The Darkness of Bakers Row

[Fiver]

[COLOR=#e74c3c]And guess what? Fiver misses out on the obvious possibility that Lechmere alone lied.

Anyone who reads what I wrote knows that I discuss the possibility that only Lechmere lied, and showed that assuming that requires ignoring what Robert Paul said.

It was never just Lechmere versus Mizen. Robert Paul supported Lechmere's account and contradicted PC Mizen.

Your theory requires Robert Paul to repeatedly lie in spite of having no reason to do so. Your theory makes no sense.

[Fiver]

Fiver is of course very predictable, and he will now move on to claim that it is a fact that Paul spoke to Mizen, but I'm afraid it is nom such thing at all. There are bits and pieces. that support both takes, but only one will be correct. I suspect that I am on the winning side here. Mizen specifically said that ONE man spoke to him, and he had to be reminded about Pauls presence by the coroner. If he had not been reminded, we would not have heard a single word about Paul from Mizens side. And that is not a tell tale sign of both men having spoken to Mizen.

Again you misrepresent my position. Paul claimed to have spoken to PC Mizen. When Lechmere later testified, his testimony supported Robert Paul.

Paul said that he told PC Mizen that the woman was probably dead. Lechmere agreed with Paul.
Paul said that Mizen kept knocking up instead of immediately going to Bucks Row. Lechmere agreed with Paul.
Mizen claimed that Lechmere said he was wanted by another policeman. Lechmere denied that in court. Paul was never asked.
Mizen said the two carmen were together. Lechmere agreed with that. Paul agreed with that.

Mizen had to be prompted on a lot of things.
PC Mizen didn't mention if PC Neil was alone at the murder site, he had to be asked by the Coroner.
PC Mizen didn't bring up Robert Paul, he had to be asked by the Coroner.
PC Mizen didn't bring up Robert Paul's claim that Mizen continued knocking up instead of going immediately to Bucks Row, he had to be asked by a jury.
PC Mizen stated that Lechmere did not mention murder or suicide. He never addressed Robert Paul's claim that Paul had told Mizen that Nichols was dead.
PC Mizen said that Lechmere talked to him. Mizen never confirmed or denied that Robert Paul also spoke to him.

Most people would interpret that as PC Mizen didn't want to talk about Robert Paul. You appear to interpret it as that Paul was refusing to come near PC Mizen, standing out of earshot, and refusing to talk to him.

Which not only would be very odd, but raises the question of why Mizen didn't find Paul's suspicious behavior to be suspicious, let alone worth commenting on.

[Fiver]

”Those who investigated the case” failed to solve it, I īm afraid, and therefore your point has no value. If they had been infallible, it would have been another matter, but it is very clear that they were anything but.

That is a false equivalence and a misrepresentation of Doctored Whatsit's position. DW was referring points where the police "had all of the necessary information to reach a conclusion." The police had enough information to conclude that Lechmere and Paul sought out Mizen, and together they told him what they had seen. They didn't have enough information to find the murderer.

[Fiver]

[COLOR=#e74c3c]No knock, no coin? The PCs were not allowed to take money from the ones they knocked up, it was a duty imposed upon them by their districts. Which is good to know, because that means that nobody can try to lead on that Mizen was more interested in money than in doing his duty. Not that I think anybody WOULD do such a thing, but nevertheless!

Have you got any source that claims knocking up was assigned by police departments and was not for pay? Because I have sources that contradict you.

"An entrepreneurial bobby could earn a shilling or two by acting as a knocker-up" Taylor, David (1997). The new police in nineteenth-century England: crime, conflict, and control.

"Generally the job was carried out by elderly men and women but sometimes police constables supplemented their pay by performing the task during early morning patrols. In fact many saw this as a means of supplementing their income and in some cases as more important than their duties in policing the community."

[Fiver]

THe fact that Lechmere said he left home at around 3.30 is in evidence. This should have seen him in Bucks Row at around 3.37, but coroner Baxter said that the body was found at time not far off 3.45!

Coroner Baxter did say that. We also have the testimonies of PC Mizen, PC Neil, and PC Thain, which would put the time of Lechmere and Paul finding the body to around 3:40am. And Inspector Abberline's report saying 3:40am, agreeing with the testimonies of the three police officers.

We also need to look at everything Baxter said about timing.

"...the unfortunate woman was last seen alive at half-past two o'clock on Saturday morning, Sept 1, by Mrs. Holland, who knew her well. Deceased was at that time much the worse for drink, and was endeavouring to walk eastward down Whitechapel. What her exact movements were after this it was impossible to say; but in less than an hour and a quarter her dead body was discovered at a spot rather under three-quarters of a mile distant. The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data." - Coroner Baxter, 24 September 1888 Daily News

So Baxter said the body was found before 3:45am.

