The Darkness of Bakers Row

[Wickerman]

But why would Lechmere then say that Mizen was wanted in Bucks Row, if he actually meant that he was needed there, Jon?

Because, Christer, 'wanted' or 'needed' is much the same.
The inquest was held on the 3rd, as it terminated the local evening papers (Star, Echo, Evening News) all went to press with what they had.
Interestingly, each of the papers reports Mizen's words almost identical. As Cross passed Const. Mizen he remarked "You are wanted in Bucks Row" (Echo), "You are wanted round in Bucks Row" (Star), "You are wanted in Bucks Row" (Evening News).

Only when the constable turned to engage Cross by inquiring for the reason with, "Why, what is the matter?" or words to that effect, do we see a variety of words exchanged. This is when Mizen said Cross told him he was wanted by a constable.
Was it his assumption, or did Cross really say that?

Did Cross respond with that line because he didn't really want to be detained, he was late for work as it was? Cross just wanted to get to work, but now the constable wanted him to stop and talk, so Cross is thinking to say something to make the constable hurry away.
I really don't know, but what I do know is that there is nothing suspicious in what we read.

Cross denied mentioning a constable because he realised the excuse he came up with could lead to further complications.

Then there is the issue of how PC Neil was able to see PC Mizen from the position of the body in Bucks Row.
We can see from the diagram that if Neil walked over to Essex Wharf he had a better chance of seeing Mizen.
The testimony appears to suggest PC Neil first called the constable on patrol from Brady St., and noticed PZ Mizen in Bucks Row. Except Neil worded it in such a way that he could have been on the Essex Wharf side of Bucks Row when he saw Mizen's lamp in the distance.

PC Neil: "...and, seeing another constable in Baker's-row, I sent him for the ambulance. The doctor arrived in a very short time. I had, in the meantime, rung the bell at Essex Wharf, and asked if any disturbance had been heard."

He says "in the mean time", which suggests to me he did cross the road before he saw Mizen, otherwise I would expect him to say "after that".
So, between calling PC Thain and seeing PC Mizen's lamp, he had crossed over to Essex Wharf.

There's nothing suspicious here, everything we read is normal and innocent.

[Fisherman]

How about letting Steve speak for himself. You have misquoted even your own forensics experts on this forum, so I have significant doubts that you have accurately represented Steve's position.

I would be only too happy to hear Steven Blomers take on this matter. He is more than welcome to take part.

As for your claim that I have misquoted my own forensic experts, I don't think so. You are welcome to provide any example of that claim, and we can take a brief look at it.

[Fisherman]

Your conclusion is based on:
* Ignoring what Robert Paul said.
* Assuming that any disagreement between Lechmere and Mizen means one of them is lying. You ignore the possibilities of miscommunication or fallible memory.
* Assuming that Lechmere's statements were "tailormade to allow the carmen to pass the police by".

I am not ignoring what anybody said. But there are different interpretations of who said what, and there is also the fact that some of the things Paul supposedly said, are claims about it from Lechmeres behalf. And my theory is based around how I beleive he is the killer, so I am careful about accepting his claims as being true. In fact, I believe they are anything but. Finally, there is also the fact that if we accept what all of the people involved are claimed to have said, we get a picture full of contradictions that cannot have been there. Ergo, choices must be made, and some of the stuff claimed to have been said must be ruled less likely than other things. That is not claiming to know what WAS said, it is all about checking whether or not my theory can be correct, based on the case material.
That does not amount to me ignoring things, I'm afraid.

I am not assuming that the exchange between Mizen and Lechmere must have involved lies. Again, I am looking at whether or not my theory works, and it does - if Lechmere lied. And that is a very clear possibility. It does not, however, that I claim that we can be certain that he DID lie, only that based on the case material, I regard it as the likeliest thing.

The three matters I mention about the exchange WERE perfectly shaped to help Lechmer pass the police by, so I cannot see what your problem is here. I am not saying that it is proven that Lechmere shaped a number of lies to pass the police by, I am saying that once again, the theory works if this was so, and there is nothing at all to prove that it was not what happened.

Anybody who works on a theory tht suggests guilt on behalf of a person where that guilt cannot be conclusively proven will do the exact same thing: He will ask himself "how does this work with the theory?", "Is there anything that makes this assumption impossible or very unlikely?" and so on. It means that a course of action is outlined, and the defense of the theory then rests on the plausibility of that course of action. In the Lechmere theory case, many are convinced that the killer has been found, and then there are those who say that we can be 99 per cent certain that a killer would not stay put on a murder site. It does not mean that the theory is 50 per cent correct or 50 per cent wrong, it means that one of the two sides is 100 per cent correct and the other 100 per cent wrong.

