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

[Fisherman]

Of course Mizen is the source, Moonbegger - and so he should be!

Iīve laid down all I have to say, and I stand by it, Pygmalion or no Pygmalion. I urge you to read and think, and you may see the light in the end. I am not sure that I will be here to guide you, however, so you may have to do the major part on your own. I trust you have the capacity to do so, however!

The best, my friend!
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Hello Fish ,

Letīs begin with element 1. I would submit that the thing to say if you had found and abandoned a woman like Lechmere and Paul had, was that Mizen was NEEDED in Buckīs Row. Not that he was wanted there. No matter if the woman was alive or dead, she would NEED attention.

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 .

1. Mizen was told that he was wanted in Buckīs Row.
2. Mizen was told that the part that was asking for his presence was a fellow PC.
3. Mizen was told that a woman had been found lying in the street in Buckīs Row.

And the fundamental & solitary source for this is ? Mizen ! The same Mizen who got slated in the Press by Paul the day before , for not doing his job properly , Paul also made no mention that he or CrossMere had informed Mizen of a PC waiting for him .. Then we have crossmere in the stand categorically denying that he informed Mizen of another PC , just after Mizen stepped down from giving evidence .. And then, when they eventually get Paul into the stand .. they give the whole episode a wide birth , not even one question about the PC waiting for Mizen , or the Knocking up episode .. He was in and out . which for my incredibly naive mind , tells me that they had (A) figured it all out, and there was no more confusion , or (B) they wanted to sweep the whole matter under the carpet with as less fuss as possible .. and rightly so , they had much bigger fish to fry .

As i previously mentioned [Mizen] could have assumed automatically once he finds Neil at the scene, thats what Crossmere must have meant by "your wanted" And he knows no better until CrossMere follows him into the stand , and that faithful ol penny starts to drop . But here is the thing , By clinging on to his original "policeman already there line" he was holding on to the slim chance of defending and hopefully excusing the slagging off that Paul gave him in the press ..

So PC Mizen may have told a little non consequential phib in order to get a little credibility back amongst his colleagues .. To be honest i think most people would be lying to themselves if they believe they would not have tried to throw in a little credit , damage limitation phib .. especially if it was of no real consequence .. i just think , unfortunately for him , it blew up in his face .

cheers ,

moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

Okay, then, Moonbegger, since you seem keen to be taken to task, letīs look at the conversation in Hanbury Street again.

There are three elements in what Lechmere tells Mizen. Each one is telling when it comes to show how Lechmere created a picture that reshaped the truth and that allowed him to get away from police scrutiny. Please, Moonbegger, tag along, and I will show you exactly how this works one more - and hopefully final - time.
We will use the Daily Telegraph report, since it mentions all three elements. If you feel the need to use other sources, please do so, and I will reply to whatever questions they may rise.

Here goes:

"...a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying..."

Basically, this is all we need. Letīs now split it into the three elements I speak of:

1. Mizen was told that he was wanted in Buckīs Row.
2. Mizen was told that the part that was asking for his presence was a fellow PC.
3. Mizen was told that a woman had been found lying in the street in Buckīs Row.

Letīs begin with element 1. I would submit that the thing to say if you had found and abandoned a woman like Lechmere and Paul had, was that Mizen was NEEDED in Buckīs Row. Not that he was wanted there. No matter if the woman was alive or dead, she would NEED attention.
She would however, not WANT attention if she was dead. We want nothing at that stage.
So we may conclude that whoever it was that wanted Mizen to come to Buckīs Row, it was not Nichols.
Now, can we infer that Lechmere led on somehow that somebody else could have wanted Mizenīs presence there? Yes, we can - for Mizen clearly states that Lechmere said that a fellow PC waited for him in Buckīs Row.

This, however, represents a mishearing to you.

So letīs see if there is anything else that implicates that someone was in place in Buckīs Row. For that, we have to turn to other sources that say that Mizen was wanted in Buckīs Row, where a woman had been found. So, Moonbegger, there WAS somebody in place in Buckīs Row, who had found Nichols (that somebody could have been that PC of course...)

