Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
    Don't worry, Columbo. It still stands that there can be very little doubt, if any, that Mizen and Neil didn't have a conversation about the two carmen. Otherwise, it would have been very odd indeed for this to appear in the Daily News of Monday 3 September:
    "It is not true, says Constable Neil, who is a man of nearly 20 years' service, that he was called to the body by two men. He came upon it as he walked, and, flashing his lanthorn to examine it he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the street. These officers had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention, and the mystery is most complete." Apparently, on Sunday night, the police were still unaware of the fact that it had been Mizen who had been called to the body by two men. And this, of course, still supports . Which, in turn, may still be the cause for the contradiction between Mizen and Lechmere.
    Hi Frank,

    I take your point of "Mizen's indifference/unresponsiveness/disinterest or whatever one would like to call it", but given that the PCs were involved in a murder case, I wonder if Mizen thought that a message from a passer-by was just incidental.

    I find Paul's statement to Lloyd's Weekly to be perculiar. He said in that statement that he "saw a man standing where the woman was", but at the inquest he shifted the man's position to the middle of the road. My view would be that normally in this situation the second man would assume a sub-ordinate, or nil, role in the conversation with Mizen, leaving the conversation to the discoverer of the body. But reading Paul's account in Lloyds, one could be forgiven for thinking that Paul had proceeded on his own, leaving Lechmere by the body, and found a PC without Lechmere being there. Here part of his statement:

    "I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and 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, after I had told him the woman was dead.".

    Note the continual use of "I" and not one use of "we". Paul is casting himself in the prime role, complete with an attack on the constabulary, with Lechmere in a minor supporting role, where as Mizen testified it was Lechmere that spoke to him. Paul also implies that he was going to accompany Mizen back to the scene. What happened next? Did Mizen continue calling people up until he saw Neil's light, and where exactly is "Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row"?

    So, if Paul hadn't given Lloyds a denial of the police story, the names of Paul and Cross may not have appeared in history at all? Was Paul's motive righteous indignation about the police story or attention seeking? Lechmere said they had never seen each other before, but I wonder how much they found out about each other on the walk to the end of Hanbury St. At the very least, Lechmere found out where Paul worked. I wonder if Lechmere felt that Paul was "dobbing him/them in"?

    I'm sure that others will have different opinions, but I just feel that something is not right about these proceedings.

    Cheers, George

    Comment


    • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
      ... but given that the PCs were involved in a murder case, I wonder if Mizen thought that a message from a passer-by was just incidental.
      I don’t quite get what you mean here, so could you please rephrase this, George?

      What happened next? Did Mizen continue calling people up until he saw Neil's light, and where exactly is "Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row"?
      Mizen told the inquest that after the conversation he knocked up at one other place before going to Buck’s Row, although he doesn’t seem to have said to the carmen that he was going to go there. According to Mizen he met the carmen at the end of Hanbury Street, which intersects with Baker’s Row and Old Montague Street (see map below). As Church Street was an old name for Hanbury Street, I think Paul actually meant Church Street instead of Church Row. This intersection is some 60 yards north of the western entrance to Buck’s Row. As the entrance of Buck’s Row can’t be seen from where Nichols lay, Mizen had very likely covered some distance into Buck’s Row when Neil spotted and signalled him. And Neil, quite possibly, went to(wards) the corner of the board school to see if he could see someone from there who could assist.

      Click image for larger version

Name:	Meeting Mizen.JPG
Views:	234
Size:	210.4 KB
ID:	763293

      So, if Paul hadn't given Lloyds a denial of the police story, the names of Paul and Cross may not have appeared in history at all?
      If the Lloyd’s reporter hadn’t been so lucky as to find Paul, then, maybe, yes, their names might not have appeared in history at all. Perhaps, in the end, Mizen did have something to do with the fact that they became known (even though it doesn’t seem so), but we’ll never know. Just as we’ll never actually know if Lechmere came forward of his own accord, as a result of police effort or due to Paul’s interview.

      Was Paul's motive righteous indignation about the police story or attention seeking?
      My impression is that he felt quite important being able to have his say to a reporter and even so much so, that he made it a ‘one man show’. So, perhaps a bit of both.

