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

[Fisherman]

I don't get this response, Fish. I was just reacting to the point you made that Cross was just depending on his interaction with Paul and Mizen to get past a PC. He wasn’t, he also faced the possibility that they’d walk into the PC who’d pass through Buck’s Row. And he had no influence on that. That’s ‘all’.

He could never ensure total influence on everything, Frank, thatīs what I am saying. But he would not let this certainty of uncertainty lead him to abort.

I’m afraid you’re wrong here, Fish. Paul said more.

...none of which can lead us to any certainty of what real possibilities Paul had to notice what had happened. And all the time, we donīt even know that Lechmere was dead set on ensuring this - maybe he was surprised when it happened.

He obviously didn’t know that, no, but I'm quite sure the possibility that he would, would have been on his mind. The pulling down of the dress tells us that it was.

What the pulling down of the dress tells us is that Lechmere probably made an effort to try and hide things. How large a hope he had to pull it off - who can tell? How nervous he was (or not) - who can tell? How his plan B looked - who can tell?

Probably not in a threatening or aggressive way. That might later have worked against him.

Thatīs your best guess - my take is that he adjusted to what Paul was about, and took it from there.

The point is that it took him little effort to get Paul to accept that he wouldn’t do it, suggesting that Paul wasn't the unwavering, strong type. Which was lucky for Cross, if he was the killer.

Yes. Absolutely. If we guess right here.

If I’m not mistaken, the point of pulling down the dress was to keep the approaching man from discovering Nichols was brutally murdered and from then calling PC’s to the spot with the chance of Cross being examined and discovered as the killer. For this reason, he did take the effort cover the abdominal wounds. If Cross didn’t prevent Paul from discovering that her head was almost severed from her body, then this doesn't fit with the effort to keep Paul from discovering the abdominal wounds.

Ask yourself: Did Paul note the wound to the throat? Nope. Next question: Why? Maybe Lechmere took some sort of precaution to hide it, itīs hard to say. The outcome, though, was that Paul did not see the wound to the throat. Which we will have to live with.

When you say he played him like a fiddle, I would expect Cross to have Paul do anything he wished and to prevent him from doing anything he didn’t wish. When there’s evidence that he didn’t prevent Paul from getting near the throat wounds and discovering them, then you’d be giving Cross too much credit by saying he played Paul like a fiddle.

Only if Paul discovered it, Frank. As long as we canīt tell why he did not do so, we canīt know what the risk looked like that Paul would see it. Itīs all down to guesswork.

Perhaps because he wasn’t all that interested in being disturbed on his chore by these 2 men coming along?

... which says something about the level of gravity of the errand they imposed on Mizen.

Ergo, he was more lucky and less ‘playing the fiddle’. Which was my only point.

Perhaps. Luck would have been of essence to him. But itīs not a certain thing that he thought of it as luck himself.

I know you picture him like this. You have to if you believe he fooled Paul and scammed his way past Mizen.

Thatīs how the facts fit best to my eye, yes.

I, on the other hand, doubt this, simply because there’s no evidence that the Ripper was a resourceful psychopath who actually enjoyed taking risks or playing games and because I think that type of man would be able to fool his wife at any given time and be able to lure women into going with him to safer places.

Wrong. The scam IS evidence that this was what happened. It is not proof, but it certainly is evidence. And why would we suppose that he wanted to kill in safer places? Why would we not ponder the possibility that the strike out in the open belonged to the thrill? Would a ruthless psychopath start to tremble and be scared if the places he could kill at were not completely safe? I donīt think so. But these matters are all very shudda-cudda-wudda, and can be both ways. That, however, means that it CAN actually be my way ...

Thanks for the compliment, Fish. And I had already come to the conclusion some time ago that I wont be finding them, simply because you’re too convinced of your stance (which is fine). I might every now & again drop in to address a point of your own that you’re overstating (from my point of view) or a point of an 'adversary' that you’re understating.'

You are welcome, Frank!

The best!
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Frank
Given the number of murders the Ripper likely committed (I think more than 5 for sure), that he was almost caught red handed once should not surprise us - no matter how much he focused.

[Ben]

In all cases where we claim to know what "most people " think, we must show something for it. You have not.

Surely you're not seriously disputing the fact that "most people" don't believe there was a "Mizen scam", Fisherman?

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.

Okay, but hardly anyone besides you and Lechmere believe that Cross was a "bad person" who lied to Mizen. That's just your brand new, controversial theory, which is why I'm continually surprised to see you say things like "The scam IS evidence that this was what happened" as you just have to Frank, as though such ideas were established as fact.

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

On the contrary, I think it clears up a lot of the confusion. If Mizen had misinterpreted "you are wanted in Bucks Row" to mean "someone wants you in Buck's Row", that mistaken impression would have been compounded further by the discovery of PC Neil at the scene of the crime. As I've already observed, such mistakes are very easy to make, and Mizen evidently accepted his.

