The Darkness of Bakers Row

[Wickerman]

... Whether or not Mizen said that Lechmere had mentioned a PC is beyond doubt, since we know that a jury member asked Lechmere if it was true like Mizen said, that Lechmere had claimed that another PC was in place in Bucks Row.

Hi Fisherman.

That's just the same interpretation that I said was Mizen's assumption, not what was actually said on the day.

All Cross meant, in my view, was that there's something that requires your attention in Bucks Row. It's a police matter, so for Cross to say "You are wanted in Bucks Row" is the same as "needed", that his presence is needed in Bucks Row.
It's only because Cross used "wanted", that Mizen immediately may have thought of "by whom, must be a fellow constable - who else knows I'm here?"
Mizen simply got the wrong impression.

This was my view all those years ago before you embarked on this hypothesis, which is why I've never debated it since.
I just disagree with your conclusion.

[Fisherman]

Hi again Roger,

What I forgot to add in my previous post to you, is that Mizen may well have seen Neil pass when he was going up Baker's Row before turning right into (the northernmost part of) Thomas Street, not long before he was approached by the two carmen and then put 2 and 2 together hearing Lechmere say that he was wanted in Buck's Row. Just a thought.

Cheers,
Frank

Could you be a bit more detailed? I cannot make heads or tails of this, I'm afraid. Who was going up Bakers Row before turning into Thomas Street?

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman.

That's just the same interpretation that I said was Mizen's assumption, not what was actually said on the day.

All Cross meant, in my view, was that there's something that requires your attention in Bucks Row. It's a police matter, so for Cross to say "You are wanted in Bucks Row" is the same as "needed", that his presence is needed in Bucks Row.
It's only because Cross used "wanted", that Mizen immediately may have thought of "by whom, must be a fellow constable - who else knows I'm here?"
Mizen simply got the wrong impression.

This was my view all those years ago before you embarked on this hypothesis, which is why I've never debated it since.
I just disagree with your conclusion.

But why would Lechmere then say that Mizen was wanted in Bucks Row, if he actually meant that he was needed there, Jon? Because, I would say, he added in the next sentence "a policeman wants you there". And is it not interesting that somebody should inform a PC that he was wanted in Bucks Row - without adding that he himself was the finder of the body? Why did he not just say "I found a woman lying in Bucks Row, you need to go there!"

Is it not strange that all of these matters always lend themselves to an accusation act against Lechmere, when there was always an exonerating alternative? Nichols could have been cold and long gone, Paul could have heard Lechmere, Nichols ´wounds could have been on display, Mizen and Lechmere could have agreed, Lechmeres working trek could have gone far away from the murders, he could have called himself Lechmere instead of Cross, the Goulston Street rag could have been found in Regents Park, and so on and so on.

Why is it that he always remains in the picture, that he gets no help whatsoever from the circumstances...?

Is it all a huge ... coincidence?

[New Ford Shunt]

I was in a retrospective sort of mindset this morning so I thought I'd go over the number of times this specific subject has been discussed on JtrForums and Casebook and this is what I found:

• Casebook - 42 threads, with over 500 posts, 224 of which are from Christer
• JtrForums - 13 threads, with over 100 posts, 58 of which are from Christer

I'll just leave that with you all. Meanwhile, I fancy a film.

[Fisherman]

I was in a retrospective sort of mindset this morning so I thought I'd go over the number of times this specific subject has been discussed on JtrForums and Casebook and this is what I found:

• Casebook - 42 threads, with over 500 posts, 224 of which are from Christer
• JtrForums - 13 threads, with over 100 posts, 58 of which are from Christer

I'll just leave that with you all. Meanwhile, I fancy a film.

Which specific subject are you talking about? The specific subject here is whether or not Jonas Mizen must have been in Bakers Row as John Neil observed him, and it amazes me to hear that I have posted 224 times on it here on Casebook.

I honestly believed that it was the first time I posted on the matter here.

Or is the subject the Mizen scam?

People tend not to understand that there are many sub-subjects involved in the Mizen scam. It happens all the time, over and over again, like in that Bill Murray movie ...

