The Darkness of Bakers Row

[Mark J D]

Let me again mention another witness at one of the Ripper cases. 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. He never mentioned the surname Lavender.

This is a joke, right...?

M.

[Fiver]

David Orsam has pointed to how people sometimes used two names without being criminal on account of that. What David Orsam has not done is to prove that Lechmeres one-day preference for the name Cross was not criminal, because David Orsam cannot do that.

That's how over it is. Get over it. (See what I did there?)

Well, I see that you either haven't read Orsam or haven't understood him.

"As set out in #1 of the thread, I was responding directly to a claim that the definition of a 'false name' is 'any name that is not officially registered'."

It's not exactly buried deep in the post; it's the fifth sentence.

There was no criminality to Charles Allen Lechmere giving the last name Cross. Your theory that he only used the name Cross in the courts is unproven (and unproveable).

And you continue to have a double standard on witnesses.

Let me again mention another witness at one of the Ripper cases. 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. He never mentioned the surname Lavender. Does that "add very much to the suspicions against him"?

[Fiver]

isnt the main point though, that mizen claimed lech told him, not so much that he was wanted/ needed, but that there was already a policeman there. while i can see its minor point between wanted/needed (thanks AP, RJ and others for clearing that up) its not a minor point to say theres a policeman already there.

Agreed. But it isn't PC Mizen versus Lechmere. Robert Paul was also present according to all three men and also spoke to Mizen according to both carmen (PC Mizen is silent on the matter). There's no reason for Robert Paul to support Charles Lechmere in a lie, There's no reason for Lechmere to expect Paul to support him in a lie.

And Paul appears to have liked talking to the newpapers. If he'd caught the man who had first found a body committing perjury, it seems odd for him to not tell the press.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He couldn't even know that he wouldn't walk into Neil, Mike. I'm curious as to what he would have been able to come up with in order to scam the beat officer. That would have been a different kettle of fish...

Hi Frank,

Whichever way you look at it it’s simply not believable. But then again, who needs ‘believable’ in this case when obsession runs riot.

[Dickere]

"Wanted" is a stronger indication than "needed" would have been, nevertheless. "Needed" would have reflected the situation better. But the cockney use does have an impact anyway. On the whole, though, it is the mentioning of that other PC that seals the deal for me, together with the fact that there was no misunderstanding ding/misinformation involved that would NOT have helped Lechmere past the police. All the misunderstanding/misinformation was perfectly suite to do so. Once we add it to the other matters, Lechmere remains firmly in the crosshairs.

I can't agree with your first sentence, speaking as a Londoner.

Wanted leans more towards 'Wanted by someone', though without that being explicitly said it could mean 'wanted (in my opinion)', which would be almost the same as needed though not as urgent.

As Lech and Paul left Nichols alone, if they wanted her to get attention ASAP the use of needed would imply more urgency to me and would be my word of choice if I didn't want to be explicit that she's dying or dead. Whether they said needed, who knows.

[FrankO]

This is another one where the simple position of a typed comma changes the meaning. BUT actually complicates it a bit more if you are trying to suggest Paul and Cross moving independently down Hanbury Street.
If people want to get into extreme analysis of syntax and grammar, (which is often the case with "proving" the Lechmere theory,) OK.

"The other man, (pause) who went down Hanbury Street..." would suggest that they weren't travelling together, but would also suggest that the first man DIDN'T go down Hanbury Street. Else, "The oher man, (pause ) who ALSO went down Hanbury Street..."
Whereas, "The other man who went down Hanbury Street..." suggests both taking the same route at the same time, as no other qualifier exists.

I've crawled out from under my stone of sitting and studying, rather than getting into the mud and arguing, because of the rise of this whole "Lechemre did it, and you're a moron if you can't see it," that I have recently seen escalate on certain Youtube Channels and other social media, which I would otherwise have sat down, watched and quietly disagreed with.
These channels seem to foster an environment where as long as you blow smoke up the presenters arse, they pat you on the head and let you get away with saying things like "he was CAUGHT...(or DISCOVERED!) ...standing over the body!" with absolutely no correction on the part of the presenter, who will quite freely engage with such commentators, and express their own exasperation at the idiocy of those who might have have read a book or two, rather than getting their information from Youtube Shorts and TV Documentaries, while ignoring the casual spread of ignorance going on under their very nose.

The only reason I made this post, was to show that it is very easy to twist what is said, and how it is phrased to turn Occam's Razor into Lechmere's Razorblade, but also how when you do it the other way... we are inevitably met with... "But YOU can't PROVE it!"

Frustrating.

Edit to add. That probably comes across as a dig at FrankO, it's not meant to be. I was simply using that phrasing as it was the nearest version to pull a quote from Apologies Frank if I came across as having a go at you.