We cannot make a precise estimate of how long it would have taken Charles Lechmere to walk from his home to the murder site - we do not know his exact route and part of what we do know cannot be walked - it's been under a Sainsburys for decades. We have no idea how the length and speed of Lechmere's stride compares to yours. And I doubt you timed your estimate at 3:30am under Victorian lighting on your way to a fifth 14 to 18 hour day of manual labor after living for several months in a home with a newborn who may have just started sleeping through the night.

There is almost more evidence against the carman than there is flat out denials of that fact.

There is no evidence against Charles Lechmere.

[Fiver]

The fact that Nichols bled for an extensive amount of time after Lechmere left her is in evidence.

That is your theory, not a fact.

"I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat." - PC Neil, 3 September 1888 Western Daily Press

[Fiver]

The fact that he said that he would hear anybody moving in Bucks Row from 130 yards off, but still did not hear Paul until he was one fourth of that distance away is in evidence.

That fact points towards Lechmere's innocence. Even a marginally intelligent criminal would have seen the advantage of claiming to have heard and/or caught a glimpse of someone leaving the murder site.

Also, it has been repeatedly pointed out to you that the shape of human ears means we are better at hearing noises in from of us than noises behind us.

[John Wheat]

the only thing?? lol. well thats pretty good. and they managed to do alot of good research on a valid suspect and discover alot of interesting tidbits about him many which could be indicitive of guilt.

Except that Lechmere was a witness not a suspect and there is no evidence of guilt.

[Abby Normal]

Even his mysterious elusive deceptive eyes are screaming of guilt..

The only thing ever that Lechmerians managed to do all these years was to find a portrait/pic of him.



The Baron

the only thing?? lol. well thats pretty good. and they managed to do alot of good research on a valid suspect and discover alot of interesting tidbits about him many which could be indicitive of guilt.

[Abby Normal]

It is evident from the Mortuary photo of Nichols that her eyes are open and therefore it is almost certain that she died with her eyes open.

On that basis, it would seem fairly evident that Nichols died with her eyes open, because it's a visual clue that unless she slept with her eyes open, she must have been dead when Paul and Lechmere left her.

It would seem very unlikely that a murder victim would open their eyes post-mortem.


There is something that doesn't ring true about Paul and Lechmere's account. They seem conflicted and when you add Mizen and Co into the mix, it all feels a bit of a mess.

Whoever stated that Nichols had her eyes open would to me seem the most reliable witness, because that is evidenced by the mortuary photo. Her eyes are open and that is one fact that should not be overlooked or underplayed.

Had her eyes been closed, I can understand why there may have been some confusion as to whether she was dead or drunk.

It doesn't take a person with medical knowledge to realize that a woman found lying prone on the floor with her eyes open and not responding; is either dead, or in danger of life being extinct.
The reason why Paul and Lechmere relayed some form of uncertainty as to whether they thought she was dead, is likely because they didn't want to be considered suspects in her murder and/or didn't want to get involved.
Lechmere in particular seems to want to avoid any association whatsoever with the murder; avoiding the press, making an official appearance after having little option not to, and giving the name of his late stepfather, rather than his typical surname that he used on all other official documents.

Lechmere clearly doesn't want anything to do with proceedings.

Unlike Paul, who it could be said; enjoys his 15 minutes in the spotlight.


The actions of Lechmere after the murder of Nichols, don't appear to indicate any form of guilt, they rather a degree of discernment, indifference, and inconvenience.


I would suggest that the actions of Mizen are just as peculiar.

Of all the murders; with perhaps the exception of Stride, this is the most shrouded in mystery, because someone isn't telling us the whole story.

Lechmere and Paul do not react like men who have come across a murder victim. They lack any form of urgency.

I simply don't buy the idea that they were unsure if she was dead or alive, and that they didn't see any of her wounds.

IMO, Paul arrived moments after Lechmere, they both checked out the body and saw she was bleeding from her throat, knew she had been drinking from the smell of alcohol, realized she was a woman of the "Unfortunate" class, and then rather than one of them staying with the body while the other ran or SHOUTED for help/murder, they simply washed their hands of it and walked away.

Had they not come across a Policeman en-route, they may have not sought to look for one either.

Their reaction to what was clearly a woman who had just been murdered or was close to life extinct, does not signal a typical reaction to such circumstances...