[FrankO]

I have given this a lot of thought, and I don't think we can rely on this at all. It would basically mean that Neil would be able to tell each bricks impact on his view along his whole beat, and I don't think that is realistic. It also applies that Neil walked away from Bakers Row down Bucks Row, not towards Bakers Row. And we are less likely to know the exact layout of structures we do not see, since they are not in front of us. What you suggest would make Neil know that he needed to go to the other side of the street to be able to see the Bakers Row outlet, and accordingly, his seeing Mizen would then be likely to be the result of Neil doing just that. He would have thought, after alerting Thain to the scene, "let's see if I can see my colleague in Bakers Row and alert him here too!" And then he would cross over the street, waiting to catch a two second glimpse of Mizen, banking on how Mizen would look down Bucks Row and see himself during those two seconds. And all the while, he would not know WHEN mizen would pass up at Bakers Row. For all he knew, Mizen could have been engaged in something that alternated his beat timings. Would Neil prioritize such an endeavor? I find it hard to believe. Mizen would become visible from beside the murder site once he had passed perhaps thirty, forty yards or so down Bucks Row. I believe it is much likelier that this was what happened, and Neil saw him from a position by the murder site, predisposing that he was in Bakers Row.

Thanks for your presents, Christer, I especially liked your flowers (having worked in the world of flowers the bigger part of my working life)!

However, I don't think you got what I meant. I do agree that, after alerting Thain to the scene, he thought something like "let's see if I can see my colleague in Bakers Row and alert him here too!" That would have been a completely logical thing for him to think, as far as I'm concerned. And seeing that, from where he was standing by the body, he would have been sure he couldn't see the entrance to Buck's Row from Baker's Row, the one thing that would possibly enable him to see his colleague in Baker's Row, would have been to move from where he stood. And my suggestion is that he may just have done that. And by that I don't mean that he just moved to the opposite side of the street, no, I mean that he may well have moved to the wider part of Buck's Row, beyond the board school. He would either know from where he could have expected to have a better view or he would have found out moving in a westernly direction. That would require no rocket science nor knowledge of every brick's impact on his view.

So, what I suggest doesn't require any profouned knowledge on Neil's part of how each & every brick between the murder site and Baker's Row would or wouldn't block his view, it would only require common sense.

Of course, in the end, actually seeing Mizen would depend on where Mizen would be when Neil looked for him towards the Baker's Row end of Buck's Row, so, therefore, I tend to agree with you that Mizen had already entered Buck's Row when Neil saw him, but I'm quite confident that it wouldn't have been possible after Mizen had only covered 30 or 40 yards down Buck's Row. More likely after some 100 yards (halfway between Thomas Street and Queen Ann Street).

Regardless of what applies, I am very happy to hear that you concur about how it is likely that Mizen was in Bucks Row when Neil noticed his lantern. That is the gist of the matter, and as Steven Blomer put it in his final point quoted above: it changes everything for Mizen. But the other way around.

As I've already said in my previous post, I don't think it would have made a whole lot of difference. It would only show that Mizen wasn't entirely uninterested after having been told without much sense of urgency, if any, that there was a woman lying in Buck's Row. I still find it odd, though, that Mizen at least didn't even ask the men whereabouts she was supposed to be lying in Buck's Row. But that's, perhaps, another matter.

The best,
Frank

[GBinOz]

But why would Lechmere then say that Mizen was wanted in Bucks Row, if he actually meant that he was needed there, Jon? Because, I would say, he added in the next sentence "a policeman wants you there". And is it not interesting that somebody should inform a PC that he was wanted in Bucks Row - without adding that he himself was the finder of the body? Why did he not just say "I found a woman lying in Bucks Row, you need to go there!"

Hi Christer,

That would be my interpretation. "Wanted" implies a human requesting assistance, where as "needed" implies a situation requiring attention.

Cheers, George

[Fisherman]

Not that it is the actual topic of this thread, but since the suggestion that Mizen added in the policeman himself after having gone to Bucks Row tends to resurface again and again, here are the articles mentioning that policeman.

