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

[Mr Lucky]

Element 2 now! Mizen says that he was told that it was a PC that wanted him in Buck´s Row. Please note that the Daily Telegraph reporter does not feel any need to keep the two elements apart as some papers do. The Telegraph simply concludes that the one who wanted Mizen´s presence in Buck´s Row was the PC: "he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row".

Other papers divide these things into two bits - he was wanted in Buck´s Row and a PC awaited him there. The reasonable conclusion to draw is that the part that wanted him in Buck´s Row was the PC, just like the Daily Telegraph says.

Hi Fisherman

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 ?

So why is it that Mizen is adamant that the man that spoke to him was Lechmere? Why not say that Paul ALSO spoke to him - if he did?

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

[Fisherman]

Rather more importantly Lechmere avoided being searched. That would have been his priority - if he was guilty of course.
If we believe Lechmere's account then Mizen was very derelict. He didn't take their particulars, didn't search them, didn't hurry off immediately.

His top priority would have been to pass Mizen by without being searched, yes. But no matter which of the two we listen to, Lechmere or Mizen, the PC did not sense any imminent danger, leading him not to hurry much.
I think that is important, since it provided Lechmere with double edges; it pointed Mizen out as being slow to act in spite of the need of speed that was imposed on the inquest by, guess who ..? Yes, Lechmere. It also ensured that Mizen walked off unknowing of the graveness of the errand, which ensured that Lechmere´s primary goal was reached; to stay away from any form of interest in his person.

If Mizen had been in any shape or form informed about the possibility that a woman was possibly dying in Buck´s Row, he would NOT have proceeded to wake people up - he would have shot off like a scolded rat.

Conclusion? Fooled by Lechmere.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,

Turn the "Mizen scam" on its head.

Cross and Paul did not encounter a policeman in Bucks Row or Great Eastern Square.

Therefore at 3.45 am PC Neil was not where he said he was.

Cross told PC Mizen that he and Paul had not seen a policeman.

But PC Mizen's story put PC Neil where he should have been.

Far more neat and tidy.

Regards,

Simon

We cannot rely on all the participants´times here, Simon. As you yourself have pointed out, that would have everything happen at the same time, and that´s impossible.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Rather more importantly Lechmere avoided being searched. That would have been his priority - if he was guilty of course.
If we believe Lechmere's account then Mizen was very derelict. He didn't take their particulars, didn't search them, didn't hurry off immediately.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Christer,

Turn the "Mizen scam" on its head.

Cross and Paul did not encounter a policeman in Bucks Row or Great Eastern Square.

Therefore at 3.45 am PC Neil was not where he said he was.

Cross told PC Mizen that he and Paul had not seen a policeman.

But PC Mizen's story put PC Neil where he should have been.

Far more neat and tidy.

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

I chalk up the "mizen scam" as Mizen basically having his memory play tricks on him due to the fact that when he arrived at the body another PC was already there. 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.
More of a Mizen misremember than a scam shall we say.

But I would be remiss to say that if Mizen was NOT misrembering, and there is every possibility that he did not, then what lech told him and how lech told him is very odd, and would raise a big ole red flag for me.

I think one must take into account that the scam was just ONE of the anomalies attaching to Lechmere.
Did the inquest and the police here him say "Lechmere", only to mistakenly jot down "Cross"? I don´t think so. Nobody would suggest such a thing, since it would be totally incredible.

And still, whenever there is some small chance to give Lechmere the benefit of a doubt, this is done for some reason.

Once again, Abby - think the WHOLE sequence of events through, with Lechmere talking to Mizen.

What does he say?

He says "You are wanted in Buck´s Row.

He says "Another policeman awaits you there".

He says "A woman has been found there, lying on her back".

According to Mizen, this is what he says.

According to himself, he tells Mizen what he and Paul have found, he adds that the woman is either much drunk or dead, and he says that Paul told the PC that he for his part thought the woman was dead.

It is not only the PC bit that differs, is it? If we are to explain it all, we need to explain these discrepancies.

Lechmere tells the inquest that he has explained the potential gravity of the case - the woman may well be dead (or, of course, on the brink of death). This he shared with Mizen, and not only he, but also Paul.

So why is it that Mizen is adamant that the man that spoke to him was Lechmere? Why not say that Paul ALSO spoke to him - if he did?