No worries, A.P., I didn't see it as a dig at me and actually like this sort of linguistic stuff! So, thanks for 'butting in'!

Cheers,
Frank

[FrankO]

That he was totally confident in advance that he’d be able to address Mizen out of earshot.

He couldn't even know that he wouldn't walk into Neil, Mike. I'm curious as to what he would have been able to come up with in order to scam the beat officer. That would have been a different kettle of fish...

[Herlock Sholmes]

And to add to the unlikeliness, if that’s possible, we are asked to believe that Cross refused to leave the scene when he heard Paul approach on the strength of his belief that he’d be able to carry out this ‘scam.’ That he was totally confident in advance that he’d be able to address Mizen out of earshot. Or that he’d be able to convince a complete stranger to go along with lying to a police officer. And so he turned down escape on the strength of this.

Do me a favour.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Why are we discussing the alleged "Mizen scam"? As I see it we can look at the known facts, and reach what I believe are the inevitable conclusions.

For the scam to work, Paul must have been out of earshot when CAL spoke to Mizen. There is no evidence that this was so, and lots of evidence suggesting they were together.

CAL was interviewed by the police, and made a detailed statement. We don't have that statement.

Paul was interviewed by the police, and made a detailed statement. We don't have that statement.

The police were well aware that one of their number had claimed that CAL lied, and they would have needed good evidence to demonstrate that he hadn't.

All subsequent action suggests that Paul's and CAL's statements corroborated each other. We don't have them, but we know that CAL said at the inquest that Paul told Mizen that he thought the woman was dead. We also know that Paul's newspaper report said that he told Mizen that the woman was dead. So they seem to have agreed.

So we must assume that after conducting both interviews the police were left with Mizen saying one thing, and the two witnesses saying something different. This, logically meant that the police must have needed to discuss this further with Mizen before accepting that the witnesses were right, and that he, Mizen was wrong.

They certainly did accept that Mizen was mistaken. The final reports of both Abberline and Swanson said that the two men walked on and told Mizen what they had seen. Having studied both witness statements, the Coroner also reached the same conclusion. All three, with the necessary evidence, concluded that Mizen was wrong. Why should we, without any of the necessary evidence, conclude that the Coroner and the entire Metropolitan Police force were complete idiots?

I wonder whether, if Mizen's story is basically more or less correct, the last part of the conversation went something like ...

"What's the matter?"

"A policeman is needed, there's a woman ...."

[FrankO]

Thank you for the information. It again demonstrates the Fishy method - ignore what the majority of the sources say, find a single vague statement, then twist it to fit the theory.

Only in this case Fishy isn't just ignoring all the other sources, he's ignoring parts of the sources he uses.

"There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness." - PC Mizen, 3 September 1888 Echo

Hi Fiver,

In discussions with me on the subject, Christer's view is that "in company with" doesn't have to mean that the persons concerned must be physically close to one another. While that's true, I think there's no compelling reason to think the two carmen weren't within a few yards of each other from the moment they left the crime scene until they parted where Paul took a right turn from Hanbury Street and Lechmere went straight on.

Another thing that might fall under Christer's 'good reason' is the fact that Mizen only talked about Paul after the coronor asked him about it. I still don't find that a compelling reason to think Paul was out of earshot. Doesn't say anything about how close or far away Paul was, just that his involvement in the shortest of conversations was (next to) nothing. It was a conversation that was almost over before it begun, after all. Certainly if we have to believe Mizen's version.

"You're wanted in Buck's Row."
"What's the matter?"
"A policeman wants you; there's a woman lying there."
"Allright."

Cheers,
Frank

[A P Tomlinson]

I think the good reason that Christer mentions to believe that Paul was out of earshot is that the Echo of 3 September wrote this:
"By the Coroner - There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness. The other man, who went down Hanbury-street, appeared to be working with Cross."

Which, of course, all by itself is the flimsiest of evidence to suggest that Paul had walked on while Lechmere spoke to Mizen and was, therefore, out of earshot.

If Mizen actually said that Paul had walked on while he was talking to Lechmere, are we to believe that the journalists would have worded it so extremely vague and awkward? Or are we to believe that Mizen himself worded it so very awkwardly vague? I find neither option appealing in the least.

But if we look at other versions of this passage of Mizen's testimony, we might get another picture.

Star, 3/9
"Cross, when he spoke to witness about the affair, was accompanied by another man. Both went down Hanbury-street."

This is another one where the simple position of a typed comma changes the meaning. BUT actually complicates it a bit more if you are trying to suggest Paul and Cross moving independently down Hanbury Street.
If people want to get into extreme analysis of syntax and grammar, (which is often the case with "proving" the Lechmere theory,) OK.

