREE things to Mizen, according to the PC:s statement:

-You are wanted in Buckīs Row
-Another PC wants you there
-A woman has been found there, lying on her back

Here, we must note that all three elements lend themselves totally to an interpretation of a wish to mislead. Not one, but all three elements point in the direction of somebody else than the carmen having been around in Buckīs Row. And all three elements point away from the carmen having been the ones who found Nichols.
There is thus a remarkable and total consistency inbetween the parts of the message, and it all speaks of a scam on Lechmereīs behalf. This too needs to be weighed in before we choose which party to believe.

"Even in the unlikely event that Mizen was led to believe that there was no emergency (which seems very unlikely given the obvious potential implications of a woman found "on her back" in an area that had already witnessed two brutal prostitute murders), Mizen would still have sought corroboration from Paul unless he was incompetent."

Not at all. What would he do? Ask Paul "Is this true, what your companion says?" He had already been told that the carmen were sent by another PC, why would he doubt that? Furthermore, Mizen believed the two to be in company, Lechmere and Paul, so if it was a prank, why would the other carman not be in on it?
No matter how much he asked and how he asked it, he would still be urged to go to Buckīs Row. And since you say that he would immediately realize that there was a potential great rush for him to do so, why would he linger on and play twenty questions with Paul?

As for how much of a rush Mizen felt, please ponder the fact that he did NOT go to Buckīs Row until he had finished his knocking up-business in Hanbury Street...!

"An inquest statement, given under oath, most assuredly qualifies as "clear evidence" in my book."

But some of it should be ruled a mishearing? "Unclear evidence"? Besides, Ben, when we have a murderer on the stand, facing the hangmans rope, we must allow for the possibility that the killer will both swear the oath AND lie, just the same. And in this precise case, I am suggesting that we DO have a killer on the stand.

"Unless Mizen assumed that Nichols was sunbathing or doing Pilates, the revelation that she was "on her back" and requiring police attention would have rang obvious alarm bells"

Ah, Ben, but she already HAD police attention, remember? There WAS already a PC in place. And Mizen makes it very clear that Lechmere never said a word about any potential foul play.
So what would Mizen have thought?
Not that it was a murder, at any rate. If this had been the case, the Buckīs Row PC would not send two carmen to get another PC, risking they did not find one or, quite simply, that they abandoned their mission. If the woman in Buckīs Row had represented another case of brutal and bloody murder, that fake PC would of course have blown his whistle - and since no such thing was heard in Hanbury Street, Mizen would have known that no imminent danger was afoot.
Or are you suggesting that this PC would not have sounded the alarm? Or that it would not have been heard in Hanbury Street on a quiet night?

I personally think this is an interesting detail to ponder, though. If the woman was just drunk, then the PC in Buckīs Row should have been able to handle it all himself. So Mizen would have anticipated some other reason for being called. Perhaps he thought that the PC in Buckīs Row had some assignment that did not allow him to leave the spot, and therefore he needed assistance with the woman, I donīt know. We can only speculate.

"The fact that Mizen said that Paul went down Hanbury Street does not mean that he was "out of earshot" when the conversation took place. It could simply mean that he went there afterwards."

That seems very awkward. "The other man, who went down Hanbury Street". Why would Mizen say that about him if he went down afterwards? In that case, he would have gone with Lechmere.
At any rate, we can never be exactly sure of these things. I am just saying that there IS a quotation that seemingly implies that Paul went down Hanbury street as Lechmere spoke to Mizen. I needed such a quotation to bolster my take on how it all went down - and thankfully, it was there.

If a serving police constable informs his superiors that the self-confessed first person to arrive at the scene of the crime lied under oath at the inquest, I'd say the chances of those police superiors NOT treating Cross as a suspect were very slim indeed, with an opinion on non-existent, in my view.

But that is something we KNOW happened. We KNOW that Mizen told another story than Lechmere, a story that was not compatible with the carmans testimony. And we know that a juryman caught up on it, and asked about it.