"A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there." Daily News

”a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying” Daily Telegraph

"You are wanted in Buck's-row by a policeman; a woman is lying there." East London Observer

Witness asked him what was the matter, and Cross replied, "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there." Echo

Police-constable Mizen deposed that at about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning, while he was at the corner of Hanbury-street and Baker's-row, 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." Illustrated Police News

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. Witness went to the spot, found Policeman Neil there, and by his instruction witness went for the ambulance. He assisted in removing the body. He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed. Cross, when he spoke to witness about the affair, was accompanied by another man. Both went down Hanbury-street. The witness at the time was in the act of knocking a man up. Cross told him a policeman wanted him. The Star

Constable G. Mizen, 56 H, stated that at a quarter past 4 on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, and a man passing said "You are wanted in Baker's-row." The man, named Cross, stated that a woman had been found there. In going to the spot he saw Constable Neil, and by the direction of the latter he went for the ambulance. When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street. Cross simply said he was wanted by a policeman, and did not say anything about a murder having been committed. The Times

Notice how Mizens recollection of the matter involves two sections:

1. How Mizen is wanted by a policeman in Bucks Row

and

2. How a woman is lying there

The two phenomenons are kept apart, and Mizens recollection is that he was FIRST told that there was a PC in Bucks Row, and only then was he told why this was so. To me, together with how he uses "wanted" instead of "needed", that tends to reinforce how Mizen was actually lied to by Lechmere. He leaves little room for doubt on that score, I find. And as such, if Lechmere was the killer and decided to con Mizen, I would have found it likely that he would begin by establishing the existence of another PC in Bucks Row before he spoke of the woman.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,

That would be my interpretation. "Wanted" implies a human requesting assistance, where as "needed" implies a situation requiring attention.

Cheers, George

That's two bingos for you, George!

[FrankO]

Could you be a bit more detailed? I cannot make heads or tails of this, I'm afraid. Who was going up Bakers Row before turning into Thomas Street?

I'm following Neil's route, as laid out in the Echo of 21 September.

Echo, 21st September 1888

"A Correspondent has obtained exact details of those police beats covering the area within which the Buck's row murder was committed. From this it will be seen that the murderer had no doubt a considerable time in which he was quite sure of being undisturbed by a police constable, assuming he knew the beats. It seems that, notwithstanding the frequent repetition of murders round Whitechapel, under circumstances leading to the conclusion that they were the work of one man, not one single extra police officer was put upon the ground until after the commission of the fourth and last murder. Then the streets were filled night and by by police in and out of uniform.

"During the month of August, and up to the 8th instant, when Annie Chapman was killed, the following beats were covered by the men of the J Division quartered at Bethnal green, these forming what is known as the "Second Section night duty." The first police constable would commence his two beats at Wilmot street, three Colt land, Cheshire street, Mape street, Bethnal green road, to Wilmot street, and the interior, this consisting of a few streets, courts, passages, &c. The second constable would cover Three Colt lane, Collingwood street, Darling row, Dog row, Whitechapel road, Brady street, to Three Colt lane, and the interior, this consisting of about twenty streets, courts, passages, &c; the third constable would commence at Brady street, cover Whitechapel road, Baker's row, Thomas street, Queen Anne street, and Buck's row, to Brady street, and all the interior, this consisting of about ten streets, courts, passage, &c. The fourth constable would commence at Baker's row, go through Nottingham street, White street, Bethnal Green road, Mape street, London street, to Baker's row, and all the interior, consisting of about thirty streets, courts, passages, &c. The fifth and last man of the section would cover Whitechapel road alone, this making a total of nine beats for the five constables. The third beat was the one within the limit of which Mrs. Nicholl (sic) was murdered. The exterior of the beats are at least a mile in extent, and to this distance must be added the interiors."

This suggests to me that Neil went up Baker's Row, then turned right into Thomas Street, then covered Queen Ann Street, before entering Buck's Row and going towards Brady Street, etc.

I suspect you already had a good idea that I meant this, but there you go. ;-)

[rjpalmer]

And is it not interesting that somebody should inform a PC that he was wanted in Bucks Row - without adding that he himself was the finder of the body?

No. Not particularly. And your many posts on this subject amply demonstrate why.

Many ordinary citizens give the absolute minimum information required when dealing with the police out of fear they will be dragged into the investigation.