Mizen clearly states that there was no mentioning of any foul play. According to the PC, Lechmere said that the woman was lying in the street, AND NOTHING MORE. If we are to believe Mizen, it would seem that Lechmere took great care not to disclose how serious the case was! It was nothing much to worry about, probably, and to boot, another PC had things in hand already.

Who benefits from this lame description? Who gives a picture of an everyday errand, with no need at all to take any interest in the carmen? Lechmere.

Mizen thus walked off without any questioning of the men, without taking their names, without questioning them on any particular detail at all. And who made this happen? Lechmere.

If Mizen had been told that it was perhaps a case of murder, or that the woman´s life could be hanging on by a whisker, Mizen would have had all the reason in the world to ensure that he got the men´s names and quite likely, he would have brought them along to the murder site, especially if he had not been informed about that other PC. First and foremost, he would have set off like a rocket down to Buck´s Row.

But he did not get that information, and all his actions - leaving the carmen to walk off, finishing his knocking up business, taking down no names - speak loudly and clearly of a PC who walked off rather calmly, having had Lechmere sing a lullaby in his ear.

Thus we can easily tell that no matter what we wish to think about the mentioning of the fake PC, Lechmere did fool Mizen totally about the potential seriousness of the errand.

Have a look at the wording of things, Abby, and then tell me: If you yourself had been the killer and had ended up in the predicament with Paul: Could you have come up with a better lie to bypass the police? Is there one single detail he could have performed better if he was the killer and really had decided to con Mizen?

I really don´t think there is. If he was the killer, then the scam is a total masterpiece. The little detail "A woman has been found" for example - pure genious. He misleads Mizen by obscuring his own role - and in a twisted way, he still tells a truth!

Can you improve on what he did, Abby? And if you can´t - why should you think that you have two coincidences and an afterconstruction on hand. Do perfectly shaped diamonds emerge from thin air - or do somebody hone them to perfection?

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Caz
Please let me withdraw the accusation that you had made a ludicrous suggestion. I am now aware that this is not allowed, but I am for some reason unable to get back into my offending post to edit it.

[Lechmere]

Caz
I am not distancing myself ‘from the idea that Paul took no part in the conversation with Mizen and didn't hear what Cross was telling him.’

I was responding to your (at least I think it was you, if not please accept my apologies but I can’t be bothered to trawl back to find out) ludicrous suggestion that a guilty Lechmere could have just asked Mizen the time and pretend to an out of earshot Paul that he had really informed Mizen of what had transpired.

There is a very good chance that Paul did not hear the specifics of the conversation. But he may have.
If Lechmere was the killer then he would very likely have been a sociopath/psychopath. If he was the killer this is the likely explanation for his behaviour and an explanation for how he hoodwinked Mizen, the police at whatever station he presented himself to, the Coroner and Paul.
It would incidentally have been less useful in hoodwinking his wife (hence explanation for giving an alternative name and going to the inquest in his work clothes) and his mother (that’s another story). That is because those close to him would have been more aware of his traits.
Anyway, Paul would have been in Lechmere’s company for some fifteen minutes, from the first encounter when Paul initially thought he was about to be mugged by Lechmere (which I would contend established a relationship of dominance of Lechmere over Paul), to when they parted by Corbett’s Court.
This will have been plenty of time for Lechmere to impose his version of reality on Paul, including Lechmere’s version of what transpired in the Mizen conversation.

We know that Mizen testified that Charles Lechmere told him that he was wanted by another policeman in Buck’s Row as a woman was down.
According to Mizen, he was told there was another policeman on scene and there was no specific indication that the woman was dead.

Lechmere gave a different version of what he had told Mizen.
There is what is known as a ‘discrepancy’ here.

If we are investigating this case and trying to see if someone or another might be guilty of the crimes, then it would be sensible to be sceptical about that person’s version of events and to see if they could have altered other people’s perceptions of those events.
If we are investigating person (A) and there are discrepancies between his version of events and another person’s (B) version, then it will be safer for the purposes of that investigation to prefer version (B).

