Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[The Rookie Detective]

That's not an accurate summary of anyone's version of the conversation.

The Mizen version would be roughly.
Carman Cross: "You're wanted round in Buck's-row."
PC Mizen: What is the matter?
Carman Cross: "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there."

Then there's the Lechmere/Paul version.
Carman Cross: "There is a woman in Buck's-row in the road lying on the broad of her back. She looks to me either dead or drunk."
Carman Paul:" I believe she is dead."
PC Mizen: "All right."

Exactly Fiver


There's ZERO proof they mentioned that they thought Nichols had been attacked/assaulted/outraged.

This explains Mizen's reaction and also why the pair were allowed to go on their way to work.

Combining the terms "dead or drunk" does NOT imply any kind of attack.

And so my question still stands....

WHY did neither Paul or Lechmere specifically state to Mizen that they thought Nichols had been outraged?

That would then signal to Mizen that there was a person unknown who had impacted on the woman's condition via some form of an assault.

Lechmere and Paul both stated publicly that they thought she had been outraged and yet they failed to tell Mizen.

It's no wonder why they were allowed to just go on their way to work.

When Mizen finally arrived and saw PC Neil I wonder if there was a moment when Mizen realised he should have followed it up more hastily.

If someone tells you there's a woman lying dead or drunk, it implies some form of self harm through alcohol or possibly a fall from being drunk, but it does not imply that another person has assaulted the woman.

But of course, it could be claimed that perhaps they did tell Mizen that they thought she had been raped.

But there's no evidence for that and so we can't assume they did just to fit a narrative that tries to exclude Paul and Lechmere as persons of interest.

RD

[John Wheat]

Just for info, the individual concerned, the descendent of Lechmere, once turned up at a East End Conference, in a T-shirt that bore the word " its Lechmere what did it" or similar, tge exact wording eludes me at present.

S

Surely a misprint

[Elamarna]

Oh no... I mean just when you thought Teddy was the gift that kept on giving you get this little bombshell. Dear me... I'm just off to start a story my Grandad actually started WWI and then make a YouTube Channel about it to cash in. Thanks for that Fiver.

Just for info, the individual concerned, the descendent of Lechmere, once turned up at a East End Conference, in a T-shirt that bore the word " its Lechmere what did it" or similar, tge exact wording eludes me at present.

S

[Geddy2112]

Butler's girlfriend is a descendant of Charles Lechmere. I hope the rest of the family is more concerned about their fascism than the strange fascination with accusing her ancestor of horrible crimes.

Oh no... I mean just when you thought Teddy was the gift that kept on giving you get this little bombshell. Dear me... I'm just off to start a story my Grandad actually started WWI and then make a YouTube Channel about it to cash in. Thanks for that Fiver.

[Fiver]

This is what I'm totally uneasy about. This bloke no doubt, since he had a large family has living great grandchildren, possibly grandchildren (My nana was alive during the Victorian era.) How do they feel watching a documentary, seeing stuff posted on the internet claiming their Grandfather was a notorious serial killer and not just JtR but ALSO the Torso Killer. I'm not well read enough to know if any of them have come forward to dispute the claims.

Butler's girlfriend is a descendant of Charles Lechmere. I hope the rest of the family is more concerned about their fascism than the strange fascination with accusing her ancestor of horrible crimes.

[Fiver]

they then relay to Mizen a message with no urgency or specific information (They only tell him he's wanted in Bucks Row)

But...

Why did neither Lechmere OR Paul specifically mention there was a woman they had found in Bucks Row?

They make no mention whatsoever of having found a woman

Why?

That's not an accurate summary of anyone's version of the conversation.

The Mizen version would be roughly.
Carman Cross: "You're wanted round in Buck's-row."
PC Mizen: What is the matter?
Carman Cross: "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there."

Then there's the Lechmere/Paul version.
Carman Cross: "There is a woman in Buck's-row in the road lying on the broad of her back. She looks to me either dead or drunk."
Carman Paul:" I believe she is dead."
PC Mizen: "All right."

[Elamarna]

So my little experiment of getting basic FACTS wrong proves that some aspects of the case are established as FACTS.

For example, after leaving Nichols they continued walking west towards their work... FACT

When they encountered PC Mizen, they told him he was wanted in Bucks Row as there was a woman lying there dead or drunk... FACT

And yet, there is no evidence that either Paul or Lechmere told Mizen that the woman had been ATTACKED or RAPED.