"The other man, (pause) who went down Hanbury Street..." would suggest that they weren't travelling together, but would also suggest that the first man DIDN'T go down Hanbury Street. Else, "The oher man, (pause ) who ALSO went down Hanbury Street..."
Whereas, "The other man who went down Hanbury Street..." suggests both taking the same route at the same time, as no other qualifier exists.

I've crawled out from under my stone of sitting and studying, rather than getting into the mud and arguing, because of the rise of this whole "Lechemre did it, and you're a moron if you can't see it," that I have recently seen escalate on certain Youtube Channels and other social media, which I would otherwise have sat down, watched and quietly disagreed with.
These channels seem to foster an environment where as long as you blow smoke up the presenters arse, they pat you on the head and let you get away with saying things like "he was CAUGHT...(or DISCOVERED!) ...standing over the body!" with absolutely no correction on the part of the presenter, who will quite freely engage with such commentators, and express their own exasperation at the idiocy of those who might have have read a book or two, rather than getting their information from Youtube Shorts and TV Documentaries, while ignoring the casual spread of ignorance going on under their very nose.

The only reason I made this post, was to show that it is very easy to twist what is said, and how it is phrased to turn Occam's Razor into Lechmere's Razorblade, but also how when you do it the other way... we are inevitably met with... "But YOU can't PROVE it!"

Frustrating.

Edit to add. That probably comes across as a dig at FrankO, it's not meant to be. I was simply using that phrasing as it was the nearest version to pull a quote from Apologies Frank if I came across as having a go at you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

David Orsam has pointed to how people sometimes used two names without being criminal on account of that. What David Orsam has not done is to prove that Lechmeres one-day preference for the name Cross was not criminal, because David Orsam cannot do that.

That's how over it is. Get over it. (See what I did there?)

I forgot to mention that he also completely shredded your egregious nonsense about the blood. Highlighting your twisting of the language to suit your own agenda. A common trait amongst many. I’m tempted to add to Fiver’s ‘Cult of Lechmere’ here, as you act like religious zealots I’m adding Crosstians to the language.

ps. apologies in advance to normal religious people (Abby)

[Fiver]

I think the good reason that Christer mentions to believe that Paul was out of earshot is that the Echo of 3 September wrote this:
"By the Coroner - There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness. The other man, who went down Hanbury-street, appeared to be working with Cross."

Which, of course, all by itself is the flimsiest of evidence to suggest that Paul had walked on while Lechmere spoke to Mizen and was, therefore, out of earshot.

If Mizen actually said that Paul had walked on while he was talking to Lechmere, are we to believe that the journalists would have worded it so extremely vague and awkward? Or are we to believe that Mizen himself worded it so very awkwardly vague? I find neither option appealing in the least.

But if we look at other versions of this passage of Mizen's testimony, we might get another picture.

Star, 3/9
"Cross, when he spoke to witness about the affair, was accompanied by another man. Both went down Hanbury-street."

Times, 4/9
"When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street."

Even though it's quite clear to me that Lechmere & Paul continued their way along Hanbury Street together (as in: they walked away from Mizen at the same moment) after the shortest of conversations with Mizen, I think Christer still sticks to how he reads the quote in the Echo of 3 September. That's fine, of course, but convincing it is not and never going to be.

So, with Christer we're left with: there's no evidence that Paul was within earshot, as, of course, we have no record of how far away or close Paul was from Lechmere & Mizen when they spoke. That would be what his good reason amounts to. Unless he's found something better/good since I discussed this with him quite some time back...

Thank you for the information. It again demonstrates the Fishy method - ignore what the majority of the sources say, find a single vague statement, then twist it to fit the theory.

Only in this case Fishy isn't just ignoring all the other sources, he's ignoring parts of the sources he uses.

"There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness." - PC Mizen, 3 September 1888 Echo

[FrankO]

So you claim that Charles Lechmere, Robert Paul, and PC Mizen were all lying?

"Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen." - Robert Paul, 18 September, 1888 Times.

"There was another man in company with Cross. I think he was also a carman." - PC Mizen, 4 September, 1888 Morning Post.

"We left together and went up Bakers-row, where we met a constable." - Charles Lechmere, 4 September, 1888 Morning Post.

In the disagreement between Lechmere and PC Mizen, we should note that Robert Paul was also present and that Paul's account supports Lechmere. or more correctly, Lechmere's account supports Paul's, which appeared in the press before Lechmere testified.

I think the good reason that Christer mentions to believe that Paul was out of earshot is that the Echo of 3 September wrote this:
"By the Coroner - There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness. The other man, who went down Hanbury-street, appeared to be working with Cross."

Which, of course, all by itself is the flimsiest of evidence to suggest that Paul had walked on while Lechmere spoke to Mizen and was, therefore, out of earshot.

If Mizen actually said that Paul had walked on while he was talking to Lechmere, are we to believe that the journalists would have worded it so extremely vague and awkward? Or are we to believe that Mizen himself worded it so very awkwardly vague? I find neither option appealing in the least.