Take for example the murder of Stride, lying in a darker spot than Nichols and with fewer injuries... Upon discovery, multiple individuals look to seek help by going to find a Policeman (despite the clubs documented torrid relationship with the police and authorities)

And so WHY do neither Lechmere OR Neil look to seek urgent help?

1) - They didn't know she was in danger - nonsense, because she had a cut throat, had multiple cuts and had her eyes open.
2) - The couldn't see her injuries and thought she was okay - nonsense, because at least one of them is close enough to touch her and at least one of them must have noticed something at that proximity to her body
3) - The were involved with her murder - unlikely
4) - They noticed she was dying or dead due to her throat wound, knew she had been drinking and knew she was likely be a prostitute, and so because they both needed to get to work and didn't want to get involved, they casually got up and walked away and relayed to the first police officer that he was wanted in Bucks Row. No indication whatsoever that a woman had been murdered. - This option explains both Paul and Lechmere's actions, and to some extent PC Mizen's response, or lack of.

And so why didn't they both just confess that they knew she was dead or dying?

Because they were worried they would be implicated in her murder?

By them giving a mixed belief of not being sure whether she was dead or alive, they give the victim a great disservice, because at least one of them must have known she was either in mortal danger or was already dead.
As working men finding a dead or dying prostitute, they were more concerned with themselves than the woman in front of them.

They may not be guilty of her murder, but they were somewhat callous in their lack of urgency to seek help.

They just walked away and went to work, and either knew she was dead, or left her to die because she wasn't worth getting involved with.

Callous and cold


RD

bingo RD. ive been saying it for years. all these people whining about accusing lech as being so unfair. meanwhile he left a woman in obvious need of care. and then not coming forward immediately after to help aid the police. at the very least hes unethical and devoid of symapthy.

[The Baron]

But it's different with Lechmere. Everything with Lechmere is an indication of guilt

Even his mysterious elusive deceptive eyes are screaming of guilt..

The only thing ever that Lechmerians managed to do all these years was to find a portrait/pic of him.



The Baron

[John Wheat]

There is no such thing as a "registered name". He identified himself as Charles Allen Cross of 22 Doveton Street, a carman who worked for Pickfords at the Broad Street Station. He had previously been identified as Charles Cross at least once, likely twice, over the course of several decades. Numerous examples have been given to you of other men using their stepfathers' surnames in court without also mentioning their father's surname.

And you don't apply this reasoning to any other person.

Let me again mention another witness at one of the Ripper inquests. The surname on his marriage license was Lavender. The surname in the censuses for him, his wife, and his children, was Lavender. In a 1876 proceeding at the Old Bailey, his surname was given as Levender [sic] and it is clear from the court records that his friends knew his surname as Lavender. He appeared in city directories as Lavender. He was buried as Lavender.

But at the Eddowes inquest, he used the name Joseph Lawende, not Lavender. He never mentioned his "registered name"?

If we approach it like you do, we can also note that Joseph Lavender was one of the last people to see one of the victims alive. He lived and worked in the area. His testimony contradicted the testimony and timing of other witnesses.

But it's different with Lechmere. Everything with Lechmere is an indication of guilt

[drstrange169]

Eyes and mouth can open after death due to muscles relaxing. Usually, partially, which seems to be the case with Mrs. Nichols. It's why there was a custom of placing coins on eyes in some cultures.
I doubt for a minute that Cross and Paul's actions were callous, the reality of Victorian East End life for many.

[The Rookie Detective]

It's not a fact. Here's what Paul actually said.

"Witness felt her hands and face, and they were cold. He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not, and he thought she was dead. It was very dark, and he did not notice any blood. They agreed that the best thing they could do would be to tell the first policeman they met. He could not see whether the clothes were torn, and did not feel any other part of her body except the hands and face. They looked to see if there was a constable, but one was not to be seen. While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement." - Robert Paul, 18 September 1888 Times

Paul testified that he could not her Nichols breath, but 'fancied' he felt a slight movement when he accidentally touched her breast. Paul's statement shows that he believed Nichols was either barely breathing or not breathing at all. His testimony gives us no evidence of when Nichols was killed.

It is evident from the Mortuary photo of Nichols that her eyes are open and therefore it is almost certain that she died with her eyes open.

On that basis, it would seem fairly evident that Nichols died with her eyes open, because it's a visual clue that unless she slept with her eyes open, she must have been dead when Paul and Lechmere left her.

It would seem very unlikely that a murder victim would open their eyes post-mortem.


There is something that doesn't ring true about Paul and Lechmere's account. They seem conflicted and when you add Mizen and Co into the mix, it all feels a bit of a mess.