      I wonder if Lechmere felt that Paul was "dobbing him/them in"?
      If he was innocent, he wouldn’t have needed to feel it like that. If he was guilty, then perhaps he would, although even then it would have been his own fault. But on the other hand, perhaps even if he was guilty, he would have felt it a new challenge, another possibility to fool everybody. Who knows?

      Cheers,
      Frank

      "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
      Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

        You may be correct. I recall I had a hard time getting it placed properly, and there were lots of comments as I shifted things around. For some reason I found Paul's residence really tricky to get right and I don't recall if I ever got it to where there was a consensus that it was. One problem is that the map overlay I chose wasn't the best option and I probably should redo it with one of the better ones at some time. So, perhaps people should view Paul's as a "roughly here" location. I think the other locations were fairly well agreed upon though.

        With my luck, I overwrote the one we finally settled upon with some early way off version! Sigh

        - Jeff
        If you want to start over, you might be able to screengrab from here.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
          What I was really challenging was the suggestion that the Lechmere family had lived in the same place (Whitechapel) for 30 years and that CAL hadn't moved out of his mother's orbit in mid-1888.
          I used Whitechapel as a shorthand for the general area, just like most people who aren't being pedantic.

          I did not claim that the Cross/Lechmere family lived in the same house the whole time.

          I neither expressed nor implied whether Lechmere was in his mother's orbit when the killings started.

          I pointed out that the statement "And the Ripper murders started just after he moved into the area." is provably false.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post
            It was his job. He was a carman for Pickford’s.
            He was a carman for Pickfords. Pickfords was not a meatpacking plant. As GUT asked, how do you know he was "delivering carcasses and such like to Butchers"?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

              I used Whitechapel as a shorthand for the general area, just like most people who aren't being pedantic.

              I did not claim that the Cross/Lechmere family lived in the same house the whole time.

              I neither expressed nor implied whether Lechmere was in his mother's orbit when the killings started.

              I pointed out that the statement "And the Ripper murders started just after he moved into the area." is provably false.
              Because you aren’t a ‘pedant’ you’ve entirely missed the point.


              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                If you want to start over, you might be able to screengrab from here.
                Yah, that's what I use. I just used a less detailed overlay above. Thanks

                - Jeff

                Comment


                • Originally posted by FrankO View Post

                  Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                  ... but given that the PCs were involved in a murder case, I wonder if Mizen thought that a message from a passer-by was just incidental.

                  I don’t quite get what you mean here, so could you please rephrase this, George?

                  Cheers,
                  Frank
                  Hi Frank,

                  Sorry for my vague presentation. I was commenting on your statement:
                  "Apparently, on Sunday night, the police were still unaware of the fact that it had been Mizen who had been called to the body by two men. And this, of course, still supports Mizen's indifference/unresponsiveness/disinterest or whatever one would like to call it.".

                  My suggestion was that perhaps it was more a case of Mizen thinking that two "messengers" directing him to an incident was not something that he needed to relate to the source (Neil), as he thought, of the message. On the other hand, maybe Paul's attack on the quality of the police service in the area may have had some justification. Tomkin's testimony that Thain called into their premises to pick up his cape seems a little odd - was their premises even on Thain's beat?

                  With regard to Paul, is it known whether Paul sought out the Lloyd's reporter, or did he somehow locate Paul? If the latter, given that Mizen had not revealed that there were any witnesses, how did the reporter know that Paul was a witness, and why was Lechmere not sought out in the same manner? The police subsequently conducted a midnight raid on Paul, but did they also seek out "the other man" (Lechmere) or did he present himself at the police station? If Lechmere did report to police before Paul "outed him", this could be looked on as evidence of innocence.

                  When I come across witnesses that give statements to the press that are markedly different to that which they give to an inquest I tend to mark them as unreliable. His "one man show" report to Lloyds was certainly not reflected in his inquest testimony and I wonder if he was influenced by a conversation he may have had with Lechmere after they passed Mizen, particularly the part about Lechmere having been in "the middle of the road" rather than "where the woman was".

                  Cheers, George

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                    I used Whitechapel as a shorthand for the general area, just like most people who aren't being pedantic.

                    I did not claim that the Cross/Lechmere family lived in the same house the whole time.

                    I neither expressed nor implied whether Lechmere was in his mother's orbit when the killings started.

                    I pointed out that the statement "And the Ripper murders started just after he moved into the area." is provably false.