But why use the wording "had been found" if you were the one who did the finding yourself? Why not say that: "I have found a woman in Buckīs Row"? Why say "a woman has been found in Buckīs Row"?

Imagine, Moonbegger, that you do the exact same thing - you find a woman lying in Riddle Street in your home town, you are alone, you do not try to help her and you set off to find help. You round the corner to Deception Street, and you meet a policeman. You decide to tell him, and so you say:

"Hey, mister policeman, a woman has been found lying in Riddle Street!"

Of course, Moonbegger, thatīs how you would do it, right?

You would not say "Thereīs a woman lying in Riddle Street, and you need to take a look at her", would you? Or "I just found a woman lying in Riddle Street".

No, no, no - you would opt for the much more rational "A woman has been found lying in Riddle Street".

Am I being followed here, Moonbegger? What I slyly imply is that Lechmere wanted to create a picture in which he was not the finder himself! A picture that told Mizen that OTHER people were in place in Buckīs Row, people who had been the one/s who found Nichols. And we only have one person pointed out - that PC. Lechmereīs wording, does however, open up for numerous bystanders. The only thing it does NOT open up for is Lechmere being the one who found the body - he effectively conceals this!

Element 2 now! Mizen says that he was told that it was a PC that wanted him in Buckīs 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 Mizenīs presence in Buckīs 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 Buckīs Row and a PC awaited him there. The reasonable conclusion to draw is that the part that wanted him in Buckīs Row was the PC, just like the Daily Telegraph says.

Element 3 has already been discussed, since it is intertwined with the other elements. "A woman has been found in Buckīs Row" is what you say when you want to make sure that the one you are telling does not find out that you yourself have done that finding. It is a very shrewd way to word things, since technically, Lechmere is not lying here - he is only twisting the truth. He DID find her, so she has "been found". But look at what happens to the scenario when he tells it the way he does!

Finally, the truly interesting thing with these three elements is that they ALL involve elements that bolster the exact same take: that Lechmere lied to bypass Mizen. They ALL point to the same thing, and elements 1 and 3 are totally in keeping with Mizen really hearing Lechmere say that a fellow PC awaited him in Buckīs Row.

It does not take much ingenuity to say "Maybe Nichols was that somebody who wanted him" - but we can see that the Daily Telegraph - who were at the inquest - were not in doubt that the fake PC was who was referred to.

It does not take much ingenuity to say that Lechmere was right - a woman HAD been found in Buckīs Row - but we can see that this wording - "has been found" - is a twisted truth.

It takes no ingenuity at all to suggest that Mizen mistook "easy" for "PC". Itīs easy PC.

It does however take a measure of ingenuity, an open mind, some insight about psychopathic behaviour and none too much respect for the traditional thinking in Ripperology to see how the bits and pieces in Lechmereīs testimony fit together with the events.

All the best, Moonbegger!

Fisherman

PS. Itīnot naïvety to claim that what a PC says he has heard is normally what he thinks he has heard. You may go on forever about how untrustworthy some coppers are, but the order of the day is that the written evidence is what we need to make sense of. That has nothing to do with naïvety in any sense at all. So, you see, you may well be the naïve party here after all.

[moonbegger]

Fish , Edward.

It is very far from what he should have said, if he had been an honest man, wanting to give the full picture and help that woman.

Its a great deal more helpful than Pauls contribution .. who's honesty/innocence is not under question .. So i don't think that bucket holds much water Fish .

I was under the impression that you knew this already, though...?

Yes , indeed Fish , on both counts, But i was just checking in, to see if you had discovered any new evidence that ruled out the possibility that (A) He thought he would give his evidence , and still get an afternoon's work . or (B) As Edward mentioned ,

Let’s work on the premise that Lechmere was innocent and had decided to present himself while on his way to work on the Monday morning. Let’s assume that he thought he would just make a statement and go on his way and his being shanghaied into attending the inquest was unexpected.

I think this scenario makes most sense .. As for how it unfolded ,
He could have either had a run in with Mizen on his way to work on Monday morning , who marched him down the station , or he volunteered his availability , not knowing that he would be pulled straight into the inquest .