That is also a FACT

What I am trying to do is to prove that a LACK OF EVIDENCE can also be classed as FACT.

In other words, there's no evidence that either of the 2 men relayed to Mizen that Nichols had been raped and that lack of evidence is more reliable than assuming that they did tell Mizen.

The point you miss is she had not been raped. Although they thought she might have been.

A lack of a evidence should not be viewed as supporting either a negative or a positive view.
This is whole point of the often quoted

"Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence"

You appear to be argue that Absence of Evidence IS Evidence of Absence

If they did; and there's no proof they did, then it calls into question Mizen's reaction.

However, the most likely answer is that the pair failed to tell Mizen that Nichols had been attacked...because they were more interested in getting to work and didn't want to get involved by being brought back to the murder site by Mizen.

Your first assumption, that they did not tell him, is very possible correct, but still an assumption, if a reasonable one.

The 2nd assumption that he would have required them to go with him, is far less certain in my opinion.

Sometimes a lack of evidence isn't used as proof that something didn't happen, it is used as a way of saying it must of happened in order to facilitate the subjectiveness of the person who has a particular hypothesis that they want to push through.

Ultimately, if there's ZERO evidence that Paul and Lechmere mentioned to Mizen about Nichols having been assaulted, then it cant be used as evidence to say that it did happen, because then it is used just to alter the narrative to suit a preconceived agenda.

AGREED, The point I made was that a lack of information should NOT be viewed as proof either way, caution is needed.
Going either way is prone to error.

For the record, I thought making some deliberate errors and mistakes about Bucks Row would have been obvious, but it would appear that my little experiment has been taken too literally.


RD

If you say so.

Steve

[The Rookie Detective]

No they walked West. They walked down Bucks Row, arriving at Bakers Row.



Pardon?



They did continue to walk WEST, where does the idea they did not come from RD?



They DID walk WEST, and did NOT encounter Neil.
This is because of the possible variations on his beat and the timings involved.




The carmen walked WEST , where they met Mizen in Bakers Row .

If they had gone EAST, they were have met Thain in Brady Street.

In short Mizen was a member of H division which was located to the WEST of Bucks Row. It included the Western side of Bakers Row.

I don't mean to be harsh, but these are really basic established facts, that you shouldn't be getting wrong.

Steve

So my little experiment of getting basic FACTS wrong proves that some aspects of the case are established as FACTS.

For example, after leaving Nichols they continued walking west towards their work... FACT

When they encountered PC Mizen, they told him he was wanted in Bucks Row as there was a woman lying there dead or drunk... FACT

And yet, there is no evidence that either Paul or Lechmere told Mizen that the woman had been ATTACKED or RAPED.

That is also a FACT

What I am trying to do is to prove that a LACK OF EVIDENCE can also be classed as FACT.

In other words, there's no evidence that either of the 2 men relayed to Mizen that Nichols had been raped and that lack of evidence is more reliable than assuming that they did tell Mizen.

If they did; and there's no proof they did, then it calls into question Mizen's reaction.

However, the most likely answer is that the pair failed to tell Mizen that Nichols had been attacked...because they were more interested in getting to work and didn't want to get involved by being brought back to the murder site by Mizen.

Sometimes a lack of evidence isn't used as proof that something didn't happen, it is used as a way of saying it must of happened in order to facilitate the subjectiveness of the person who has a particular hypothesis that they want to push through.

Ultimately, if there's ZERO evidence that Paul and Lechmere mentioned to Mizen about Nichols having been assaulted, then it cant be used as evidence to say that it did happen, because then it is used just to alter the narrative to suit a preconceived agenda.


For the record, I thought making some deliberate errors and mistakes about Bucks Row would have been obvious, but it would appear that my little experiment has been taken too literally.


RD

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

I don't know if this helps (and I think your interpretation of the hem is very likely to be correct) but it's worth bearing in mind that it was very common for 19th Century British journalists to use the word "disarranged clothing" in rape cases. The clothing was 'disarranged' in a way that was suggestive of an assault, often a sexual assault, and I don't think it is coincidental that both Cross and Paul claimed publicly that they thought an 'outrage' had occurred.

Here are three random descriptions of rape cases all from the 1880s, and I could easily find a dozen more. Note that they all refer to the victim's clothing being 'disarranged.' I think the implication was meant to be understood by Victorian readers.