                    By using Whitechapel as shorthand for the entire East End you are ignoring the significant social differences that existed in the different areas of that part of London.

                    I recommend you consult Charles Booth’s poverty map or the Map of Jewish London. You might also want to research ‘Tiger Bay’ because it is particularly relevant to Charles Lechmere’s upbringing. Oh, and have a look to see where the common lodging houses were most concentrated.

                    I think you’ll find (and he will correct me if I’m wrong) that Fisherman’s point about the murders starting when Lechmere moved into the area relates to his moving to Doveton Street, Mile End, which was some distance away from St George in the East where he had lived for most of his life and where his mother was still living, requiring him to find a new route (or routes) to work. This new route (routes) took him through the area in London with the highest concentration of the type of women whom he seemed to prefer as victims.

                    What we don’t actually know is whether Lechmere had worked at Broad Street Station from the outset of his employment at Pickfords. In the 1860s, Pickfords had a base at Haydon Square which would have been closer to where the Cross/Lechmere household lived and which was in ‘H’ Division. Thomas Cross, don’t forget, was an ‘H’ Division P.C.. Interestingly, Haydon Square was also the closest point to Mitre Square where the City/Whitechapel boundary ran. But whether his work route for almost thirty years had been from Mary Ann Street/James Street to Haydon Square or Broad Street it would have been a very different route from the one he seems to have adopted from mid-1888 when he moved away from St George’s.

                    Whether moving away from an area where he was known and where his mother still lived and adopting a new work route through streets with a higher concentration of doss house women might have encouraged him to become JTR is obviously moot, but I can see why Fisherman might find the move significant.



                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post


                      By using Whitechapel as shorthand for the entire East End you are ignoring the significant social differences that existed in the different areas of that part of London.

                      I recommend you consult Charles Booth’s poverty map or the Map of Jewish London. You might also want to research ‘Tiger Bay’ because it is particularly relevant to Charles Lechmere’s upbringing. Oh, and have a look to see where the common lodging houses were most concentrated.

                      I think you’ll find (and he will correct me if I’m wrong) that Fisherman’s point about the murders starting when Lechmere moved into the area relates to his moving to Doveton Street, Mile End, which was some distance away from St George in the East where he had lived for most of his life and where his mother was still living, requiring him to find a new route (or routes) to work. This new route (routes) took him through the area in London with the highest concentration of the type of women whom he seemed to prefer as victims.

                      What we don’t actually know is whether Lechmere had worked at Broad Street Station from the outset of his employment at Pickfords. In the 1860s, Pickfords had a base at Haydon Square which would have been closer to where the Cross/Lechmere household lived and which was in ‘H’ Division. Thomas Cross, don’t forget, was an ‘H’ Division P.C.. Interestingly, Haydon Square was also the closest point to Mitre Square where the City/Whitechapel boundary ran. But whether his work route for almost thirty years had been from Mary Ann Street/James Street to Haydon Square or Broad Street it would have been a very different route from the one he seems to have adopted from mid-1888 when he moved away from St George’s.

                      Whether moving away from an area where he was known and where his mother still lived and adopting a new work route through streets with a higher concentration of doss house women might have encouraged him to become JTR is obviously moot, but I can see why Fisherman might find the move significant.


                      I have Charles Lechmere starting work aged around 9 here. ‘30’ years should have read ‘20’. Exactly how many years he had worked for Pickfords is unknown. Working class boys at that time would often start work at 14 or even younger.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                        My suggestion was that perhaps it was more a case of Mizen thinking that two "messengers" directing him to an incident was not something that he needed to relate to the source (Neil), as he thought, of the message.
                        Hi George,

                        Thanks for clearing that up. So, I see what you mean now, but I don’t particularly agree with it. The way I see it is that, if we are to believe Mizen, he was being called away from his beat only by being told that there was a woman lying in Buck’s Row. Nothing more. But when he arrived, he saw that the woman actually had her throat severely cut and that she was dead. Unless it was normal procedure for PC’s who needed assistance not to let their fellow PC’s know why they needed it, I think it would be perfectly logical for Mizen to have been surprized and, therefore, to have talked to Neil about the 2 men that the latter had sent.