I bet, moonbegger, that if you give it some time, you will realize that the wording he chose was an odd one

Not at all Fish "You're wanted down there (pointing to Buck's row)" is concise and to the point ..

Well, thatīs just plain silly. But Iīve already told you that. What Mizen SAYS he heard, is probably what he DID hear. Itīs extremely basic.

And i thought i was the naive one in this conversation

cheers ,

moonbegger .

[Lechmere]

Moonbeggar

We do not know exactly when Lechmere presented himself.
However it is unlikely to have been before Sunday evening as at the inquest session held on the Saturday Neil is presented as the discoverer of Nichols’s body.
Robert Paul’s story appeared in the press on Sunday late afternoon, claiming that he and an unknown other discovered Nichols’s body before Neil and told a policeman of this.
Some sort of press conference was held on Sunday evening, and it was denied that Neil had been alerted to Nichols’s murder by anyone and Neil was still presented as the discoverer.

Then Lechmere turns up at the inquest. This the first Mizen had seen of him since Friday morning and Mizen made it clear that he did not up until then know his name (or the name he gave – Cross).

We know that technically inquest witnesses were summonsed by the Coroner after he was given a list of potential witnesses and their statements which had been gathered by the police. However we also know that in practice corners were cut and witnesses could be rounded up and on occasion more or less immediately taken to an inquest by the police. Whenever Lechmere was summonsed, he cannot have been formally summonsed by the Coroner as there was no time for this to have happened.

We know that when told in advance, a witness would know that he would not be going to work and would if possible be able to get a stand in to cover their work.

Let’s work on the premise that Lechmere was innocent and had decided to present himself while on his way to work on the Monday morning. Let’s assume that he thought he would just make a statement and go on his way and his being shanghaied into attending the inquest was unexpected.

Firstly what police station did he visit?
The nearest to his way to work would have been Commercial Street, although the case was being investigated at this stage from Bethnal Green. Either would have entailed a detour.

At what time?
How long would he allow for going to the police station, making his statement and naively but hopefully getting to work on time, for 4.00 am.
On the day of Nichols’s murder he left at 3.30 am (or 3.20).
I would guess he would be in the police station for a couple of hours at best and I would suppose he would make the same sort of estimation. That would mean he would have to leave home at 1.30 am ish.
That would make for a very long day. It doesn’t make sense to me.

Guilty or innocent, I would suggest that it would have made more sense for him to go to a police station on his day off. The only window of opportunity would have been Sunday evening, roughly while the press conference was going on.

Whether he went in the morning or the evening, before leaving the police station he would have been summonsed. The only point of significance is that if he went to the police station on the Sunday evening he had no excuse for going to the inquest in his work clothes as he would have known that he wasn’t going to work.

In any event, why was he also wearing his apron in court? It is an accessory. An item that is easily put on or taken off as required.

There is no firm evidence to suggest Lechmere didn’t leave the inquest and go to work after testifying. However it would not be usual for a witness to leave in case they needed to be recalled.

It is incidentally virtually impossible for Lechmere to have been found by some sort of dragnet while on his way to work on Monday morning. We know the police took some time to find Robert Paul and if it was so easy to find Lechmere via a dragnet, the same net would logically have quickly also found Paul.

It is also exceptionally unlikely that the police tracked Lechmere down at his workplace.
If he had appeared at the police station on the Sunday evening, then a more senior policeman would have had to scrutinise his statement after he had left, decided he was important, get someone down to Pickford’s before he had gone out on a job and dragged him back to the police station and then down to The Working Lad’s Institute before the inquest started.

The simplest explanation for all this is that Lechmere went to the police on Sunday evening and was immediately summonsed. I would guess that the most senior officer available would have interviewed him as his statement would have clearly been important. That would in turn imply that the necessity of his presence at the inquest would have been immediately obvious to whoever interviewed him.

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"So do we have any evidence to support the claim that Crossmere never did make it to work at all , that day ?"

Yes. We have the similar case of the similar man Paul, also a carman, who had to pay somebody else to do his work on the inquest day. I was under the impression that you knew this already, though...?

"Do we know for sure when he offered himself up to the police ? was it on the Sunday or Monday morning ?"