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.

Really, well in the interests of consistency and non-bias, let's apply precisely the same approach to another inquest witness, Charless Cross: "at the end of the day, whenever we read Cross's testimony, we will see that he expressly refuted the claim that he had told Mizen about a PC already being present in Buck's Row. This must take precedence over anything us hobbyists may come up with 125 years later. Evidence trumphs such things. Always."

Works both ways, I'm afraid.

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.

Tell that to a court of law.

One must always start from a presumption of innocence - everyone knows that, or ought to. If evidence then surfaces that prompts us to revise that presupposition of innocence, then so be it, but as far as most are concerned, this just hasn't happened in Cross's case.

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.

No, sorry. Anything that required the immediate attention of more than one policemen on beat was definitely a whistle job. Why waste time sending on-foot messengers when there was a tried, tested, and simple method for attracting immediate attention? With regard to the suggestion that the mystery, non-existent Buck's Row policeman had been ordered to "stay in place", Mizen would certainly have known better. The identities and locations of the "fixed beat" constables were well known amongst serving policeman, and Buck's Row wasn't one of them. The idea of a policeman finding a drunk woman (and they must have been two-a-penny in that district), and then waiting for some members of the public to show up, then dispatching them to find another constable seems ludicrous to me, and it would certainly have seemed so to Mizen. Who could be arsed to wait that long when he had a perfectly good whistle to blow?

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.

Clearly not, and most probably because Paul stuck around like a good boy, and was party to the conversation with the policeman over Nichols' discovery.

Maybe, Ben, you and I should give it a rest now.

Sounds good to me, Fisherman. And I agree that certain issues have a habit of cropping up with alarming frequency,

All the best,
Ben

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Fisherman

I have unbolded your text, I hope you don't mind

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

You have no way of knowing whether the Telegraph was edited ( or baked together! lovely phrase!) by the journalist or his editor (who wasn't there).

Personally, I think it is just as telling that the other reporters - who were also in place did not try to form this particular picture of the proceedings.

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

Look, I'm not trying to discuss your 'Mizen scam' idea, obviously you're not going to convince me of all people about it! Any more than I could convince you otherwise! So why don't we just leave that out of the discussion.

What I'm trying to understand is why you are using the press reports in the way you do, why you favour using the single most heavily edited report of Mizen's testimony and then claim that all the other reports have 'split the thing up'.

I would suggest that the one lone short report has been edited more, not that all the other longer reports have 'split the thing up'.(why would all the other reporters do that! is it a conspiracy?)

See what I mean, Mr Lucky?

No sorry, not at all, you asked a question -

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

So I've suggested to you, Paul wasn't at the inquest that day but Cross was. Mizen isn’t voluntarily going to bring Paul into the conversation because of what Paul said about him in Lloyd’s 2 Sept, this is what Paul had accused Mizen of .

'I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame' - Robert Paul

However, Mizen knows Cross is due to give evidence after him and will counter what Paul had said in Lloyds, so no need for Mizen to mention Paul at all.

Where as you appear to believe that the reason that Mizen hadn't mentioned Paul is because Paul hadn't talked to him! And that there is some kind of certainty about this, but there is nothing to back up what you are claiming here, that because Paul hadn’t spoke to Mizen, Mizen is unable to mention him during his testimony, and therefore we can deduce that as Mizen hadn’t mentioned Paul during his testimony, Paul definitely hadn’t spoke to him.

In reality, the situation you are suggesting can demonstrated to be incorrect from the evidence given at the same inquest by other witnesses, for example Thain hadn't said a word to the two or three men in Brady street going to work, yet he still mentioned them when giving testimony, but apparently according to you he shouldn’t be able to mention them as they haven't spoken!

So, to recap the information we have from the three people concerned is that -

Paul said he spoke to Mizen.
Cross said Paul spoke to Mizen.
Mizen didn't mention Paul.

If your conclusion from the above is that Paul hadn't spoken to Mizen, good luck convincing people, Fish!!

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

It is indeed a very good example of keeping all the details by using the shortest possible press source, Fisherman.

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.

Got another theory brewing, Fish?

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE]

Surely you're not seriously disputing the fact that "most people" don't believe there was a "Mizen scam", Fisherman?

I am disputing that anybody of us knows this, Ben. To the best of my knowledge, nobody ever counted who thought what.
If you are referring to the ones who have given their views on the threads, then that is another thing. That constitutes a miniscule fraction of the ones who may have given the topic some afterthought.[QUOTE]

One must always start from a presumption of innocence - everyone knows that, or ought to.