But if we look at other versions of this passage of Mizen's testimony, we might get another picture.

Star, 3/9
"Cross, when he spoke to witness about the affair, was accompanied by another man. Both went down Hanbury-street."

Times, 4/9
"When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street."

Even though it's quite clear to me that Lechmere & Paul continued their way along Hanbury Street together (as in: they walked away from Mizen at the same moment) after the shortest of conversations with Mizen, I think Christer still sticks to how he reads the quote in the Echo of 3 September. That's fine, of course, but convincing it is not and never going to be.

So, with Christer we're left with: there's no evidence that Paul was within earshot, as, of course, we have no record of how far away or close Paul was from Lechmere & Mizen when they spoke. That would be what his good reason amounts to. Unless he's found something better/good since I discussed this with him quite some time back...

[FrankO]

The exact wording in for example the Daily News is "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."

What you are suggesting is that the journalist felt he needed to point out the direction, is that right? personally, I don't think that very likely, although not impossible per se. I think it is quite perhaps possible that he was asked by the coroner in what direction he walked, if he indeed only said himself that he was walking down Bucks Row.

I don’t find that very likely either, Christer, so I’m not suggesting that the journalist felt the need to point out the direction. I have no doubt it was Neil who just told what direction he was going in and find it likely that Neil, as a police officer, would have told that without any question being asked. That the coroner asked Neil in what direction he was going is, of course, a possibility, but I see it as less probable than Neil telling it without any incentive.

If it instead a case of the reporter adding "from Thomas Street to Brady Street", it would be odd if other reporters came up with the same helpful idea.

I think there’s very little chance of there being any other reporters. There were 3 newspapers who carried Neil’s deposition containing the phrase above and the 3 versions of Neil’s complete deposition are practically identical.

There is other papers, that do not mention Thomas Street, like for example the Daily Telegraph: "John Neil, police-constable, 97J, said: Yesterday morning I was proceeding down Buck's-row, Whitechapel, going towards Brady-street."

Clearly, Neil must by his own account, or as the result of a question from the coroner, have pointed out the direction in which he was walking. And if it had been said "Police constable John Neil deposed that on Friday morning at a quarter to four o'clock he was going down Buck's row, Whitechapel, Thomas Street to Brady street.", I would have been more inclined to like your suggestion.

Aha! So, you are somewhat inclined to like it?!? That's something good, then.

But as long as it says that he deposed that he did the walkFROM Thomas Street to Brady Street, my hunch is that this tells us that he turned into Bucks Row from Thomas Street and then went straight down to Brady Street.

But that's just the thing for me: he didn't depose that "he did the walk or walked from Thomas Street to Brady Street"; the "from Thomas Street to Brady Street" may just as well mean from where to where Buck's Row ran, in the exact same way as it was written in the Echo of 1 September: "Buck's-row runs through from Thomas-street to Brady-street"

Anyway, I still favour the version in the “I-form” as it has less liberty. The “he-form” is less likely to stick to the actual words having been spoken and the order in which things were said.

I take your point, though, and I cannot rule it out.

The same goes for me, Christer. If only they had just recorded everything the way it was said, word for bloody word...

Thanks for explaining it in detail. I see how you reason, but I myself think that Mizens testimony tells us that the first thing the carman likely brought up was the policeman in Bucks Row, and I think that would immediately have gotten Mizens full attention. A police colleague requesting help is something that would have peaked Jonas Mizens interest, and so I do not think the suggestion that he in retrospect started to believe that Lechmere must have spoken. of another PC has anything much going for it. In fact, even if the words about the PC did not come first, it would still get the same fun attention from Mizen when he heard it. To reason that he subconsciously would have made it up and fooled himself sounds untenable to me. The one thing that makes me consider it to some degree is then fact that we do not have any reaction from Mizen on record, insisting on how he was told about that PC. Then again, Mizen testified before Lechmere, and so he would likely not be present to hear Lechmeres claim. Therefore, we cannot tell Mizens reaction once he found out, it is lost to time.

Although I can quite easily see how Mizen could have made a connection hearing Lechmere say "You're wanted in Buck's Row" and having seen Neil pass up Baker's Row not too many minutes before, it was just a thought, so no strong evidence to back it up.

My thought, however, isn't that he in retrospect started to believe anything, let alone make it up or fool himself, but that, when he heard Lechmere say that he was wanted in Buck's Row, he immediately assumed that the PC he saw passing up Baker's Row had arrived in Buck's Row, found a woman there and then sent the passing two carmen on their way to him. Something like that.

Of course, for this thought to have any real weight we would have to know Mizen's beat and where he was at when Neil would have been passing up Baker's Row and that Mizen knew or had a good idea of Neil's beat. But, as I said, it was just a thought...