No ,we do not know it for sure, but the Sunday seems to be the best bet. But I was under the impression that ...

"Quote:
Are you seriously suggesting that once Mizen saw Neil he concluded that Lechmere must have told him that a PC was awaiting him in Buckīs Row?

Exactamundo Mon amigo .. i think you've got it But not " must of told him " more like he [Mizen] must have assumed automatically thats what Crossmere must have meant by "your wanted" "

Aha. Well, thatīs just plain silly. But Iīve already told you that. What Mizen SAYS he heard, is probably what he DID hear. Itīs extremely basic. He could of course have heard the latest Lady Gaga hit or a recitation of Lincolnīs Gettysburg speech too, and mistinterpreted that as "another policeman wants you there".

Itīs just not as likely.

"As long as there is the possibility , he thought she might be drunk , he must have also been aware that she may still be alive .."

Not really if he was the killer, Moon. Then he would have been pretty damn sure she was dead.
If he was NOT the killer, and completely guiltless, then he would have said "I found a woman lying in the street down at Buckīs Row, and me and this other man here took a look at her, and we honestly think sheīs dead, though we canīt be sure. You should go an have a look, constable!"

... and not: "You are wanted in Buckīs Row. A woman has been found there, lying on her back, and another policeman wants you there."

It is very far from what he should have said, if he had been an honest man, wanting to give the full picture and help that woman.

I bet, moonbegger, that if you give it some time, you will realize that the wording he chose was an odd one.

Once you reach that station, ask yourself why he gave a false name to the police.

Then you take a look at the total correlation between the murder sites and his paths.

Then you compare him to anybody else pointed out as a suspect in the Ripper case, and you will know what I mean when I say that he is without comparison the best bet we have. And by a huge margin too.

But I fear you wonīt do this, occupied as you are trying to save his backside by accepting that nothing was what it seemed to be and that he never said what a PC at an inquest testified he had said. Enter the great unknown again!

Goodnight.

Fisherman

[moonbegger]

G'day Edward & Fish

The evidence we have about such things suggests that he would have known that he would not be at work.

So do we have any evidence to support the claim that Crossmere never did make it to work at all , that day ?

Do we know for sure when he offered himself up to the police ? was it on the Sunday or Monday morning ?

In any case this does not explain why he kept his apron on. That would have been a take on, take off accessory.

Mizen describes CrossMere on the morning as appearing to be a carman ..

"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)

So CrossMere was wearing his apron before he got to work ( was he hiding his bloodstained clothes ) You see Fish , i have no problem looking at both sides of the equation .

Whatīs this putting two and two together business, Moonbegger? Are you seriously suggesting that once Mizen saw Neil he concluded that Lechmere must have told him that a PC was awaiting him in Buckīs Row? Iīm sorry, but I donīt buy into that stuff at all. I prefer face value ten times out of ten to any mumbo-jumbo we may dream up on behalf of the participants.

Crossmere tells Mizen

"You're wanted down there" "There is a woman in Buck's row on the broad of her back. She is dead, or else drunk."

Also we have Pauls Lloyd report , who makes no mention that a PC was on the scene and waiting for Mizen ! ( Face value 2 , Mumbo Jumbo 0)
So Mizen finally makes it to Bucks Row , and finds PC Neil ( Fact )

Are you seriously suggesting that once Mizen saw Neil he concluded that Lechmere must have told him that a PC was awaiting him in Buckīs Row?

Exactamundo Mon amigo .. i think you've got it But not " must of told him " more like he [Mizen] must have assumed automatically thats what Crossmere must have meant by "your wanted" And he knows no better until CrossMere follows him into the stand , and that faithful ol penny starts to drop . But here is the thing , By clinging on to his original "policeman already there line" he was holding on to the slim chance of defending and hopefully excusing the slagging off that Paul gave him in the press .. ( No mumbo jumbo , but plenty of common sense there Fish )

as if it lends itself to some sort of picture on Lechmereīs behalf that she was still alive and kicking. But what he says here is not that he did not think she was dead

"You're wanted down there" (needed) "There is a woman in Buck's row on the broad of her back. She is dead, or else drunk."