The last fails on basic common sense. If Charles Lechmere had wanted to avoid the poilce, why would he deliberately approach one and talk to them? If Charles Lechmere had wanted to avoid the police, he would have just walked off the moment he heard Robert Paul approaching. Or he would have let Paul just keep walking, rather than stop him and draw Paul's attention to the body. Or suggested to Paul that they split up to find a policeman faster and just disappeared into the night.

See the above.

Looking at Robert Paul's statement in the 2 September Lloyd's Weekly News.

"On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said :- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. 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. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head."

Note that Paul claims to have clearly told PC Mizen that the woman was dead. This supports Lechmere's testimony, or more correctly Lechemere's testimony supports Robert Paul, since Lechmere's testimony was given after Paul's statement appeared in the newspaper. Paul's statement also contradicts the testimony of PC Mizen.

As I pointed out before, we need to realize that just because there is something mentioned as being part of the case, that something becomes something else than a fact when there is material contradicting it. And we all know that Paul said he swas sure that he felt a movement within the chest of Polly Nichols as he touched her breast. "I think she is breathing", he supposedly said. And that does not sit well with him being convinced that the woman was dead. It in fact suggests the exact opposite. So in that regard, it disagrees with Lechmeres testimony.
Then again, we have inquest testimony reports that speak of Paul saying that he thought she was dead. Does this mean that it is nevertheless true that this was so? No, it only means that more uncertainty is added to the matter.

In all of this, any person who has a theory to defend, must navigate these waters as best as possible. And in Lechmeres case, it is a different journey than for any other suspect, on account of how we can suggest any scenario at all for Kosminski, Druitt et al on the murder site, the reason for that being that we have not a syllable at all speaking of their actions on that site. And why? Of course: becasue we cannot prove they were anywhere near it.

Lechmere is another proposition altogether. In his case, we have detailed information about his presence at the Nichols murder site at our hands. And arguably, that information should be likely to provide some sort of proof for his innocence if he WAs innocent, but that never happens. Paul does not say "I saw this gentleman walking out into the street after having stopped short", the blood on the site was not clotted as Lechmere arrived there, he did not have a working trek that took him away from the murder sites, but instead one that passed right through the killing fields, his working trek did not suggest that he was far away from the other murder sites and so on. Point after point fits well with the suggestion that he was the killer, so as such, I am none too troubled by making the case for him. it is extremely easy and rewarding.

[Fisherman]

Because, Christer, 'wanted' or 'needed' is much the same.

But not exactly the same. And the term needed would have been a more apt depiction. As such, this proves nothing. But it is another item that is in line with my theory.

The inquest was held on the 3rd, as it terminated the local evening papers (Star, Echo, Evening News) all went to press with what they had.
Interestingly, each of the papers reports Mizen's words almost identical. As Cross passed Const. Mizen he remarked "You are wanted in Bucks Row" (Echo), "You are wanted round in Bucks Row" (Star), "You are wanted in Bucks Row" (Evening News).

Actually, the wording started out with "A policeman wants you in Bucks Row. There is a woman on the broad of her back there." The policeman stuff came first, as recalled by Mizen. That is of great interest, because if this was the order it was presented in, Mizen would immediately have had his interest focused on it.m Fellow PCs requesting help must have been very prioritized.

Only when the constable turned to engage Cross by inquiring for the reason with, "Why, what is the matter?" or words to that effect, do we see a variety of words exchanged. This is when Mizen said Cross told him he was wanted by a constable.
Was it his assumption, or did Cross really say that?

There is absolutely nothing to imply that the PC was mentioned last, Jon. There are two reports that fail to mention him initially, but then returns a few lines further down, stating that Lechmere said that a Pc was in place. But the majority of the papers describe the sequence of events as Lechmere saying "A policeman wants you in Bucks Row - there is a woman on her back there".

Did Cross respond with that line because he didn't really want to be detained, he was late for work as it was? Cross just wanted to get to work, but now the constable wanted him to stop and talk, so Cross is thinking to say something to make the constable hurry away.
I really don't know, but what I do know is that there is nothing suspicious in what we read.

Why do you call him Cross? His name was Lechmere. Anyhow, it seems you are now suggesting that Lechmere did mention a PC, but with the intent of being able to proceed to work. Okay. That too is a possibility, but it does not take away from how we know there was a disagreement about the matter, and such a disagreement adds to the material in a way that any prosecutor would love.