You are deeply suspicious of this behavior but recall that the anonymous tipster is anonymous for a reason, and police departments, aware of this fact, even set up anonymous tip lines. They understand the public's hesitancy to "get involved."

As I see it, Cross and Paul just passed along the minimum information that was required in order to satisfy their own consciences but didn't want to "get involved" any more than that.

Is that deeply suspicious, or is it commonplace?

Indeed, turning the tables, do we not see examples of citizens who have overplayed it the other way round, and went overboard to be helpful and throw themselves into the investigation and, as a result, become suspects themselves?

The bloke in the Madeleine McCann case comes to mind--Robert Murat--and just look what happened to him.

I have to say, Christer, that after reading the many Lechmere threads, if I was to find a murdered woman on the side of the road, I'd think twice about whether to call it in using a burner phone! You'd soon be looking at my work apron with a funny look on your face.

Cheers.

[Abby Normal]

No. Not particularly. And your many posts on this subject amply demonstrate why.

Many ordinary citizens give the absolute minimum information required when dealing with the police out of fear they will be dragged into the investigation.

You are deeply suspicious of this behavior but recall that the anonymous tipster is anonymous for a reason, and police departments, aware of this fact, even set up anonymous tip lines. They understand the public's hesitancy to "get involved."

As I see it, Cross and Paul just passed along the minimum information that was required in order to satisfy their own consciences but didn't want to "get involved" any more than that.

Is that deeply suspicious, or is it commonplace?

Indeed, turning the tables, do we not see examples of citizens who have overplayed it the other way round, and went overboard to be helpful and throw themselves into the investigation and, as a result, become suspects themselves?

The bloke in the Madeleine McCann case comes to mind--Robert Murat--and just look what happened to him.

I have to say, Christer, that after reading the many Lechmere threads, if I was to find a murdered woman on the side of the road, I'd think twice about whether to call it in using a burner phone! You'd soon be looking at my work apron with a funny look on your face.

Cheers.

The ancient Romans had saying, one my favorite.. do what’s right, and let the skies fall. I do hope you were totally kidding.

[Fisherman]

I'm following Neil's route, as laid out in the Echo of 21 September.

Echo, 21st September 1888

"A Correspondent has obtained exact details of those police beats covering the area within which the Buck's row murder was committed. From this it will be seen that the murderer had no doubt a considerable time in which he was quite sure of being undisturbed by a police constable, assuming he knew the beats. It seems that, notwithstanding the frequent repetition of murders round Whitechapel, under circumstances leading to the conclusion that they were the work of one man, not one single extra police officer was put upon the ground until after the commission of the fourth and last murder. Then the streets were filled night and by by police in and out of uniform.

"During the month of August, and up to the 8th instant, when Annie Chapman was killed, the following beats were covered by the men of the J Division quartered at Bethnal green, these forming what is known as the "Second Section night duty." The first police constable would commence his two beats at Wilmot street, three Colt land, Cheshire street, Mape street, Bethnal green road, to Wilmot street, and the interior, this consisting of a few streets, courts, passages, &c. The second constable would cover Three Colt lane, Collingwood street, Darling row, Dog row, Whitechapel road, Brady street, to Three Colt lane, and the interior, this consisting of about twenty streets, courts, passages, &c; the third constable would commence at Brady street, cover Whitechapel road, Baker's row, Thomas street, Queen Anne street, and Buck's row, to Brady street, and all the interior, this consisting of about ten streets, courts, passage, &c. The fourth constable would commence at Baker's row, go through Nottingham street, White street, Bethnal Green road, Mape street, London street, to Baker's row, and all the interior, consisting of about thirty streets, courts, passages, &c. The fifth and last man of the section would cover Whitechapel road alone, this making a total of nine beats for the five constables. The third beat was the one within the limit of which Mrs. Nicholl (sic) was murdered. The exterior of the beats are at least a mile in extent, and to this distance must be added the interiors."

This suggests to me that Neil went up Baker's Row, then turned right into Thomas Street, then covered Queen Ann Street, before entering Buck's Row and going towards Brady Street, etc.