As long as there is the possibility , he thought she might be drunk , he must have also been aware that she may still be alive ..

cheers ,

moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

Adding to Edwards points, Moonbegger:

"let me try this again whatever press article you wish to refer too .. " your wanted , Needed , woman on her back , ect " in bucks row . So when Mizen gets to Bucks Row and finds PC Neil , he naturally puts 2 and 2 together to reach 4 .."

Whatīs this putting two and two together business, Moonbegger? Are you seriously suggesting that once Mizen saw Neil he concluded that Lechmere must have told him that a PC was awaiting him in Buckīs Row? Iīm sorry, but I donīt buy into that stuff at all. I prefer face value ten times out of ten to any mumbo-jumbo we may dream up on behalf of the participants.

And then you bring up "he thought the woman had been outraged; he did not suppose at the time she had been murdered" as if it lends itself to some sort of picture on Lechmereīs behalf that she was still alive and kicking. But what he says here is not that he did not think she was dead - itīs that he did not suppose that she had been murdered, since nothing in that dark spot gave away such a picture.
At the end of the day, Lechmere did not have to ask about her status if you ask me ...

"I have never underestimated , anyone or anything in my life Fish"

Good on you, Moonbegger. But if I were you, Iīd wait and see.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Lechmere didn't need to be identified as he identified himself as the person who spoke to Mizen and found the body.
He would surely have known he couldn't get to work that day.
The evidence we have about such things suggests that he would have known that he would not be at work. Paul, when he eventually appeared at the inquest, had to pay for a replacement to do his work.
In any case this does not explain why he kept his apron on. That would have been a take on, take off accessory.

[moonbegger]

Hello Fish,

"but your interpretation of the circumstances that lead to those facts , becoming facts"

Eh - no. I cannot interpret anything at all into facts. Nobody can.

Mmm.. Like i said Fish, I'm not sure your getting it

Why would Mizen believe that Neil was the man Lechmere referred to if Lechmere had not told him in the first place that a colleague of his was awaiting him in Buckīs Row?

Ok , let me try this again whatever press article you wish to refer too .. " your wanted , Needed , woman on her back , ect " in bucks row . So when Mizen gets to Bucks Row and finds PC Neil , he naturally puts 2 and 2 together to reach 4 .. Little does he know at the time , CrossMere was referring to the woman that was in need of his attention .. Baring in mind that at the time, he does not know for sure if she is dead or alive ..
And even if she is dead , she is still in need of his attention .

he thought the woman had been outraged; he did not suppose at the time she had been murdered.

In his opinion deceased looked as if she had been outraged and gone off in a swoon; but he had no idea that there were any serious injuries.

There is also the possibility , that Mizen may well have been trying to justify his not responding urgently , and covering his own behind .. Both CrossMere and Paul accuse him of not being too attentive to the situation . 2 against 1

That is an assumption that may be terribly, terribly wrong. It may equally well apply that the other half of the story clinches the case, Moonbegger! But this you do not think about,

No , Not at all Fish , i am very aware of both side scenario's , you have that angle well covered on most threads .. And yes , you could be right on every count , but as it stands with so many unknown factors , we can only surmise , and i choose to surmise on the side of a innocent CrossMere .

Iīll let you in on a secret, Moonbegger - it does not. What YOU quote here is an ID parade, and NOT an instance where a man called to testify at an inquest was told to wear the same clothes as he wore on the occasion investigated.

Witness called into the inquest to be ID by Mizen ..

That man was Carman Cross (who came into the Court-room in a coarse sacking apron)

There is also the possibility, that he was actually planning on going to work ?

I dunno Moon - you may just be underestimating me ever so slightly.

I have never underestimated , anyone or anything in my life Fish ,
( Maybe the power of Tequila mixed with jagermeister)

cheers

moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"I dont think your quite getting the cut of my jib on this one Fish"

I dunno Moon - you may just be underestimating me ever so slightly.

"I think the facts you have are good"

Agreed!