Cross denied mentioning a constable because he realised the excuse he came up with could lead to further complications.

How could he be certain that the PC would n ot protest vehemently? How could he be sure that Paul would not give hinm away, if he was close enough to hear it? It would be a very great risk, and taking it would potentially end him up in the interrogation room - or at a much worse venue. I am not saying that you cannot be correct, but it is a suggestion that has its limits, I feel.

Then there is the issue of how PC Neil was able to see PC Mizen from the position of the body in Bucks Row.
We can see from the diagram that if Neil walked over to Essex Wharf he had a better chance of seeing Mizen.
The testimony appears to suggest PC Neil first called the constable on patrol from Brady St., and noticed PZ Mizen in Bucks Row. Except Neil worded it in such a way that he could have been on the Essex Wharf side of Bucks Row when he saw Mizen's lamp in the distance.

PC Neil: "...and, seeing another constable in Baker's-row, I sent him for the ambulance. The doctor arrived in a very short time. I had, in the meantime, rung the bell at Essex Wharf, and asked if any disturbance had been heard."

He says "in the mean time", which suggests to me he did cross the road before he saw Mizen, otherwise I would expect him to say "after that".
So, between calling PC Thain and seeing PC Mizen's lamp, he had crossed over to Essex Wharf.

There's nothing suspicious here, everything we read is normal and innocent.

I disagree about the mount in time that he crossed over to Essex Wharf. But the only thing that is of importance here is whether or not Mizen MUST have been in Bakers Row as his lantern was observed by Neil. And I think we must allow for the option that he was actually Bucks Row then.

[Fisherman]

More to come, I am tied up for the remainder of this day.

[Mark J D]

... whether or not Mizen MUST have been in Bakers Row as his lantern was observed by Neil...

I'm sure I can't be the only person to have looked back towards the Board School from the junction with today's Vallance Road and practically shouted out: "Not a chance, man! There is absolutely *no way*...!"

:-)

Mark D.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Why do you call him Cross? His name was Lechmere

No. He used the name Cross at the inquest so clearly this was the name that he was using at the time. The ‘name thing’ is well and truly dead and buried. The funeral was presided over by David Orsam. I sent flowers.

[FrankO]

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?

There are indeed a couple of newspaper versions of Neil’s deposition that say “from Thomas Street to Brady Street”, Christer. What stands out to me is that they none of them talk in the first person, but in the third person singular. The only version talking in the third person is the Times and that says “Police-constable John Neil 97 J, deposed that on Friday morning he was passing down Buck's-row, Whitechapel, and going in the direction of Brady-street, and he did not notice any one about.” That’s very much like the versions that appeared in various (5 or 6) newspapers that used the first person. In fact, the Times version on the whole is very similar to those 5 or 6 versions (which all are practically identical) and moreso than to the ‘third person versions.’

That makes me wonder if Neil, in fact, used the words “from Thomas Street to Brady Street”. Seeing that it didn’t appear in the ‘first person versions’, I think he didn’t.

What further reinforces that notion is this snippet from the Echo of 1 September:
“A very general opinion is now entertained that the spot where the body was found was not the scene of the murder. Buck's-row runs through from Thomas-street to Brady-street, and in the latter street what appeared to be bloodstains were found at irregular distances on the footpaths on either side of the way.

So, even though Buck’s Row officially ran from Baker’s Row to Brady Street by the time of the murder, it was apparently still seen as running from Thomas Street to Brady Street as it had been the situation when the part between Baker’s Row and Thomas Street was still called White’s Row.

And, of course, Buck’s Row was ‘defined’ (I don’t know a better/the right word) in most newspaper articles about the murder as “Buck’s Row, Thomas Street”, just as “Maidwell-street, Albany-road”, “Coburg-road, Old Kent-road”, “Osborne-street, Whitechapel-road”, “Ackland-street, Burdett-road”, “Mulberry-street, Commercial-road East”, “Osborn-place, Osborn-street”, “William-street, Cannon-street-road”, “New-road, Commercial-road” and so on.

All of this makes me inclined to believe Neil didn’t say that he was walking “from Thomas Street to Brady Street” in the sense that he turned into Buck’s Row from Thomas Street and then walked towards Brady Street. I’m inclined to think that it had to do with how Buck’s Row was still ‘defined’ at the time.

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.

