Evidence of innocence

[rjpalmer]

Mizen's testimony according to the 4 September 1888 Western Daily Press
The Coroner: Them was another man in company with Cross?
Witness: Yes. I think he was also a carman.

The Western Daily Press is a little removed from the action for my liking (Gloucestershire, etc.) but the same statement can be found in the Morning Advertiser (London)

[The Rookie Detective]

I haven't been able to confirm this was the case in 1888, but the account below suggests that by 1911 Pickford's men wore company aprons and caps.

This is from a case involving a stolen van of goods.

If Lechmere wore a Pickford's cap and apron for his work, then why wasn't he wearing that attire on his way to work on the morning of the murder of Nichols in Bucks Row?

After all, he went to give evidence in his work clothes.


Then why was he not wearing them on the morning of the murder?


RD

[Fiver]

I may be forgetting a source, but I don't recall Mizen explicitly stating that the two men looked like carmen, though it can be inferred that he thought one of the two men did.

Mizen's testimony according to the 4 September 1888 Western Daily Press
The Coroner: Them was another man in company with Cross?
Witness: Yes. I think he was also a carman.

[rjpalmer]

I wonder if the statements that (paraphrasing) "... he looked like a carman..." adds to that? What would a carman look like? What would be the identifying markers that said, "That fellah is probably a carman"?

I haven't been able to confirm this was the case in 1888, but the account below suggests that by 1911 Pickford's men wore company aprons and caps.

This is from a case involving a stolen van of goods.

[rjpalmer]

Hi rj,
I have often considered that myself. Would he have been wearing it on the way to work?
I think it's probably a subconscious thing, based on the continuing argument that he would have been wearing a BLOODY apron while wandering the streets.

I wonder if the statements that (paraphrasing) "... he looked like a carman..." adds to that? What would a carman look like? What would be the identifying markers that said, "That fellah is probably a carman"?

Hi A P,

I may be forgetting a source, but I don't recall Mizen explicitly stating that the two men looked like carmen, though it can be inferred that he thought one of the two men did.

Someone here can correct me if there is a source I'm forgetting, but wasn't it Lechmere who said that about Paul?

Daily News version of Mizen's deposition:

"Police constable Mizen said that about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, when a carman passing by in company with another man said, "You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there." The witness went to Buck's row, where Police constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body. On returning with the ambulance he helped to put the deceased upon it.

A juryman - Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted?

Witness - No. I only finished knocking up one person."


As I say, at most Mizen is saying that one man was a carman; he doesn't say anything about the other man. At worst, he only knows Cross was a carman because he is now in court in his sack apron, ie., Mizen learned that he was a carman after-the-fact and is not describing what he believed in the moment.

Here's the Star version:

" Policeman George Myzen said that at a quarter to four on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row. A man passing said to him, "You're wanted round in Buck's-row." That man was Carman Cross (who came into the Court-room in a coarse sacking apron), and he had come from Buck's-row. He said a woman had been found there."


Meanwhile, as I say, it was Cross who claimed Paul had the appearance of a carman.

"The other man left witness soon afterwards. He appeared to be a carman, but the witness had never seen him before." --Charles Cross deposition.

I suppose if one put it all together they both looked like carmen, but it seems a little vague and uncertain to me. As I say, I could be forgetting a more explicit source.

RP

[Geddy2112]

PC Misen identified both Lechmere and Paul as carmen. Looking at the few pictures, it appears that carmen wore both aprons and caps and were distinguished by that.

........and often walked around on the way to work covered in blood stains, with a bloody knife in their sky rocket.

[Fiver]

I wonder if the statements that (paraphrasing) "... he looked like a carman..." adds to that? What would a carman look like? What would be the identifying markers that said, "That fellah is probably a carman"?

PC Misen identified both Lechmere and Paul as carmen. Looking at the few pictures, it appears that carmen wore both aprons and caps and were distinguished by that.

[A P Tomlinson]

Hello A.P.,

my thinking is a little different, though I agree with your general point.

In the 'Missing Evidence' video, the claim is made that Cross would have "potentially" walked past four of the murder sites on his route to work, at the time the murders were being committed, wearing a bloody apron.

It's often pointed out that there is no solid evidence that Cross worked with meat, but I also wonder if he would have worn an apron on his way to work.

Possibly, but as Gary Barnett has pointed out, one of the benefits of these work aprons was to protect one's clothing from the unexpected and unwanted explosions emanating from the rear end of the horse.

I have no direct information on this weighty and deplorably understudied phenomenon, but I rather imagine the aprons would have been scrubbed in the stables at the end of one's shift and hung on a peg, but I merely speculate.