That is true. But it never was the issue in this specific case. What you did was to propose that we should work from an assumption of no guilt and then adjust the evidence to fit that assumption, in this case by out of hand dismissing that Mizen spoke the truth. And that is another thing altogether. When the evidence speaks of potential guilt, we must perhap adjust something else accordingly - our need to look upon all people as innocent.

I agree that certain issues have a habit of cropping up with alarming frequency,

They do, donīt they? And thatīs why I did not answer all the points you made, that you had made and had answered before, more than once. I hope you agree that this makes good sense.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE]

You have no way of knowing whether the Telegraph was edited ( or baked together! lovely phrase!) by the journalist or his editor (who wasn't there).

Thatīs correct - i can only see the end product, the outcome - and what it points to.

Personally, I think it is just as telling that the other reporters - who were also in place did not try to form this particular picture of the proceedings.

Aha. But since the Telegraph was the only parer that put the parts together, I donīt think we must be looking at a conscious choice on behalf of the rest of the papers. They obviously just wrote down what was said, whereas the Telegraph concluded from it.

What I'm trying to understand is why you are using the press reports in the way you do, why you favour using the single most heavily edited report of Mizen's testimony and then claim that all the other reports have 'split the thing up'.

They have not split it up as such - they have probably just left it just the way it was told. That still leaves us with these papers reporting the matter in a split up shape. It is nothing controversial at all, and basically, the papers are saying the exact same thing, I believe.

So I've suggested to you, Paul wasn't at the inquest that day but Cross was. Mizen isn’t voluntarily going to bring Paul into the conversation because of what Paul said about him in Lloyd’s 2 Sept, this is what Paul had accused Mizen of .

I would on the contrary say that if you are wrongfully accused of something, you normally take the chance to set the record straight. However, the thing that matters here is that Mizen was not accompanied by Lechmere in the inquest room as he spoke of how it went down, as you implicated.

Mizen knows Cross is due to give evidence after him and will counter what Paul had said in Lloyds, so no need for Mizen to mention Paul at all.

I donīt think that Mizen would or could foresee what Lechmere was going to say. We all know what happened when he took the stand - and Mizen would not have anticipated that. There is no way that we can assert how Mizen reasoned in retrospect.

you appear to believe that the reason that Mizen hadn't mentioned Paul is because Paul hadn't talked to him! And that there is some kind of certainty about this, but there is nothing to back up what you are claiming here, that because Paul hadn’t spoke to Mizen, Mizen is unable to mention him during his testimony, and therefore we can deduce that as Mizen hadn’t mentioned Paul during his testimony, Paul definitely hadn’t spoke to him.

On the contrary, there are things to back it up (but I donīt regard it as any certainty, Mr Lucky!): There is the paper report saying "the other man, who went down Hanbury Street" and there is Mizen stating clearly that two men came by, and one of them spoke to him. He does not for a second say that Paul ever spoke to him, and he does never say "two men spoke to me" or "both men spoke to me". This of course is a very useful backup to what I am saying - although we can never be certain.

In reality, the situation you are suggesting can demonstrated to be incorrect from the evidence given at the same inquest by other witnesses.

No, it can only be shown that OTHER incidents were reported differently. But that does not mean that you have shown my suggestion to be incorrect. You have only pointed out that it MUST not be correct - and we already knew that!

[QUOTE]

So, to recap the information we have from the three people concerned is that
Paul said he spoke to Mizen.
Cross said Paul spoke to Mizen.
Mizen didn't mention Paul.
If your conclusion from the above is that Paul hadn't spoken to Mizen, good luck convincing people, Fish!!

Thanks! Letīs just establish first that Paul did not say that he spoke to Mizen - at the inquest! He said so in his press interview, in which he takes on the lead role totally, not giving Lechmere much credit for anything at all. He has only ONE man touching Nichols - himself. And he does not even acknowledge that Lechmere accompanied him to Mizen - he says "I" went to Hanbury Street, "I" spoke to the PC and informed him etcetera.
I think you will have to admit that it may be erroneous of us to buy the picture Paul paints here. Or?
And once we discard the press interview as the work of an untruthful braggard, we are left with Lechmere contra Mizen again. So the picture you paint, of two men standing against one, is no longer around. You just have to choose: carman or PC?

Got another theory brewing, Fish?

No. I have spoken of this before. Search all sources and see if you can estimate how long a person with a severed throat AND extensive other damage will bleed. You will be amazed, let me assure you.

All the best, Mr Lucky!
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Mr lucky
I will give further emphasis to the point that in Paul's inquest testimony he doesn't claim to have spoken to Mizen.
We get a good insight into Paul's character via his two published interviews, his inquest testimony, his overall actions and his behaviour in Lechmere's company.

[Ben]

I am unaware of it being mentioned or the various issues arising being contemplated in a single book on the case. Or perhaps you think this discussion board is representative?