                        That he doesn't seem to have done so, fits quite perfectly with his not asking Lechmere and Paul any questions to get a better picture of the situation, with not really giving a verbal reaction to what Lechmere told him and with not telling the inquest a few things until he was asked about it.


                        Tomkin's testimony that Thain called into their premises to pick up his cape seems a little odd - was their premises even on Thain's beat?
                        No, their premises was on Neil’s beat, in Winthrop Street.

                        With regard to Paul, is it known whether Paul sought out the Lloyd's reporter, or did he somehow locate Paul?
                        Whether Paul sought the reporter or the other way around, isn’t known, but it seems to me that this reporter went around Buck’s Row and neighbouring streets on Friday night asking people if they knew something regarding the murder. He spoke to several people like that, one of which being Paul returning home after work.

                        The police subsequently conducted a midnight raid on Paul, but did they also seek out "the other man" (Lechmere) or did he present himself at the police station?
                        Seeing that on Sunday night the police don’t seem to have known (specifics) about the 2 carmen meeting Mizen yet, it’s reasonable to assume that Lechmere either came forward himself or that the police found him on or after Sunday night. He appeared, of course, on Monday at the inquest, right after Mizen. It seems that the police sorted things out on Sunday night.

                        His "one man show" report to Lloyds was certainly not reflected in his inquest testimony and I wonder if he was influenced by a conversation he may have had with Lechmere after they passed Mizen, particularly the part about Lechmere having been in "the middle of the road" rather than "where the woman was".
                        I don’t think that “the middle of the road” and “where the woman was” were necessarily different things. It’s perfectly feasible that, from Paul’s viewpoint when he saw Lechmere for the first time, Nichols was lying in the same line of view. And perhaps “where the woman was” was just a bit general. What I do think is that when people are interviewed by the police or other authorities, they tend to tell (more of) the truth and are more precise. Paul would be no exception.

                        Cheers,
                        Frank

                        "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                        Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                          I have Charles Lechmere starting work aged around 9 here. ‘30’ years should have read ‘20 Exactly how many years he had worked for Pickfords is unknown. Working class boys at that time would often start work at 14 or even younger.
                          One example is Charles Lechmere's son Thomas, aged 14, is listed as a "vanguard" in the 1891 Census.

                          I expect you already knew that. It seems likely Thomas Lechmere was also working for Pickfords, but is there any evidence one way or the other?

                          Comment


                          • Hi Frank,

                            Thank you for your information. You are a wealth of knowledge on these subjects. I'm not sure I agree with your opinion on inquest evidence being closer to the truth. I feel that statements made close to the event are more indicative of the truth than inquest testimony made after some thought and "polishing up" has taken place, particularly if there are obvious contradictions.

                            A question for Christer when he returns from Iceland.

                            As you know I am in no way hostile towards your theory, but you have asked for evidence of innocence. On the 6th September Harriet Lilley told the press that she had heard "a painful moan - two or three faint gasps" and "a sound as of whispers underneath the window. I distinctly heard voices" at the same time that a train was passing. The train was later confirmed as passing at 3:30am Railway Time. I have reservations about this report - the usual uncoordinated clock times and the fact that she only came forward to the press after a week had passed. However, the 3:30 time would seem to aid in suggesting Lechmere's innocence?

                            Cheers, George

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                              No, their premises was on Neil’s beat, in Winthrop Street.
                              Just to add: according to the Telegraph 18 Sept inquest report, Thain said that "When I went to the horse-slaughterer's for my cape I did not say that I was going to fetch a doctor, as a murder had been committed. Another constable had taken my cape there"

                              Presumably Neil was that other constable.
                              ​​​​​​​

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                                Thank you for your information. You are a wealth of knowledge on these subjects.
                                Thanks, George. In about 18 years we'll talk again and see what wealth of knowlegde you've managed to accumulate!

                                I'm not sure I agree with your opinion on inquest evidence being closer to the truth. I feel that statements made close to the event are more indicative of the truth than inquest testimony made after some thought and "polishing up" has taken place, particularly if there are obvious contradictions.
                                You do have somewhat of a point there, George, although I maintain that people were inclined to exaggerate/embelish more when talking to the press than talking to police or inquest. In the end, Paul's inquest testimony fits well enough with his newspaper interview and Lechmere's inquest testimony.

                                Cheers,
                                Frank
                                "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                                Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X