It is, of course, possible that on this occasion he didn’t go into Q. Ann Street at all. I would expect him to skip one or more of the “internals” like Court Street, Wood’s Buildings or Nelson’s Court, but not the “externals”, but I’m no expert on these matters, so I have to say it could have been the case. But if it was the case, then I’m quite confident Neil didn’t turn into Buck’s Row from the southern part of Thomas Street. Because that would have meant that Neil would not only skip Q. Ann Street, but also the westernmost part of Commercial Road, Baker’s Row, 'White’s Row' and the northern part of Thomas Street, which would be about 1 km or 3100 feet. Walking that distance at a speed of 3 miles or 4.8 km an hour, he would have covered it in about 11 minutes or 1/3 of his complete beat.

Another thing is that some newspapers wrote that quarter of an hour previously (before he found Nichols) he was in Whitechapel Road, where he saw some people apparently going to market, and some women. In 15 minutes, Neil would have covered about 1200 meters or 3900 feet. If true, then counting back this distance from the crime spot through the southern part of Thomas Street would get us not far from the crime spot in Buck’s Row. Not on Commercial Road.

For these reasons, I don’t see this as a very likely scenario. I think he will have walked up Baker’s Row on this occasion as well, turned right into Thomas Street and arrived at the crimes spot that way. Whether he included Queen Ann Street on this round as well is not so important for the thought I had: that Mizen may have seen Neil pass walking north on Baker’s Row before turning into Thomas Street and that way possibly making a connection between Lechmere saying he was needed and expecting Neil to have arrived wherever this woman was laying and sending the carmen his way.

[Fiver]

The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information.

Perhaps you should take your own advice.

* When we look at where Lechmere was standing when Paul saw him, we should note all but one account clearly said he was in the middle of the road, and even the lone exception does not say he was hovering over the body.

* When we consider the possibility that a guilty man could have just walked off and escaped, we should note that the police said it would have been easy for the killer to do so.

* In the disagreement between Lechmere and PC Mizen, we should note that Robert Paul was also present and that Paul's account supports Lechmere.

* When we note that Chapman was killed near Lechmere's route to work, we should note that it was also on the route of Robert Paul and likely dozens if not hundreds of other people's route to work. We should also note that three witnesses put Chapman's death after Lechmere would have already started at work.

* When we consider the murder of Stride, we should note that one of the witnesses, William Marshall, almost certainly knew Charles Lechmere, as his wife had been with Lechmere's sister when she died. We should also note that killing Stride and Eddowes would require Lechmere to stay up for at least 23 hours straight or get up at least 3 hours early on his only day off.

* When we use forensic sources to estimate bleed out times, we should note that Ingemar Thiblin said that there was "not much empirical data to go on", while Jason Payne James said there was none. We should also note their estimates were 10-15 minutes and 3-7 minutes, with the latter number being suggested to James by you.

* When we attempt to use Scobie in an appeal to authority, we should note that Scobie was not given any of the witness statements or the coroner's summing up, just a list of bullet points.

[Fiver]

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.

That would be an incredibly stupid thing for Lechmere to do if he was the killer. Robert Paul was present and would know that Lechmere was lying about a constable being in Buck's Row.

Of course, Lechmere as the killer requires him to repeatedly do very stupid things - not just walk off when he heard Robert Paul, not let Paul just walk by, not agree to prop the body, not suggest splitting up, talking to PC Mizen, continuing to walk with Paul almost as far as Spitalfield's Market, and contacting the police to testify.

[Fiver]

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.

Congratulations on refuting yourself. "Approaching a PC only to lie to him makes no sense at all." Yet that is exactly what you claim Charles Lechmere did.

[Fiver]

I dont think he was, I think he simply missed out on how the Lechmere case involves so many pointers to the carman that are normally not there.

The only evidence against Charles Lechmere is"

* He found a murder victim.
* He lived in the area.

[Fiver]

As long as you can see what happens if Mizens account was completely accurate,

If Mizen's account is completely accurate then;
* Lechmere falsely claimed there was a constable already with the body.
* Robert Paul chose not to expose Lechmere's lie to PC Mizen, to the press, or at the inquest.
* Robert Paul lied when he said PC Mizen continued knocking up instead of going directly to Buck's Row.
* Charles Lechmere chose to lie in support of Robert Paul's lie.

None of which makes any sense.

Otherwise, we will have a case of somebody presenting a personal belief as a case fact, that somebody being you.

Perhaps you should look in the mirror when you say things like that.

[Wickerman]

There is absolutely nothing to imply that the PC was mentioned last, Jon.

What I said Christer, was the first words spoken.
These were the local evening papers published directly after the first inquest session.
It's always important to know what came first, as there is so much copying from one paper to another.


Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman. Witness asked him what was the matter, and Cross replied, "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there." Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance.
Echo, 3rd Oct.

Police-constable Mizen, of the H Division, said on Friday last, about a quarter to four, he was in Baker's-row, at the end of Campbell-street. A man who had the appearance of a carman passed him and said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row."
Evening News, 3rd Oct.

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. 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. He did not say anything about murder or suicide. It was not true that before he went to Buck's-row, witness continued "knocking people up." He went there immediately.
Star, 3rd Oct.











There are two reports that fail to mention him initially, but then returns a few lines further down, stating that Lechmere said that a Pc was in place. But the majority of the papers describe the sequence of events as Lechmere saying "A policeman wants you in Bucks Row - there is a woman on her back there".

Did Cross respond with that line because he didn't really want to be detained, he was late for work as it was? Cross just wanted to get to work, but now the constable wanted him to stop and talk, so Cross is thinking to say something to make the constable hurry away.
I really don't know, but what I do know is that there is nothing suspicious in what we read.

Why do you call him Cross? His name was Lechmere. Anyhow, it seems you are now suggesting that Lechmere did mention a PC, but with the intent of being able to proceed to work. Okay. That too is a possibility, but it does not take away from how we know there was a disagreement about the matter, and such a disagreement adds to the material in a way that any prosecutor would love.

Cross denied mentioning a constable because he realised the excuse he came up with could lead to further complications.

How could he be certain that the PC would n ot protest vehemently? How could he be sure that Paul would not give hinm away, if he was close enough to hear it? It would be a very great risk, and taking it would potentially end him up in the interrogation room - or at a much worse venue. I am not saying that you cannot be correct, but it is a suggestion that has its limits, I feel.

Then there is the issue of how PC Neil was able to see PC Mizen from the position of the body in Bucks Row.
We can see from the diagram that if Neil walked over to Essex Wharf he had a better chance of seeing Mizen.
The testimony appears to suggest PC Neil first called the constable on patrol from Brady St., and noticed PZ Mizen in Bucks Row. Except Neil worded it in such a way that he could have been on the Essex Wharf side of Bucks Row when he saw Mizen's lamp in the distance.

PC Neil: "...and, seeing another constable in Baker's-row, I sent him for the ambulance. The doctor arrived in a very short time. I had, in the meantime, rung the bell at Essex Wharf, and asked if any disturbance had been heard."

He says "in the mean time", which suggests to me he did cross the road before he saw Mizen, otherwise I would expect him to say "after that".
So, between calling PC Thain and seeing PC Mizen's lamp, he had crossed over to Essex Wharf.

There's nothing suspicious here, everything we read is normal and innocent.

I disagree about the mount in time that he crossed over to Essex Wharf. But the only thing that is of importance here is whether or not Mizen MUST have been in Bakers Row as his lantern was observed by Neil. And I think we must allow for the option that he was actually Bucks Row then.[/QUOTE]

[A P Tomlinson]

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?

I think this may be a linguistic matter that isn't fully appreciated by anyone who didn't grow up or spend time around people who often use "want" colloquially when they mean "need".
Eastenders and "cockerneys" and mockneys even today say things like "You want to watch what you're doing, mate!"
or "You want to get down the Grey Horse! There's happy hour on day-old, warm, flat beer!"
or "He wanted a good kicking, so I gave him one"
or "Ref! You want to get to Specsavers, mate!"
(apologies to any genuine Eastenders for my shabby northern sterotyping of the Londoner... this is also still a very common use of want in Yorkshire, where I'm from. So feel free to kick back at me!)

Having thought about how I would react to finding something like that; if I was calling the police I'd probably say "You NEED to send someone round and look at this!" But if I were lucky enough to find a copper walking by (within a two town radius) I would probably say "I think you want to have a look at this over here..." and despite the obvious accusation that I'm just being contrarian... I can honestly say that I'm not sure why it would be different.
I can say with some assurance that if my mother in law were the one approaching the officer she would be VERY clear on EXACTLY what the constable NEEDED to do... in fine detail, and would follow them to make sure they did it, and would want to know why if they didn't!

So why, in any of those examples, would someone say "Want" or "wanted" instead of "need" or "needed"? Because that's how people often talk. Particulalry in places like the working class (and lower social) levels of the Victorian East End, (And modern Yorkshire).

Just go and look at the cartooon on page one. Why would the cartoonist who drew that character, put those words in her mouth?
Because THAT is how people spoke. (And often still DO.)

It's a minor issue of semantic pedantry that in no way suggests the man to be a liar