I suspect you already had a good idea that I meant this, but there you go. ;-)

Thank you, Frank. What stands out to me is that it says in for example the Daily News that "Police constable John Neil deposed that on Friday morning at a quarter to four o'clock he was going down Buck's row, Whitechapel, from Thomas street to Brady street." One may of course reason that Neil simply spoke of the direction he was walking, but why would he use Thomas Street and not Bakers Row in that case? The stretch he walked along Bucks Row would have covered the distance from Bakers Row to Brady Street (all of Whites Row/Bucks Row, therefore), so why say that he walked from Thomas Street to Brady Street? And if he wanted to mention a specific part of the beat, why not say that he walked from Queen Anne Street to Brady Street? I am coming away with the notion that he turned into Bucks Row from Thomas Street, and that he did. ot go into Queen Anne Street at all on this occasion. It may well be that his beat was not the exact same on all occasions, he may have walked one side of a street on one occasion and the other on another, as you will be aware. So what if he walked up to Bakers Row on every other occasion, leaving it to Mizen on the next occasion, and turned into Thomas Street from Whitechapel Road instead of walking all the way up to Bakers Row on such occasions? Could that be the case? The phrasing "from Thomas Street to Brady Street" only makes full sense with that kind of a beat, methinks.

[John Wheat]

I was in a retrospective sort of mindset this morning so I thought I'd go over the number of times this specific subject has been discussed on JtrForums and Casebook and this is what I found:

• Casebook - 42 threads, with over 500 posts, 224 of which are from Christer
• JtrForums - 13 threads, with over 100 posts, 58 of which are from Christer

I'll just leave that with you all. Meanwhile, I fancy a film.

More bullshit is written about Lechmere than anyone else connected with the case. Lechmere was an innocent man who found a body. But the Lechmerian's seem to be on a quest to slur an innocent man's name. Its embarrassing really.

[Fisherman]

No. Not particularly. And your many posts on this subject amply demonstrate why.

Many ordinary citizens give the absolute minimum information required when dealing with the police out of fear they will be dragged into the investigation.

Then I would say that it is extremely interesting, if this was so.

You are deeply suspicious of this behavior but recall that the anonymous tipster is anonymous for a reason, and police departments, aware of this fact, even set up anonymous tip lines. They understand the public's hesitancy to "get involved."

How had actively chosen to get involved himself, R J. He approached a PC and told him a story about what had transpired. If you take that decision, you are not averse to be involved, quite the contrary. Moreover, once you do such a thing, you need to be aware that you are not supposed to withhold important information. Approaching a PC only to lie to him makes no sense at all. If he was unwilling to tell the police his story, he should not have approached the PC at all, and left it to Paul to do it.

As I see it, Cross and Paul just passed along the minimum information that was required in order to satisfy their own consciences but didn't want to "get involved" any more than that.

Is that deeply suspicious, or is it commonplace?

That depends on the surrounding factors. There is no generalist answer to be had.

Indeed, turning the tables, do we not see examples of citizens who have overplayed it the other way round, and went overboard to be helpful and throw themselves into the investigation and, as a result, become suspects themselves?

The bloke in the Madeleine McCann case comes to mind--Robert Murat--and just look what happened to him.

Of course there may be a fear to get too involved, and of course that can colour the picture you give. But keeping vital information from the police would be taking a stupid risk, and it could well get you into a whole lot more trouble that simply telling the truth.

I have to say, Christer, that after reading the many Lechmere threads, if I was to find a murdered woman on the side of the road, I'd think twice about whether to call it in using a burner phone! You'd soon be looking at my work apron with a funny look on your face.

Cheers.

If you had found that woman all alone at a remove in time that was totally consistent with you being the killer, called yourself R J Hitherto, disagreed with a policeman about what you had said and done on the occasion and went on to pass very close to a series of later murders, linked to the one you "found", if an item from one of the murders was found right between the murder site and your residence, and if no other person was identified as the killer, then you should be considered a suspect. And you know that quite well too yourself, I suspect. So trying to make me out as some sort of zealot does not really work, does it, R J? I suggest you do your duty as a stand up citizen when and if it happens - the risk that you will have as large a heap of circumstantial evidence pointing in your way as Lechmere racked up, is minuscule.