If we know that:
• the person (A) potentially had the time available to commit the crime (based on the timings from Doveton Street to Buck’s Row and the time he said he left home);
• the person (A) was spotted standing very close to the body prior to his having raised the alarm;
• that the victim’s abdominal wounds had been covered unlike in other cases in the series, indicating that perhaps the culprit had been disturbed;
• that the person (A) gave a name to the authorities that was not his normal name, nor one that we have any evidence that he ever used;
• that the next murder, eight days later, happened on the very road that he walked down and just 150 yards from the workplace of the person who found him by the body;
• most of the other murders happened roughly at the same time (i.e. while he would have been on his way to work) and on his likely routes to work;
• the murders that were not on that route fit in with a visit to his mother’s house on his day off; and
• the apron drop site is on the route back to his house from Mitre Square;

then I think we have grounds for being sceptical about that person’s (A) account compared to that of the other person (B).

But you are right that Paul is untouchable – but not just for the reasons you give.
He went running to the press and putting himself at the scene. OK I know that some criminals like to insert themselves and I think there is an element of this in Lechmere’s behaviour, but Paul’s regular press interviews are a bit too gratuitous to be a sign of guilt.
He cannot be linked to the Double Event nor very sensibly Tabram. I would concede that a case can be made for Kelley and Chapman.
Paul was closely interrogated by the police after he was raided. I would exonerate pretty much everyone who was closely interrogated.

If we have two people, Mr A (again) and Mr C (this time) who between them concoct a story to mislead a policeman and we wish to decide who played the major part in creating the concoction, then if one of them (C) can be exonerated from having any nefarious motive for the concoction, then I would submit that the other party (A) sensibly becomes the leading potential culprit for the misleading with a great big red flag waving above his bonce, as genuine Eliza Doolittle might have said.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Moonbegger,

I'm with you entirely on this one.

And I think Lechy (the poster) is right to distance himself from the idea that Paul took no part in the conversation with Mizen and didn't hear what Cross was telling him. 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.

Lechy the poster's argument that Paul and Cross may well have discussed beforehand what to tell the next copper they saw is a reasonable one. It allows for Paul to have been in on the entire conversation, instead of Cross relying on him being out of earshot for all or part of it. But there's a snag here because Cross's role can't be made to look incriminating if Paul is right there with him, singing from the same hymn sheet.

Either of them could have suggested telling Mizen he was wanted in Buck's Row (either by another copper at the scene if Lechy the poster insists, or just "wanted", with Mizen inferring the rest), but in this scenario both would have agreed, presumably with the joint aim of getting to work with no further questions asked. If Paul was the first to take advantage and bugger off to work, and we know his reasons were innocent ones, then how could anything incriminating be read into Cross doing much the same?

If anything, as I think you have said yourself, Paul's behaviour throughout could be considered more questionable than Cross's, but Paul is untouchable by virtue of being second at the scene, so poor old Cross is the one with the cross to bear.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
I chalk up the "mizen scam" as Mizen basically having his memory play tricks on him due to the fact that when he arrived at the body another PC was already there. 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.
More of a Mizen misremember than a scam shall we say.

But I would be remiss to say that if Mizen was NOT misrembering, and there is every possibility that he did not, then what lech told him and how lech told him is very odd, and would raise a big ole red flag for me.

[Fisherman]

That`s a bit harsh, Christer. Maybe the last 39 years ;-)

But to be honest, I have considered most of the people who were among the first to discover a victim as a possible suspect, be it Reeves Saunders, Cross, John Davis, Diemschutz, Indian Harry or Louis Jacobs, and I`m sure most of us interesed in the case have considered these scenarios.

Robert Paul interested me, and still does, when I saw he worked really near 29Hanbury St. Passing two murder sites at the right time and he may have been there whether Chapman was killed at 4.30 or 5.30.

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 you´ve got a name for me on that score, I´d be very interested to see it!

People who find murder victims on their own (the people, not the victims ...) MUST be regarded as good bids for the killers role, generally speaking. We may often detract 93-year old ladies walking their dogs and toddlers who stumble over stiffs, but on the whole it is unforgivable not to see the potential significance of this.

Robert Paul? No. His appearance in Buck´s Row exonerates him, I´d say. And why would he go to the press, but stay away from the police? It would be outright stupid of him.
The picture I´ve formed of him is one of a braggard with a coward´s heart, but that´s of course just me.

No, it is Lechmere who swops names very conveniently, who lies to Mizen, who denies to prop Nichols up - and who is found by the victim. And his roads tally with all murders.