Hi rj,
I have often considered that myself. Would he have been wearing it on the way to work?
I think it's probably a subconscious thing, based on the continuing argument that he would have been wearing a BLOODY apron while wandering the streets.

I wonder if the statements that (paraphrasing) "... he looked like a carman..." adds to that? What would a carman look like? What would be the identifying markers that said, "That fellah is probably a carman"?

It would be interesting to learn whether the aprons were "Company Property" and collected in and laundered, and then handed out arbitrarily, or whether they are like work boots where you would be either issued with one set and expected to make it last and handle the cleaning yourself. Or even that they were something the employer expected you to provide for yourself.
I used to work for a UK Company called "Arco" and we supplied PPE, like boots, safety helmets, gloves. and work clothes etc to businesses, and while UK Law required certain protective gear to be supplied by the employer, there were quite a few who went "That far and no further" while other companies would bend over backwards to provide their staff with the best quality in every area as far as they could afford to.
Some would provide overalls to staff and expect them to maintain them themselves, others would get them on big laundry deals where the overalls were chucked in a bin at the end of a shift and a new pair collected the next day...

Even when dealing with these types of business on a daily basis, it was almsot impossible to guess which system any given company would be employing before going in and talking to them.

[FrankO]

Similarly, would the ladies of East London out on the street in the early hours not have recalled being approached or followed by an overly eager carman in a long white apron?

Hi Roger,

Exactly. I have little doubt that the Ripper would not have been successful on every occasion, that everything didn’t always went the way he wanted before he was ready to ‘pounce’. Yet, we know of no accounts of men looking like carmen who acted oddly with the ladies, no accounts of failed attempts by such men. Nor any witness in the cases of the Ripper victims who ever saw a man wearing an apron or looking like a carman.

Would not White Apron have entered local mythology, along with Leather Apron? Or, if even if this was not the case, would not have Crossmere wanted to lose his apron and present himself, as you suggest, in more anonymous attire?

Indeed, and I imagine the yae-sayers will exactly say that to explain why no suspicious characters were ever seen to wear an apron: Lechmere learned from the Nichols case that it wasn’t a smart thing to wear an apron, so he left it at work or carried it around in a bag. A shiny black bag, perhaps.

As for the horse drawn cart with Pickford's name emblazoned on the side, to be fair to Christer, I think it is only his colleagues who have suggested this in response to the often-proclaimed criticism that Dark Annie was quite probably murdered closer to 5.30 a.m.; I don't recall Christer ever straying from his belief that the murder was committed much earlier, so he deftly sidesteps this embarrassment.

Christer indeed always stuck to the notion that Chapman was killed before 4 o’ clock, en route to work.

There have been cab driver murderers, but driving a cab is very different than being a city delivery driver where one is left hopping all morning. If Cross had a habit of cruising for unfortunates or wandering off a mere 90 minutes into his shift he wouldn't have lasted twenty years. In the accounts of Pickford drivers in road accidents, etc., we often see the managers assuring the public that their drivers are encouraged and required to drive slowly and safely, but I have my doubts. The Victorian businessmen were geniuses when it came to working their employees to the point of collapse, and I imagine these drivers had a very demanding work regime. The two busiest days in the delivery business are Mondays and Fridays, but in Victorian times I imagine Saturday mornings would have been particularly hectic, as goods needed to get to their destination prior to the Sabbath.

I already have a hard time swallowing the idea of Jack the Ripper murdering & mutilating on his way to work, but, frankly, the whole idea that he would have murdered between deliveries is plainly unbelievable to me.

Cheers,
Frank

[John Wheat]

Hi John,

I agree that it's extremely unlikely that Cross murdered anyone (except that I think you'd go even further than that), but I think my point is material because it's about why Stow's hypothetical scenario for how Cross could have killed Chapman is unrealistic.

Hi Lewis C

Fair enough.

Cheers John

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis C

I'm sure you know this but I'm going to say it anyway. What Stow is saying is incorrect. Cross didn't murder anyone. So the problems involved with a witness is immaterial. Stow seems to be getting desperate and coming up with more outlandish statements.

Cheers John

Hi John,

I agree that it's extremely unlikely that Cross murdered anyone (except that I think you'd go even further than that), but I think my point is material because it's about why Stow's hypothetical scenario for how Cross could have killed Chapman is unrealistic.

[rjpalmer]

As to a guilty Lechmere wearing his apron while ‘going at it’, I agree with you that it doesn’t seem a particularly good idea to wear an apron, perhaps mostly in the sense that he would be quite recognizable as a carman, which is evidenced by Mizen's testimony.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

I don't recall if Christer or Ed ever commented on this, but the same thought occurred to me. In both the 'Bible John' and the Yorkshire Ripper cases, as well as similar cases, the police spent a fair amount of time talking to either ballroom dancers or "working ladies," on the entirely reasonable assumption that there must have been times when the murderer failed to convince a woman to go with him, so there must have been living witnesses who could describe him. (In the Bible John case this was almost certainly the case; the women who share a cab ride with him).