Whoever stated that Nichols had her eyes open would to me seem the most reliable witness, because that is evidenced by the mortuary photo. Her eyes are open and that is one fact that should not be overlooked or underplayed.

Had her eyes been closed, I can understand why there may have been some confusion as to whether she was dead or drunk.

It doesn't take a person with medical knowledge to realize that a woman found lying prone on the floor with her eyes open and not responding; is either dead, or in danger of life being extinct.
The reason why Paul and Lechmere relayed some form of uncertainty as to whether they thought she was dead, is likely because they didn't want to be considered suspects in her murder and/or didn't want to get involved.
Lechmere in particular seems to want to avoid any association whatsoever with the murder; avoiding the press, making an official appearance after having little option not to, and giving the name of his late stepfather, rather than his typical surname that he used on all other official documents.

Lechmere clearly doesn't want anything to do with proceedings.

Unlike Paul, who it could be said; enjoys his 15 minutes in the spotlight.


The actions of Lechmere after the murder of Nichols, don't appear to indicate any form of guilt, they rather a degree of discernment, indifference, and inconvenience.


I would suggest that the actions of Mizen are just as peculiar.

Of all the murders; with perhaps the exception of Stride, this is the most shrouded in mystery, because someone isn't telling us the whole story.

Lechmere and Paul do not react like men who have come across a murder victim. They lack any form of urgency.

I simply don't buy the idea that they were unsure if she was dead or alive, and that they didn't see any of her wounds.

IMO, Paul arrived moments after Lechmere, they both checked out the body and saw she was bleeding from her throat, knew she had been drinking from the smell of alcohol, realized she was a woman of the "Unfortunate" class, and then rather than one of them staying with the body while the other ran or SHOUTED for help/murder, they simply washed their hands of it and walked away.

Had they not come across a Policeman en-route, they may have not sought to look for one either.

Their reaction to what was clearly a woman who had just been murdered or was close to life extinct, does not signal a typical reaction to such circumstances...

Take for example the murder of Stride, lying in a darker spot than Nichols and with fewer injuries... Upon discovery, multiple individuals look to seek help by going to find a Policeman (despite the clubs documented torrid relationship with the police and authorities)

And so WHY do neither Lechmere OR Neil look to seek urgent help?

1) - They didn't know she was in danger - nonsense, because she had a cut throat, had multiple cuts and had her eyes open.
2) - The couldn't see her injuries and thought she was okay - nonsense, because at least one of them is close enough to touch her and at least one of them must have noticed something at that proximity to her body
3) - The were involved with her murder - unlikely
4) - They noticed she was dying or dead due to her throat wound, knew she had been drinking and knew she was likely be a prostitute, and so because they both needed to get to work and didn't want to get involved, they casually got up and walked away and relayed to the first police officer that he was wanted in Bucks Row. No indication whatsoever that a woman had been murdered. - This option explains both Paul and Lechmere's actions, and to some extent PC Mizen's response, or lack of.

And so why didn't they both just confess that they knew she was dead or dying?

Because they were worried they would be implicated in her murder?

By them giving a mixed belief of not being sure whether she was dead or alive, they give the victim a great disservice, because at least one of them must have known she was either in mortal danger or was already dead.
As working men finding a dead or dying prostitute, they were more concerned with themselves than the woman in front of them.

They may not be guilty of her murder, but they were somewhat callous in their lack of urgency to seek help.

They just walked away and went to work, and either knew she was dead, or left her to die because she wasn't worth getting involved with.

Callous and cold


RD

[Fiver]

The fact that he omitted to say that his registered name was Lechmere is in evidence.

There is no such thing as a "registered name". He identified himself as Charles Allen Cross of 22 Doveton Street, a carman who worked for Pickfords at the Broad Street Station. He had previously been identified as Charles Cross at least once, likely twice, over the course of several decades. Numerous examples have been given to you of other men using their stepfathers' surnames in court without also mentioning their father's surname.

And you don't apply this reasoning to any other person.

Let me again mention another witness at one of the Ripper inquests. The surname on his marriage license was Lavender. The surname in the censuses for him, his wife, and his children, was Lavender. In a 1876 proceeding at the Old Bailey, his surname was given as Levender [sic] and it is clear from the court records that his friends knew his surname as Lavender. He appeared in city directories as Lavender. He was buried as Lavender.

But at the Eddowes inquest, he used the name Joseph Lawende, not Lavender. He never mentioned his "registered name"?

If we approach it like you do, we can also note that Joseph Lavender was one of the last people to see one of the victims alive. He lived and worked in the area. His testimony contradicted the testimony and timing of other witnesses.