" .. but your interpretation of the circumstances that lead to those facts , becoming facts"

Eh - no. I cannot interpret anything at all into facts. Nobody can. That is why I donīt call it a fact that Mizen was framed - I call it a fact that what Mizen claimed to have been told lends itself eminently to such an interpretation. It is also why I say that the false name must not prove that he was our man - I just say that it is a fact that he DID give a name to the police and inquest that was not his real name, and this too lends itself ... well, you get my drift!

"In short , there is always gonna be a decent and innocent explanation for each and every one of your red flags"

No again - there MAY be decent and innocent explanations (plenty of them, hopefully, since the accusation points are many), but it equally applies that he could well have been the killer.
And nota bene, Moonbegger, that I donīt stray from the evidence. It is you that suggest that "the great unknown" would hold the key. It is you that suggest a mishearing on Mizenīs behalf, suggesting other things were said, whereas I donīt change a syllable. It is you that think that he must have had a good reason to call himself Lechmere the other ninety times we have him on record, whereas I say that this is something that points very much to foul play.

"And even all together , all five of them amount to nothing more than a little suspicious . And that is solely because we only know half the story."

That is an assumption that may be terribly, terribly wrong. It may equally well apply that the other half of the story clinches the case, Moonbegger! But this you do not think about, no - you instead imply that if we had had it, Lechmere would undoubtedly have been in the clear. So, to put it kindly, it really is a tad simplistic of you!

"Where does he say that a PC colleague wants him there ? He does not ! Mizen does , like i explained , It was only when Mizen finds another PC there , he automatically assumes it was PC Neil that CrossMere was referring to .. A kerfuffle that would have surely been resolved soon after the inquest ."

Why would Mizen believe that Neil was the man Lechmere referred to if Lechmere had not told him in the first place that a colleague of his was awaiting him in Buckīs Row? You see, this is where you need a bit of constructive fantasy, and I need nothing more than we already have.

"I think the unique circumstances that surrounded this particular witness are not comparable with other events or witnesses Fish , but I do think my scenario ticks all the right boxes ."

Iīll let you in on a secret, Moonbegger - it does not. What YOU quote here is an ID parade, and NOT an instance where a man called to testify at an inquest was told to wear the same clothes as he wore on the occasion investigated. And I know about ID parades, Moonbegger.
If I had wanted you to produce evidence of that, I would have asked for it. The reason I asked for something else was instead because I wanted to show you that you were wrong.

All the best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

G'day Fish,

Okay. So you tell ME that I donīt have much fact to hang my hat on, but YOU generously offer yourself the opportunity to opt for a story that is unknown to you - because you think it makes sense to do so.

I dont think your quite getting the cut of my jib on this one Fish
I think the facts you have are good .. but your interpretation of the circumstances that lead to those facts , becoming facts [The Cause] the Sole reason , those facts got there in the first place maybe somewhat disregarded , or not given a good ol common sense pre-conclusion work out . In short , there is always gonna be a decent and innocent explanation for each and every one of your red flags , And even all together , all five of them amount to nothing more than a little suspicious . And that is solely because we only know half the story. (we can only be certain of the smoke)

"The Mizen scam - More like mizunderstanding scam .. "
Cute. But how do you explain that the two parts add up? He FIRST says that Mizen is wanted in Buckīs Row, THEN adds that it is a PC colleague of his that does the wanting down there.
Why did these elements align?

Where does he say that a PC colleague wants him there ? He does not ! Mizen does , like i explained , It was only when Mizen finds another PC there , he automatically assumes it was PC Neil that CrossMere was referring to .. A kerfuffle that would have surely been resolved soon after the inquest .


"Is it so far beyond your thinking Fish, that with the Police Knowing full well, that PC Mizen was going to identify the man who spoke to him on the morning of the murder , CrossMere may have been Told to wear the same clothes he wore on the morning of the murder for the sole purpose of the ID."

Oh yes - miles beyond it. Once you can show me a single example of a witness, called to an inquest, who is told to wear special clothes for identifying purposes, it may creep a little closer.
But not much.

I think the unique circumstances that surrounded this particular witness are not comparable with other events or witnesses Fish , but i do think my scenario ticks all the right boxes .

