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

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

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

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

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

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

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

Tell me, if one policeman meets another policeman in the police house corridor, and if the first man says to the second, pointing to a door at the end of the corridor, saying "You are wanted in there", what does that normally mean? That a woman needs help there or that his colleagues have asked to see him?

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

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

And also fits perfectly with Crossmere disturbing the killer !

[Fisherman]

And also fits perfectly with Crossmere disturbing the killer !

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

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

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

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

[Fisherman]

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

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

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

The best,
Fisherman
off to bed

[moonbegger]

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

Tell me, if one policeman meets another policeman in the police house corridor, and if the first man says to the second, pointing to a door at the end of the corridor, saying "You are wanted in there", what does that normally mean? That a woman needs help there or that his colleagues have asked to see him?

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

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

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

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

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


cheers

moonbegger .

[Lechmere]

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

[moonbegger]

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

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

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

[Cogidubnus]

Ingenious

An unlikely but fascinating thought Moonbegger!

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

All the best

Dave

[Lechmere]

Fascinating indeed. Where was he hiding?

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"You are clearly not grasping ..."

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please tell me you understand this Fish !!! "

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

There is nothing at all strange with that.

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

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

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

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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

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

The best,
Fisherman

[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

[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 .

[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 .