Evidence of innocence

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

As we don't have their exact conversation it's hard to say. For example, if he mentioned he was on his way to work when he found her, PC Mizen might have asked about what he did and he indicated he was a carman. If he mentioned that he worked for Pickfords, that's not recorded anywhere but of course it's possible that got mentioned. But I would think his name would also have come up in such a conversation and as I understand it, PC Mizen did not have either Cross/Lechmere's or Paul's name. Mind you, it could be they were said and he didn't write them down and forgot what they were, particularly if at the time he didn't get the impression that there was a real emergency.

- Jeff

Someone once suggested the possibility that Mizen made up the 'policeman' part of Lechmere's 'wanted' statement as a way of explaining why he didn't rush to the scene - i.e. as a policeman is already attending the scene, I don't need to go there.

But if Lechmere had said what Mizen claimed he had said, would not a more natural reaction have been that he should heed a request by another policeman?

I can't see how Lechmere's saying that would have put Mizen off going to the scene of the murder.

[JeffHamm]

Someone once suggested the possibility that Mizen made up the 'policeman' part of Lechmere's 'wanted' statement as a way of explaining why he didn't rush to the scene - i.e. as a policeman is already attending the scene, I don't need to go there.

But if Lechmere had said what Mizen claimed he had said, would not a more natural reaction have been that he should heed a request by another policeman?

I can't see how Lechmere's saying that would have put Mizen off going to the scene of the murder.

True. My own view of what seems mostly likely to me is that PC Mizen was stating what he, after having reached Buck's Row where he was needed by PC Neil to go get the ambulance, believed Cross/Lechmere and Paul meant rather than what they said verbatim. A mistake due to subsequent events, not a lie per se.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I would say it's because when they left Nichols, they left to go to work with the intention of alerting a police man along the way. Therefore, the route reflects their route to work and PC Mizen is the police officer they found while in transit. Also, once PC Mizen had been alerted, if Cross/Lechmere normally went a different route then one would expect him to then set out upon that route. Again, suggesting Hanbury Street was probably his normal route. Finally, the route via Hanbury does get him to where he worked, so it is also a sensible route.

- Jeff

I think Paul was not a reliable witness, not only because his timing of 3.45 a.m. is contradicted by those of the three policemen, but because the following statement of his, if it is correctly reported, seems not to agree with Mizen and Cross's testimony, and also seems to contradict his evidence that when he met Mizen, 'Not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he first saw the woman.'

'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.'

Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, Sunday, 2nd September, 1888.

Cross' evidence suggests that the only reason they went to Hanbury Street was that they had noticed Mizen:

Just then they heard a policeman coming. Witness did not notice that her throat was cut, the night being very dark. He and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's-row they met the last witness [Mizen], whom they informed that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row. Witness said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on. The other man left witness soon after. Witness had never seen him before.

The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday, September 4, 1888, Page 2

I have argued consistently that Cross/Lechmere's route would have been via Whitechapel Road and Whitechapel High Street, which is the fastest, most direct, and simplest route.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

True. My own view of what seems mostly likely to me is that PC Mizen was stating what he, after having reached Buck's Row where he was needed by PC Neil to go get the ambulance, believed Cross/Lechmere and Paul meant rather than what they said verbatim. A mistake due to subsequent events, not a lie per se.

- Jeff

That's similar to my explanation, but I think a better one.

[JeffHamm]

I think Paul was not a reliable witness, not only because his timing of 3.45 a.m. is contradicted by those of the three policemen, but because the following statement of his, if it is correctly reported, seems not to agree with Mizen and Cross's testimony, and also seems to contradict his evidence that when he met Mizen, 'Not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he first saw the woman.'

'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.'

Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, Sunday, 2nd September, 1888.

Cross' evidence suggests that the only reason they went to Hanbury Street was that they had noticed Mizen:

Just then they heard a policeman coming. Witness did not notice that her throat was cut, the night being very dark. He and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's-row they met the last witness [Mizen], whom they informed that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row. Witness said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on. The other man left witness soon after. Witness had never seen him before.