But we must keep in mind that if Lechmere was the killer, then he was also a killer that not only once, but actually TWICE had offered himself up to the police. That would have done him a tremendeous lot of good in terms of credibility. And letīs keep in mind that we do not know what DID happen in the aftermath of the Mizen scam, do we? Just as Mizen may have pressed the point that he had been lied to, there is also the chance that Mizen simply started to doubt himself in retrospect. There is no way to tell, no definitive solution to this. And saying that he would have been caught if ... and so on, is not very viable. We just donīt know.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

lloyds .. 2nd sept

The detectives at once searched the stable-yard and every vacant space in the vicinity in the hope of discovering some clue.

Vacant Spaces

moonbegger .

[moonbegger]

Ok .. Just took a couple of looks at the 88 and 89 ordnance survey map .. and there does appear to be a small alley directly opposite the murder site .. two in fact ! one by the side of Essex Wharf .. and another on the same side as EW but directly on the other side of the tracks .. possible escape route ?

does anyone have any information regarding these two alleyways, yards , [IE, gated, locked , etc ] ?

cheers ,

moonbegger .

[moonbegger]

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.

Is this not the most simplistic and accurate similarly , that contains all the major players in the conundrum we are dealing with .. The "your wanted " and the two possible outcomes . I am happy to see , you now find nothing strange regarding Mizen's conclusion , under very similar circumstances !

As far as the " Lunch in the room" and the "Bicycle" malarkey goes .. i think we should keep the goal posts firmly in their rightful positions , let alone moving them into a different stadium ..

G'day , Dave and Edward .

An unlikely but fascinating thought Moonbegger!

Fascinating indeed. Where was he hiding?

Without knowing the exact layout of the Row back in the day ,and any possible hide outs, its hard to say! i think the stable gate was 9 or 10 feet high ? Possibly to high , But we do have the suggestion that many people have been knocked down at that spot , which lends itself to the possibility of a possible blind spot where a would be assailant, or assailants might be able to tuck themselves in, in order to gain the element of surprise on an unsuspecting victim ?

Its just a thought , and it would be very tight regarding the time issues me thinks , but it would clear up why Crossmere & Paul was unaware of any major throat cut , and the blood still oozing out when PC Neil finds her !

cheers ,

moonbegger .

[Ben]

With my apologies, Fisherman, it appears I still owe you a response from several pages ago.

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.

It's very important to make clear that this is only your personal theory talking here. Most people accept that Cross never mentioned anything about "another PC (who) was in place", and that the whole idea of a PC already being present in Buck's Row was merely the result of Mizen's memory playing tricks on him. Even in the unlikely event that Mizen was led to believe that there was no emergency (which seems very unlikely given the obvious potential implications of a woman found "on her back" in an area that had already witnessed two brutal prostitute murders), Mizen would still have sought corroboration from Paul unless he was incompetent.

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

An inquest statement, given under oath, most assuredly qualifies as "clear evidence" in my book. Again, I think the implications were obvious, whatever precise terminology Cross used. Unless Mizen assumed that Nichols was sunbathing or doing Pilates, the revelation that she was "on her back" and requiring police attention would have rang obvious alarm bells - the type of alarm bells that would have prompted a competent policeman to seek corroboration from Paul, rather than allowing him to hover out of earshot then slink away down Hanbury Street (which would have looked extremely suspicious).

The fact that Mizen said that Paul went down Hanbury Street does not mean that he was "out of earshot" when the conversation took place. It could simply mean that he went there afterwards.

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

Not really the point.

It was simply good police practice to seek corroboration from the other party, regardless of whether or not he considered Cross "suspicious". And as I've said, the nature of Cross's revelation was "alarming".

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

Seems extremely unlikely to me.

If a serving police constable informs his superiors that the self-confessed first person to arrive at the scene of the crime lied under oath at the inquest, I'd say the chances of those police superiors NOT treating Cross as a suspect were very slim indeed, with an opinion on non-existent, in my view.

All the best,
Ben