Thanks, Roger. Yes, it sure helps in the sense that it supports the notion that 'disarranged', in the case of Nichols, didn't mean 'messed up', 'messy' or 'in total disarray'.

Cheers,
Frank

[Elamarna]

One of the things I find interesting is that despite both being on their way to work, they chose to walk back eastward together from the direction they both came from initially.

No they walked West. They walked down Bucks Row, arriving at Bakers Row.

That would suggest that they were indeed looking for a Policeman; possibly having already been aware an officer was in that locality already.

Pardon?

Other than looking for a policeman they already knew was located East from their location, for what other reason would they choose to NOT continue walking west down Bucks Row to do the same thing and find a policeman?

They did continue to walk WEST, where does the idea they did not come from RD?

Had they walked west; and therefore continued on their way to work, they would have likely encountered Pc Neil as he walked Eastward down Bucks Row.

They DID walk WEST, and did NOT encounter Neil.
This is because of the possible variations on his beat and the timings involved.

Or could there be another reason WHY they chose to not continue west to find a policeman, instead of going back east to find a policeman?

Could they have heard the footsteps of Pc Neil approaching from the west and so they walked east to avoid who they thought may be the killer?

Or did they know it was a policeman approaching..and rather than wait with the body, they chose to walk east.

The carmen walked WEST , where they met Mizen in Bakers Row .

If they had gone EAST, they were have met Thain in Brady Street.

In short Mizen was a member of H division which was located to the WEST of Bucks Row. It included the Western side of Bakers Row.

I don't mean to be harsh, but these are really basic established facts, that you shouldn't be getting wrong.

Steve

[John Wheat]

hi Geddy
sure. its based on geographical circumstantial evidence of tje other c5, and also tabram, that the tod and location of the victims are near his route to work and about the same time. and that stride is near his moms place. Also of course links the otjers to polly through similarities in sig/ mo.

This is ridiculous. Many people lived close to where the C5 were murdered. All Lechmere did was find a body and with the complete lack of evidence against him, he's a witness not a suspect.

[Elamarna]

hi Geddy
sure. its based on geographical circumstantial evidence of tje other c5, and also tabram, that the tod and location of the victims are near his route to work and about the same time. and that stride is near his moms place. Also of course links the otjers to polly through similarities in sig/ mo.

HI, Abby,
The route to work always interests me.

Which route is that, is the question?
Are we assuming that Lechmere went to the Eldon street entrance?
Or are we considering the various northern entrances to the Pickfords Depot?
Not only does this change the journey times, but it also pushes some of the murders away from the possible routes he walked.

Steve

[Geddy2112]

Sure. It’s based on geographical circumstantial evidence of the other c5, and also Tabram, that the tod and location of the victims are near his route to work and about the same time. and that stride is near his moms place. Also of course links the others to Polly through similarities in sig/ mo.

Mmmm… not a fan of the Circumstantial Geographical ‘evidence.’ It can never pinpoint Lechmere as a suspect. All it can do is throw him into a huge suspect pool and nothing more. Was Kosminski (amongst many others) not living smack bang in the middle of ALL the murder sites not just passing though? Why did Lechmere go West from Berner Street in the opposite direction of his mother’s house and 22 Doveton Street to kill in Mitre Square if this is the case?

The time of death is very questionable with regards to Hanbury Street and all I get off Christer is well he bunked off work for 15 mins or so to slaughter the poor woman. Really? Many reasons why that is not very likely. Fiver, I believe will also tell you how he must have kept some ridiculous sleeping patterns to be involved in at least two of the crimes.

I’ve also had from Christer ‘He killed Polly Nichols, so by default since there are unlikely to be two murderers (evisceration/mutilators) about at the same time he MUST have killed the other four.’ My argument to that, which Christer dodges all the time is ‘He never killed Mary Kelly (no evidence) so by your own admission he could not have killed Polly Nicholls.’ Christer refuses to accept the other side of the coin unless it suits. I keep telling him you can’t have it both ways but then he descends into petty insults. So in essence fairly much nothing to finger him for the other four, no witness statements, newspaper reports nothing… okay thanks.

Convenient to link all 5 JtR murders because of MO, but totally disregard the MO aspect when linking to the Torso killings. How convenient, it's that bloody coin again.

So basically it all boils down to a bloke, on his way to work stubbled across a dead body and suddenly he is one of the worst if not the worst Serial Killers in British History. Case closed your honour… bang of the hammer… next.