The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday, September 4, 1888, Page 2

I have argued consistently that Cross/Lechmere's route would have been via Whitechapel Road and Whitechapel High Street, which is the fastest, most direct, and simplest route.

HI PI1,

The Lloyd's article is full of conflicting information, most of which Paul does not re-state under oath. It could very well be editing by the reporter/paper or Paul over egging things at the time of the interview, or any number of things. Regardless, the information in Lloyd's is best viewed as distorted and unreliable given we have more consistent statements when given under oath at the inquest.

I would think if Cross/Lechmere's route was via Whitechappel he would not have gone down Buck's Row but straight to Whitechappel.

And if they heard a policeman coming while at the crime scene they would have stayed there. Either the hearing the policeman bit refers to hearing PC Mizen, which would happen if they were walking that direction in the first place, or it's some sort of mashup of them heading to find the police (so heading rather than hearing). And even if they went there because they heard PC Mizen, if that's not Cross/Lechmere's normal route, I would expect him to then leave Paul and go his more usual way at that point. Also, if he normally went via Whitechappel, then I would have expected him and Paul to have separated when they exited Buck's Row and Cross/Lechmere to look for police that way while Paul went his usual way and hears/finds PC Mizen.

Anyway, given the Hanbury route takes him to his work, and all other things considered, it looks to me like that is the usual route he took to work. I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think there's anything against it other than other routes exits, but for them we have nothing that indicates he used them.

- Jeff

[Fiver]

No, I hear you. I just cant fathom why he would remain Lechmere, if he could change or keep his name cross, seeing that his Dad Lechmere was such a jerk and among other things, abandoned him and his mother.

I can see a few possibilities,

John Allen Lechmere abandoned his first family while Charles Allen was young enough that he would not remember his father. If Maria Lechmre told her son that his father was dead and never told him about John Allen's misdeeds, then the son would have no reason to hate his father or the family name.

Maria Lechmere told her son about his father's misdeeds, but Charles Allen came to realize that there was more to the name Lechmere than his father. This was an era where family name and reputation meant something. Charles Allen might have decided to identify with the positive reputation of the majority of the family and prove he was a real Lechmere, not a black sheep like his father,

Generally you have to be an adult to legally change your name. Charles Allen Lechmere married fairly young and they had nearly a dozen children. Perhaps he never had enough spare cash to afford the cost of a legal name change and by the time he did have enough money, he decided it wasn't worth the bother.

I'm sure there are other possibilities and I doubt we will ever know why.

[Fiver]

I could never quite see the picture they were attempting to paint of this woman, actually. We know absolutely nothing about her personality, her beliefs, etc.,

On one hand, she was apparently a hussy, on the other a stern religionist who warped her son by constantly warning him about the prostitutes of St. George in the East. It's not a very coherent portrait, let alone a compelling one, as it is based entirely or almost entirely on speculation, and on what these theorists think is plausible.

These theorists have a self-contradictory portrait of Charles Allen Lechmere as well. He's bold and cautious, impulsive and calculating, fiendishly clever and stunningly stupid. That's why I call their version of CAL Schroedingers Suspect - he's two mutually contradictory things at the same time.

[Ally]

thanks PI

Jeff, didnt the census have to use the persons legal name? hes listed as cross on the census as a child, it seems he was cross at pickfords. why would he use the name lechmere? if his dad was a jerk, and it seems he was, why keep using or switch back to lechmere?? once cross was his step dad, he could just have stayed a cross, legally changed his name to cross, totally abandon the name lechmere.

yet he chose to keep it. it seems weird to me.