Similarly, would the ladies of East London out on the street in the early hours not have recalled being approached or followed by an overly eager carman in a long white apron? Would not White Apron have entered local mythology, along with Leather Apron? Or, if even if this was not the case, would not have Crossmere wanted to lose his apron and present himself, as you suggest, in more anonymous attire?

As for the horse drawn cart with Pickford's name emblazoned on the side, to be fair to Christer, I think it is only his colleagues who have suggested this in response to the often-proclaimed criticism that Dark Annie was quite probably murdered closer to 5.30 a.m.; I don't recall Christer ever straying from his belief that the murder was committed much earlier, so he deftly sidesteps this embarrassment.

There have been cab driver murderers, but driving a cab is very different than being a city delivery driver where one is left hopping all morning. If Cross had a habit of cruising for unfortunates or wandering off a mere 90 minutes into his shift he wouldn't have lasted twenty years. In the accounts of Pickford drivers in road accidents, etc., we often see the managers assuring the public that their drivers are encouraged and required to drive slowly and safely, but I have my doubts. The Victorian businessmen were geniuses when it came to working their employees to the point of collapse, and I imagine these drivers had a very demanding work regime. The two busiest days in the delivery business are Mondays and Fridays, but in Victorian times I imagine Saturday mornings would have been particularly hectic, as goods needed to get to their destination prior to the Sabbath.

Cheers.

[Geddy2112]

I'm sure you know this but I'm going to say it anyway. What Stow is saying is incorrect. Cross didn't murder anyone. So the problems involved with a witness is immaterial. Stow seems to be getting desperate and coming up with more outlandish statements.

I believe him leaving a horse drawn cart unattended for 15 or so mins whilst he found Annie, taking her round back and slaughtering her to be absolutely absurd and beyond any reasonable reasoning. The one of the many straws that kept getting clutched.
I've now had two more straws to add today.

Lechmere naysayers state 'Lechmere only found the body end of story' so now Lechmere supports don't use that statement they use 'he was found near the body' NOT he 'found the body' Oh that makes all the difference in the world. Arguing semantics... how desperate.

Our learned friend also claims the video documentary is not misleading or biased showing Lechmere kneeling over the body as that could have happened as 'we' were not there to state otherwise, a crocodile 'could' have scuttled across the road but they did not depict that. None of the reports/evidence state he was over the body but actually in the middle of the road which BTW is getting narrower and narrower to make that particular gap smaller. They love the shrinking or widening of a gap when it suits.

For me this is just the latest two examples of how very desperate the theory has become, it's resorting to manipulating the facts, showing misleading bias, arguing about semantics and distorting anything to fit. Book sales must be dropping off...

[FrankO]

Fair enough and you could be correct, but if it was me, I'm trying to imagine why I would walk 20-25 minutes to work over dark, uneven London pavements wearing a somewhat restrictive apron down to my mid-ankles, particularly if I had to outrun the occasional street gang roaming the streets at 3.30 a.m. Then again, maybe the apron would be a calling card of sorts: "don't bother mugging me, mate, I'm clearly broke until Friday."

Hi Roger,

Thanks for your reply. I don’t know if these aprons would actually be so restrictive; they don’t look very restrictive to me, but I may well be wrong.

What was his method of operation? If he picks up a woman wearing this long, blood-stained apron down past his knees, and goes with her into a back alley, does she expect him to loosen it and heave it over one shoulder while he unbuttons his trousers?

Was he so dressed when he picked up Mary Kelly at 3:45 a.m., and would she have invited him into her room if he was wearing "bloodstained overalls"?

I suppose if she's drunk and desperate enough.

As to a guilty Lechmere wearing his apron while ‘going at it’, I agree with you that it doesn’t seem a particularly good idea to wear an apron, perhaps mostly in the sense that he would be quite recognizable as a carman, which is evidenced by Mizen's testimony.

Cheers,
Frank

[John Wheat]

I believe about a week ago, someone quoted Stow as saying that if the Chapman murder occurred around 5:30, Cross could have parked the cart a considerable distance from where the murder occurred, and would have had someone guarding the cart while he was gone. Of course that raises the problems involved with the person guarding the cart being a witness.

Hi Lewis C

I'm sure you know this but I'm going to say it anyway. What Stow is saying is incorrect. Cross didn't murder anyone. So the problems involved with a witness is immaterial. Stow seems to be getting desperate and coming up with more outlandish statements.

Cheers John