Paul was just a nuisance, but a nuisance that could be put to use. A useful idiot, nothing else.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

And us Ripperologists could not see what was potentially going on for 124 years.

That`s a bit harsh, Christer. Maybe the last 39 years ;-)

But to be honest, I have considered most of the people who were among the first to discover a victim as a possible suspect, be it Reeves Saunders, Cross, John Davis, Diemschutz, Indian Harry or Louis Jacobs, and I`m sure most of us interesed in the case have considered these scenarios.

Robert Paul interested me, and still does, when I saw he worked really near 29Hanbury St. Passing two murder sites at the right time and he may have been there whether Chapman was killed at 4.30 or 5.30.

[Fisherman]

Hi Moonbegger,

I'm with you entirely on this one.

And I think Lechy (the poster) is right to distance himself from the idea that Paul took no part in the conversation with Mizen and didn't hear what Cross was telling him. 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.

Lechy the poster's argument that Paul and Cross may well have discussed beforehand what to tell the next copper they saw is a reasonable one. It allows for Paul to have been in on the entire conversation, instead of Cross relying on him being out of earshot for all or part of it. But there's a snag here because Cross's role can't be made to look incriminating if Paul is right there with him, singing from the same hymn sheet.

Either of them could have suggested telling Mizen he was wanted in Buck's Row (either by another copper at the scene if Lechy the poster insists, or just "wanted", with Mizen inferring the rest), but in this scenario both would have agreed, presumably with the joint aim of getting to work with no further questions asked. If Paul was the first to take advantage and bugger off to work, and we know his reasons were innocent ones, then how could anything incriminating be read into Cross doing much the same?

If anything, as I think you have said yourself, Paul's behaviour throughout could be considered more questionable than Cross's, but Paul is untouchable by virtue of being second at the scene, so poor old Cross is the one with the cross to bear.

Love,

Caz
X

A number of possibilities may apply, Caz - there is, for example, the chance that Lechmere talked Paul into jointly feeding Mizen a bogus story to slip by him as quickly as possible - and then, when they found their PC, Paul said "You do it, I don´t want to talk to him", distanced himself and opened up for Lechmere to make his own choice of what to serve Mizen.

It is impossible to go through all possibilities - the lack of detail open up for too many of them. But in the end, the three elements involved in what Mizen stated that Lechmere had said, all lend themselves extremely well to a conclusion that Lechmere lied to pass by Mizen unscathed and unsearched, by playing down the seriousness of the affair and by reassuring Mizen that there was already a PC in charge in Buck´s Row.

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, I´m afraid. Alternative explanations and the great unknown can always be pushed as some sort of parallel possibility, but that does not change a iot of the explosive power involved in Mizen´s testimony.
A killer that wanted to pass the PC by could not have thought up a better tactic to do so in a million years.
And us Ripperologists could not see what was potentially going on for 124 years.

All the best,
Fisherman

[caz]

Hi Moonbegger,

I'm with you entirely on this one.

And I think Lechy (the poster) is right to distance himself from the idea that Paul took no part in the conversation with Mizen and didn't hear what Cross was telling him. 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.

Lechy the poster's argument that Paul and Cross may well have discussed beforehand what to tell the next copper they saw is a reasonable one. It allows for Paul to have been in on the entire conversation, instead of Cross relying on him being out of earshot for all or part of it. But there's a snag here because Cross's role can't be made to look incriminating if Paul is right there with him, singing from the same hymn sheet.

Either of them could have suggested telling Mizen he was wanted in Buck's Row (either by another copper at the scene if Lechy the poster insists, or just "wanted", with Mizen inferring the rest), but in this scenario both would have agreed, presumably with the joint aim of getting to work with no further questions asked. If Paul was the first to take advantage and bugger off to work, and we know his reasons were innocent ones, then how could anything incriminating be read into Cross doing much the same?

If anything, as I think you have said yourself, Paul's behaviour throughout could be considered more questionable than Cross's, but Paul is untouchable by virtue of being second at the scene, so poor old Cross is the one with the cross to bear.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Nobody, Moonbegger, will be happier than I when you DO get it!

Fisherman

[moonbegger]

K .. so let me see if i've got it , Its wax on followed by wax off