Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Lechmere]

Yes there would have been plenty of potential topics of conversation besides name and address.

[MrBarnett]

Agreed re name and home address , but some sort of explanation as to why Lech was keeping Paul company almost to the door of his workplace would seem in order. Bit odd not to, I would have thought. Although things might have got a bit tricky when they reached the point at which Old Monty presented itself as the more logical route to Broad Street. But perhaps at that point Charlie played the 'windy' card.

MrB

[Lechmere]

I'm not sure what you mean there Mr B.
Lechmere may have just said that he worked near Liverpool Street.
One account has Paul shuffling off up Hanbury Street even as Lechmere was talking to Mizen, so maybe Lechmere elected to follow and catch up with no explanation required.
Up to when they bumped into Mizen they may have just spoken of what they had seen - we could speculate endlessly about what they said to each other without advancing our understanding of the case.
All that can be said is that there isn't the slightest indication in the record to suggest Paul knew anything whatsoever about Lechmere and all Lechmere knew about Paul was the general location of his workplace.
All Mizen knew, I think, was that they both looked like Carmen - but that opinion may have been coloured by later knowledge.

[FrankO]

One account has Paul shuffling off up Hanbury Street even as Lechmere was talking to Mizen,...

If you’re referring to the Star of 3 September, then what you write isn’t true, Edward. The Star reads:
"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."

It clearly states that Paul was in Cross’s company while Cross was talking to Mizen. There’s nothing to suggest that Paul walked on during the conversation or distanced himself from Mizen & Cross. And the phrase “The other man, who went down Hanbury-street,” doesn’t suggest in any way at what point Paul went down Hanbury Street.

The Echo of 3 September gives a better idea of when Paul went down Hanbury Street:
"Cross, when he spoke to witness about the affair, was accompanied by another man. Both went down Hanbury-street."

And the Times of 4 September gives an even better idea:
"When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street."

All the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

If you’re referring to the Star of 3 September, then what you write isn’t true, Edward. The Star reads:
"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."

It clearly states that Paul was in Cross’s company while Cross was talking to Mizen. There’s nothing to suggest that Paul walked on during the conversation or distanced himself from Mizen & Cross. And the phrase “The other man, who went down Hanbury-street,” doesn’t suggest in any way at what point Paul went down Hanbury Street.

The Echo of 3 September gives a better idea of when Paul went down Hanbury Street:
"Cross, when he spoke to witness about the affair, was accompanied by another man. Both went down Hanbury-street."

And the Times of 4 September gives an even better idea:
"When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street."

All the best,
Frank

Like I´ve said before, Frank - last time I went to Italy, I was accompanied by my wife.
Accompanied by is a VERY wide decription. It does not mean that you must stand close together. If Paul arrived in company with Lechmere, and then walked some way down Hanbury Street, whereupon Lechmere caught up with him, then it would STILL be obvious to Mizen that the two were in company.

If they arrived in company and more or less left in company, then they were in company. That does not guarantee that they were in CLOSE company throughout, however.

In fact, if you read all the reports, you will find that the Star is the ONLY paper that actually spells out where Paul was - heading down Hanbury Street. The other papers only speak of "in company".

Have another look too, please, at how Lechmere claims that BOTH carmen spoke to Mizen.
Why is it that Mizen steadfastly claims that ONE of the men spoke to him? Why does he not acknowledge that both did - IF they did?

Why is it that this detail is in TOTAL correlation with a suggestion that Paul was not involved in the matter?

Just a coincidence? Like always?

What did Mizen stand to gain from not disclosing that Paul spoke to him, telling him about how he thought the woman was dead? Why does not Mizen say "two carmen came up to me and spoke to me" - IF THIS WAS WHAT HAPPENED? Had he forgotten about Paul? Was he confused?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

Mizen stated at the inquest that he only now knew Cross's name - so he can't have asked when they met in the street.

Regardless of anything else which may or may not follow, this really shows Mizen as a bright and attentive copper doesn't it...no wonder they sent him off for the ambulance...he'd probably have tripped over the body or something...

All the best

Dave

[Lechmere]

'They' didn't send Mizen, Neil did, as Mizen was the next person on the scene and someone had to get the ambulance.

Mizen's 'negligence' in getting their details can be explained by him being a rotten copper (not backed up by an examination of his record so far as I am aware), or by Lechmere telling him that they had already spoken to a policeman.

But you must be steadfast in refusing to believe Mizen was telling the truth as it might open up the possibility that Lechmere was lying - and we don't want that heretical idea to take hold do we.

[Barnaby]

Why do we think these women used their aliases?

Was it to conceal their identities in situations where they were involved in criminal or morally reprehensible activity?

MrB

If so, why weren't their aliases the equivalent of Venus, Candy, Cinnamon, Lacey, and Jasmine?

[MrBarnett]

Actually there aren't many outright aliases there. If you take out maiden names, married names, spelling variants, nicknames and names adopted from common law husbands, there's not much left.

MrB

[Sally]

But you must be steadfast in refusing to believe Mizen was telling the truth as it might open up the possibility that Lechmere was lying - and we don't want that heretical idea to take hold do we.

Oh Horror of Horrors, No! That would never do!

We'll have no heresy around here, thank you very much.

[Lechmere]

Yes Mr B and nicknames which aren't aliases either

[MrBarnett]

Yes there would have been plenty of potential topics of conversation besides name and address.

Of course there is a simple explanation for all this name malarkey. After being nagged by the missus to schlep all the way from Doveton St to the police station on his day off, Charles arrived in a filthy temper. At the desk he drew himself up to his full 5'7, puffed out his chest and announced,

'I'm here to report a murder and I'm really cross.'

'Is your first name really?' asked the desk sergeant.

'No, it's Charles,' replied the bemused carman.