It only seems weird to you because as a man you've never had to go through the expense and aggravation of making a legal name change. Which usually doesn't hit until you marry. And if you marry later in life, after you've spent a good deal of time acquiring recognition, professional licenses/reputation under one name, and then you get married and all your documents all your everything has to be changed if you want to switch your name ...legally... blech, it's just easier to keep what you have. If you're known socially and professionally by C. Cross, keep it. If you are now dealing with paperwork and every name on it is Lechmere, and now your wife is a Lechmere and your kids are lechmere's ...well socially and family you are your legal name. While the DMV didn't exist back then, tedious bureaucracy did. And I imagine a man who worked 12 hour days, six days a week didn't have the time or energy to bother with changing his name, to spare a bunch of amateur detectives looking into a case 100 years into the future, and being puzzled.

[Abby Normal]

I can see a few possibilities,

John Allen Lechmere abandoned his first family while Charles Allen was young enough that he would not remember his father. If Maria Lechmre told her son that his father was dead and never told him about John Allen's misdeeds, then the son would have no reason to hate his father or the family name.

Maria Lechmere told her son about his father's misdeeds, but Charles Allen came to realize that there was more to the name Lechmere than his father. This was an era where family name and reputation meant something. Charles Allen might have decided to identify with the positive reputation of the majority of the family and prove he was a real Lechmere, not a black sheep like his father,

Generally you have to be an adult to legally change your name. Charles Allen Lechmere married fairly young and they had nearly a dozen children. Perhaps he never had enough spare cash to afford the cost of a legal name change and by the time he did have enough money, he decided it wasn't worth the bother.

I'm sure there are other possibilities and I doubt we will ever know why.

Thanks Fiver
Yes as you and others mentioned he might have just not had the werewithall to do it.

Also, re Lechmeres mother...one of his daughters lived with her, so again to me it seems like she was probably a good person and that he was close with her.

[Mark J D]

If you're known socially and professionally by C. Cross, keep it. [...]

Absolutely.




M.

[Ally]

Sigh. I do love how the faithful isolate text out of context in their devotionals. Let's look at EVERYTHING I said, and not just isolate a sentence out of context, m'kay?

Like this line that immediately followed:

If you are now dealing with paperwork and every name on it is Lechmere, and now your wife is a Lechmere and your kids are lechmere's ...well socially and family you are your legal name.

It was fairly clear that I was speaking about his younger days at Pickford's and I'm pretty sure Pickford's wasn't who printed out his funeral announcements, since you know... he hadn't worked there in quite some time.

But let's not let common sense and reason get in the way of the faith that keeps you on your knees, praying.

[Mark J D]

Sigh. [...]

Not even worth replying to.

M.

[Ally]

Not even worth replying to.

M.

So... you literally wasted time out of your life to reply to my post by saying it wasn't worth replying to? Well that showed me.

[Mark J D]

Also, re Lechmeres mother...one of his daughters lived with her, so again to me it seems like she was probably a good person and that he was close with her.

Hi, Abby,

-- Seriously: how do we know that Lechmere's eldest daughter wasn't living with her gran because she absolutely refused to live with her violent sexual psychopath father? Does that never happen in real life? What is it -- in this world of jiggery-wokery -- that we are and aren't allowed to imagine here? Everywhere I look in the outside world -- especially via the academy, which is where I work -- everyone is pointing the finger at every kind of previously undiscussed horror -- and quite rightly. Yet when Lechmere is in the frame, suddenly it's *sugar and spice* all over...

Bests,

M.

[Ally]

[QUOTE=Mark J D;n798585]

Hi, Abby,

-- Seriously: how do we know that Lechmere's eldest daughter wasn't living with her gran because she absolutely refused to live with her violent sexual psychopath father?

Seriously how do we know she wasn't living with her gran to help an old women out? How do we know she wasn't living with her because gran and granddaughter were actually sexually involved in intergenerational incestcapades. I mean if we're going to imagine worst case scenarios based on absolutely no evidence, let's really go for broke.

What is it -- in this world of jiggery-wokery .... suddenly it's *sugar and spice* all over..


M.

I like the dog whistles. So subtle.