Like I've mentioned before as a young lad doing my 'job,' paper round I 'discovered' a murder victim. It was close to where I lived and my face will have been known by the locals etc and not once was I even suspected of any wrong doing. Before anyone points out it's because I was not very old, the actual murderer (or one of them) was three years my younger at the time.

[Elamarna]

Precisely Steve

Now it feels like we are getting somewhere.

Of course, I am fully aware of the basic facts of the murder of Nichols and also that they claimed to have mentioned to Pc Mizen there was a woman who was lying dead or drunk in Bucks Row

Apologies for that deception, but it was the only way to prove my point...

They made no mention of their belief of her having been outraged.


That is the fundamental basis and reason why they moved closer to Nichols to check on her in the first place.

We don't know exactly what they did say to Mizen, that is one of the fundamental points that people disagree on.

So we cannot say that they did not mention the possibility that they wondered if she had been raped.
The best we can do is say that the press reports did not mention it.

Telling Mizen he's wanted in Bucks Row because a woman is lying on the floor dead or drunk, is the reason why Mizen never went immediately to Bucks Row or got the men to accompany him back to the spot.

They never mentioned to the policeman about their subsequent publicly stated belief they thought she had been outraged; because they were eager to avoid and get away from the scene.

As I said above, we may suspect they did not mention it, but we do not know .

The internal police report dated 19th September only tells us "acquainted him of what they had seen, "
So that doesn't help us either.
What I am saying RD, is be cautious about saying something is certain.

At the time they approached Mizen they BOTH knew that Nichols had been the victim of an attack.. and so WHY NOT TELL Mizen?

No they clearly didn't know, they SUSPECTED.
And as noted above. We do NOT KNOW, exactly what was said to Mizen.

So again I urge caution.

If they had, Mizen would have realized that ANOTHER person had been involved with her death and then likely detained the both of them for questioning or to have brought them back to the scene.

i am not convinced that he would have acted any different.
Nor am I convinced he would have been justified in doing anymore, going by the police code.
But that's is of course just my opinion.

I repeat, both of them were pathetic in their relaying of their message.

I disagree, you are apply modern standards and making assumptions about exactly what was said to Mizen.

Steve

[The Rookie Detective]

There is also the “I don’t want to get involved” scenario for why the two appeared to play down the situation. A lot of the “evidence” against Lechmere seems to be based on 21st century reassessment of why didn’t he do something. At the time most people (and I suspect in Whitechapel this would be all) did not have a telephone, the police on their beat could not be remotely contacted and were moving at walking pace. Expecting Lechmere and Paul to take out their mobile phone, call 999 and the police to arrive in seconds by car is anachronistic. The only way they could get police help was to find a policeman on the beat and I would theorise that they both knew that Baker’s Row then Hanbury street would offer the best chance of finding one (and potentially they suggested they’d go to Commercial Street police station if unsuccessful). Playing down what they knew or assumed to Mizen is no different to the modern “I was minding my own business when…”

Paul

An excellent point


One of the things I find interesting is that despite both being on their way to work, they chose to walk back eastward together from the direction they both came from initially.


That would suggest that they were indeed looking for a Policeman; possibly having already been aware an officer was in that locality already.

Other than looking for a policeman they already knew was located East from their location, for what other reason would they choose to NOT continue walking west down Bucks Row to do the same thing and find a policeman?


Had they walked west; and therefore continued on their way to work, they would have likely encountered Pc Neil as he walked Eastward down Bucks Row.


Or could there be another reason WHY they chose to not continue west to find a policeman, instead of going back east to find a policeman?

Could they have heard the footsteps of Pc Neil approaching from the west and so they walked east to avoid who they thought may be the killer?

Or did they know it was a policeman approaching..and rather than wait with the body, they chose to walk east.

They then bumped into Mizen around the same time that Pc Neil had arrived at the murder site.


Now forget Lechmere as a solitary suspect; I am questioning BOTH men and wondering whether they murdered Nichols together, and then having heard Pc Neil, walked East and then inadvertently bumped into Mizen?

I don't think Lechmere was the murderer, but rather questioning the idea that BOTH Lechmere and Paul were involved with her murder.

There's also the chance that they believed the killer had only just traveled west and so by walking toward the direction the killer went, they may have felt apprehensive of going the same way and instead chose to walk back from where they came.


Why walk East when they would have found PC Neil in the west around the same time they found Mizen.



RD