The rest , as they say, is Ripperplogy.

MrB

[Lechmere]

Case solved

[FrankO]

Like I´ve said before, Frank - last time I went to Italy, I was accompanied by my wife.

I hope you had a good time together, Christer, or did you part company after you arrived in beautiful Italy?

Accompanied by is a VERY wide decription. It does not mean that you must stand close together. If Paul arrived in company with Lechmere, and then walked some way down Hanbury Street, whereupon Lechmere caught up with him, then it would STILL be obvious to Mizen that the two were in company.

Why does not Mizen say "two carmen came up to me; one spoke to me while the other shuffled off down Hanbury Street and after we spoke the one caught up with the other – therefore, they seemed working mates" - IF THIS WAS WHAT HAPPENED?

If they arrived in company and more or less left in company, then they were in company. That does not guarantee that they were in CLOSE company throughout, however.

Christer, what I wrote is that, even in the snippet from the Echo, there is nothing to suggest that Paul walked on while Cross was talking to Mizen. Paul cudda and mighta, but there’s just nothing to suggest that he did.

So, Edward’s interpretation below – which is what I reacted to - is a very long stretch, certainly when taken together with the two other newspaper snippets I posted.

“One account has Paul shuffling off up Hanbury Street even as Lechmere was talking to Mizen,...”

In fact, if you read all the reports, you will find that the Star is the ONLY paper that actually spells out where Paul was - heading down Hanbury Street. The other papers only speak of "in company".

I did read all the reports, but no, the other two newspapers I mentioned state that both went down Hanbury Street (instead of just Paul) and the Times even states that they both went that way afterwards (meaning ‘after Cross had talked to Mizen’).

Why is it that Mizen steadfastly claims that ONE of the men spoke to him? Why does he not acknowledge that both did - IF they did?

Why is it that this detail is in TOTAL correlation with a suggestion that Paul was not involved in the matter?

Might it just mean that he may not have taken an active role in the matter?

What did Mizen stand to gain from not disclosing that Paul spoke to him, telling him about how he thought the woman was dead? Why does not Mizen say "two carmen came up to me and spoke to me" - IF THIS WAS WHAT HAPPENED? Had he forgotten about Paul? Was he confused?

Again, might it just mean that Paul may not have taken an active role in the matter?


All the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

FrankO:

I hope you had a good time together, Christer, or did you part company after you arrived in beautiful Italy?

We had a great time (we always do, for some reason...). And we parted many times but I was still accompanied on my Italian journey by my wife.

Why does not Mizen say "two carmen came up to me; one spoke to me while the other shuffled off down Hanbury Street and after we spoke the one caught up with the other – therefore, they seemed working mates" - IF THIS WAS WHAT HAPPENED?

Christer, what I wrote is that, even in the snippet from the Echo, there is nothing to suggest that Paul walked on while Cross was talking to Mizen. Paul cudda and mighta, but there’s just nothing to suggest that he did.

I guess we will have to disagree on this. Here´s the quotation:

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.

Think about it - if Paul went down Hanbury Street as Lechmere spoke to Mizen - were they still in company just the same?
Actually yes, they were. It was Mizen´s conception that the two knew each other and worked together and therefore walked to work in company. So no matter if Paul was not standing on Lechmere´s toes, they would be in company all the same.
If Paul was ten feet away, they would be in company. If he was twenty, thirty or forty feet off - same thing.

What we need to realize to begin with is that the question whether there were one or two carmen present was asked by the coroner, as per the Morning Advertiser, that uses an ad verbatim report:

Police constable George Maizen (sic), 55 H, said - On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row). The man appeared to be a carman. (The man, whose name is George Cross, was brought in and witness identified him as the man who spoke to him on the morning in question). I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.

The Coroner - There was another man in company with Cross?

The Witness - Yes. I think he was also a carman.

We can here see that the question about the other man only surfaced after Mizen had told the story without even mentioning him - since there was no reason to do so; he never approached Mizen and he never spoke to him. This is the real clincher, by the way, when it comes to the question about who lies and who tells the truth, Mizen or Lechmere. Mizen stood to gain nothing at all by not admitting that both carmen approached and spoke to him. So evidently, Lechmere is the liar here, claiming that Paul also spoke to Mizen - this in, I would suggest, an attempt to obscure that he had secured Mizen to himself to allow for him to lie to the PC without Paul being able to give him away afterwards.

The toning down of the seriousness and the suggestion that another PC awaited Mizen in Buck´s Row can be conveniently explained away by claiming that Mizen wanted to cover his butt - but there is absolutely no sense on behalf of Mizen in not admitting that both men spoke to him if they did. I conclude that they didn´t, thus.

The wording you propose, as per the Star, for example: "Cross, when he spoke to witness about the affair, was accompanied by another man." is a condensed version, apparently, as it does not show us that the coroner had to ask about the other man.

So, Edward’s interpretation below – which is what I reacted to - is a very long stretch, certainly when taken together with the two other newspaper snippets I posted.

It is not, and I hope you can see why now!

I did read all the reports, but no, the other two newspapers I mentioned state that both went down Hanbury Street (instead of just Paul) and the Times even states that they both went that way afterwards (meaning ‘after Cross had talked to Mizen’).

Might it just mean that he may not have taken an active role in the matter?
Again, might it just mean that Paul may not have taken an active role in the matter?

I am absolutely certain that Paul never took an active role. I am equally certain that he was not within earshot as Lechmere led Mizen astray. Mizen would obviously had said "there were these two carmen that came up to me and told me that ...", if they actually did.
Very apparently, they did not.

Ask yourself why Lechmere claimed that they did, Frank! Ask yourself in what scenario he stood to gain from lying about it.

The best, Frank!
Fisherman