Frankly, Lechmere, I do to a certain extent. As much as I'd love to envisage of a veritable army of Cross-supporters and "Mizen scam" enthusiasts outside of the message boards, I think the reality is that no such group exists, and that if the idea hasn't exactly found favour amongst those who assemble on the internet to discuss and research the Whitechapel murders, it's unlikely to have any greater appeal to the Great Unenlightened.

Whatever he did, Mizen was derelict. Do you think he wanted to raise his own head above the parapet and highlight the fact that he carried on knocking up, did not properly question Lechmere, did not search him, and failed to take his details?

He didn't need to highlight it. If what you say about Mizen's supposed "derelict" behaviour is true, it was in the public domain and there was little he could do to conceal it. The best thing he could possibly have done, if he felt guilty about his less than proactive approach (as per your claim) in the immediate aftermath of the murder, would have been to make absolutely clear his suspicions about Cross; to inform his superiors that he had lied at the inquest. If he felt he needed to redeem himself, I can't think of a better and more obvious way of going about it. The police superiors would have been far more interested in taking Cross to task than Mizen.

I don’t know why you think that Neil should have blown his whistle. We know he did not blow his whistle, but signalled with his lamp.

Yes, because the two policeman were in visual range at that point.

If Mizen wouldn’t have thought that carmen would be used as messengers then why did he give this as an explanation in evidence?

Confusion, most likely, stemming from both a misinterpretation of Cross's possible "you are wanted" phrasing, and the fact that Mizen DID find a PC in Buck's Row.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ben,

How did PC Neil see "another constable in Baker's-row"?



Regards,

Simon

[Rubyretro]

if the idea hasn't exactly found favour amongst those who assemble on the internet to discuss and research the Whitechapel murders, it's unlikely to have any greater appeal to the Great Unenlightened.

Hello Ben ! I hope that you are well ?

As it happens, the 'Lechmere/Cross Theory' does[/B] have appeal to the public when they hear about it -that was amply proved by the reaction to that event in Bethnal Green last August. It went Global.

Since there wasn't a book, nor a Telly documentary, there was nothing to keep it in the 'public mind' -but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have appeal.

[Ben]

Interesting, Simon. I suppose Neil would have needed to cross the street in order to lamp-signal anyone in Baker's Row.

Hi Ruby,

The idea received exposure because it appeared at a charity event, and because it was erroneously believed to be promoting a brand new suspect. The theory actually originated with Michael Connor. The articles I read which reported on the subject seemed merely to acknowledge that yet another ripper suspect had been put forward, without commenting on its "appeal" or lack thereof.

All well here thanks!

Ben

[Rob Clack]

If it's of any interest. P.C Neil didn't signal anyone in Bakers Row. He signalled P.C Thain in Brady Street.

Rob

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

I merely asked how PC Neil saw "another constable in Bakers Row".

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

Mizen was not signalled to the spot by Neil. He set off from a point in Bakerīs Row where he could not have seen the light at all; up at the Hanbury Street junction. It was therefore Lechmere and not Neil that brought Mizen to Buckīs Row.
We must remember that as Mizen left the junction, he did so in anticipation of having another PC awaiting him in Buckīs Row. He would therefore not have been surprised to see Neil wawing his lamp as Mizen approached the spot. Neil, however, did not know that Mizen had been summoned to the street, so he would have been under the impression that his light was what made Mizen come down to Buckīs Row.
If Mizen had been attracted to the spot by Neilīs lamp, I think he would reasonably have said so. But as he had another reason for his shortish trek, he did not mention any signal.

All the best,
Fisherman

Ah! Rob beat me to it! Well done, Rob!

[Lechmere]

Ah Madam Retro – long time no see.
I had forgotten about that event that gave world-wide (and well received) publicity to the Lechmere theory. How remiss of me.
But in any case, as usual young Ben was not addressing the issue I raised.

I said:
“Contrary to your confident assertion, very few ‘commentators’ have discussed on the conflicting inquest evidence of Mizen and Lechmere. I am unaware of it being mentioned or the various issues arising being contemplated in a single book on the case.
Or perhaps you think this discussion board is representative?”

This was in response to the following assertion by Ben:
“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””

Ben set up a situation where he alleged that the conversation between Charles Lechmere in the guise of Charles Cross and PC Mizen had been mulled over by a veritable army of commentators, only for them to conclude that Mizen must have been mistaken.
Whereas the reality is that very few people ever noticed that there was a discrepancy between Mizen and Lechmere’s testimony and I believe I am right in saying that this discrepancy has never been discussed in any work published on this case (apart from in Fisherman’s Ripperologist article of course).
Furthermore to believe Mizen rather than Lechmere, one must be a ‘Cross-as-ripper fancier’ apparently.