Police Instructions for Conducting Parades
25. We subjected the Police Instructions for Identification
of Offenders to careful scrutiny and our principal comment
relates to Instruction J18(l). This requires that a suspect
should be:
"Dressed as near as possible as he was when the
alleged offence was committed"

the
defendant (although not in an identification parade) was asked
to put on a hat, a pair of glasses and an overcoat. He was
not identified as the offender until he had done so.

cheers

moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

Monbegger:

"forgive me if my common sense alternative approach comes across as a tad naive .. "

Common sense can never be naïvety. Thatīs the nature of the beast.

I am aware of half the story ( the Smoke ) but i am also aware that there is another part of the story that is unknown to me ..

Okay. So you tell ME that I donīt have much fact to hang my hat on, but YOU generously offer yourself the opportunity to opt for a story that is unknown to you - because you think it makes sense to do so.

So I need a lot more, but you only need the unknown - would that be fair to say?

"Likewise , to assume that just because we have no written police document to tell us that CrossMere was checked out thoroughly at the time , it does not mean that it did not happen."

Aha. More of the same. We donīt have any records of a checkout, we know full well that the police did not use his true name, hinting very clearly at no checkout, but you opt for the unknown once again. And there goes the evidence that we DO have in favour of evidence that we donīt have - the great unknown. Again.

"The Mizen scam - More like mizunderstanding scam .. "

Cute. But how do you explain that the two parts add up? He FIRST says that Mizen is wanted in Buckīs Row, THEN adds that it is a PC colleague of his that does the wanting down there.
Why did these elements align?
Because Mizen misheard or misunderstood them BOTH, and by coincidence - or the unknown, letīs not forget the great unknown! - they added up at the inquest, and BOTH lent themselves to bolster my take on things?

If you are to beleived, we must accept that Lechmere was right. If I am to beleived we must accept that Mizen was right.

And of course, we opt to believe the man found alone at the murder site, the man who gave a false name. Not the PC - why would we? Notoriously untrustworthy, PC:s, arenīt they?

"And yes someone did , Polly ! At the time he was not sure if she was drunk or dead ."

And therefore he could not say that she wanted anything. From the inquest: " "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead."
Why would a dead woman want a PC to help out? The great unknown?

"Is it so far beyond your thinking Fish, that with the Police Knowing full well, that PC Mizen was going to identify the man who spoke to him on the morning of the murder , CrossMere may have beenTold to wear the same clothes he wore on the morning of the murder for the sole purpose of the ID."

Oh yes - miles beyond it. Once you can show me a single example of a witness, called to an inquest, who is told to wear special clothes for identifying purposes, it may creep a little closer.
But not much.

"Yes they are Fish , but there were also other things going on that we have no documented proof of, circumstances that we know nothing of , discussions that were never documented , was documented and lost .."

Ah yes, the great unknown!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman

The Star, 3 September 1888 -

'Carman Cross was the the next witness. He lived at 22 Doveton street, Cambridge-road.'

Clearly Carman Cross had given his address at the inquest. That's why it's there, written down as part of his testimony on the day in question.

Been there, done that ...

Fisherman

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Moon

So the Police agree to him using his lesser known name , and keep his and his family's Address out of the inquest, and out of the papers ..

It's an inquest, the Coroner is in charge of it not the police.

If his identity is to be somekind of secret why use a lesser known name, why not a false one?

All is going well until a sleuth reporter working for the Star asks himself the burning question .. Why no address for Carman Cross ? which leads to his own line of inquiry down at bethnal green police station and to a certain Inspector Helston , who for whatever reason gives the star reporter the lowdown on Carman Cross!

Why doesn't the Star sleuth ask himself 'why no name for carman Cross ?' at the same time and ask Inspector Helson?

The point with his address is that it is equivalent to the 'all swans are white' idea. If there are no reports of his address (as I thought at first for sometime, but initially I had only analysed the daily press reports from the 4th and the weekly newspapers from the following weekend) then this may indicate that Cross hasn't said his address at the inquest.

As soon as one report has Cross down as saying his address then that's it, that's all you need, if it's some sort of fantastical claim then a lone press report may not be enough to convince, but in this case he is suppost to give his address, and the one published in the Star is the correct one. So that should be enough, really.