Charles Lechmere interesting link

[DRoy]

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.

Fish,

What does "brought in" mean? To me it sounds as if Cross was brought in by the police, not that he went in on his own.

Have I missed something?

Cheers
DRoy

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Ed

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.

I implied he was neither bright nor attentive...and Mizen didn't exactly excel did he...either he was thick as pigshit or inattentive...otherwise he'd have got names, if not addresses...I'm told that's what good coppers do...they take down all the details and are open-minded, (read suspicious if you wish), about anything they're told...Mizen did/was neither...conclusion?

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.

Where did I say that in my post? I didn't. Please address what I say Ed, not what I didn't...

I agree that on previous occasions that I've suggested it was possible (and no more than that) that Mizen may have wished to disguise the fact that he hadn't immediately rocketed off to Bucks Row, but instead completed his "knocking up" first (coitus interruptus non est!), but not on this occasion....

For the record, I don't deny that Cross/Lechmere makes a good "person of interest"...but I honestly feel you need a great deal more than you've presented so far to make him a "good suspect", let alone confidently assert, (as you often seem to, if not directly here), he's the killer...but I'm afraid you and Christer will go on overbaking the cake, and in doing so I think you're actually putting off folk who otherwise might pay you more attention...

Just my two-penn'orth...intended in a constructive fashion...

Kindest Regards

Dave

[Fisherman]

Fish,

What does "brought in" mean? To me it sounds as if Cross was brought in by the police, not that he went in on his own.

Have I missed something?

Cheers
DRoy

He was brought into the inquest room, DRoy.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Cogidubnus:

I implied he was neither bright nor attentive...and Mizen didn't exactly excel did he...either he was thick as pigshit or inattentive...otherwise he'd have got names, if not addresses...I'm told that's what good coppers do...they take down all the details and are open-minded, (read suspicious if you wish), about anything they're told...Mizen did/was neither...conclusion?

Conclusion: He was certain that his colleague down in Buck´s Row had already secured the information needed. Mizen not taking the names points to him having been lied to about that copper. And to him having been fed information that did not disclose the potential urgency and graveness of the errand.

Look at the differences between what Mizen says he was told by the carman - and what that carman says he told Mizen.

The best,
Fisherman
off to a well deserved night´s sleep

[MrBarnett]

Or, Fish, he wasn't told that another PC had things in hand, and his first priority was to find the woman as quickly as possible. Standing there sucking his pencil and asking if there were one or two l's in Allen while a woman lay possibly critically injured a few streets away would surely have been the height of incompetence.

MrB

[Lechmere]

Cog
Your implication is that thick as pigshit Mizen failed take Lechmere or Pauls’ name or address despite being told that there was a woman lying possibly dead in the next street, (and not being told that he was wanted by another policeman around the corner) and that he compounded his thick as pigshitness by carrying on knocking up.

To make Lechmere innocent – Mizen has to be as thick as pigshit.

I think it is far more likely that Lechmere actually did tell him that there was a woman lying down in the next street and that Mizen was wanted by a policeman there. That explains Mizen’s slight negligence in not taking Lechmere or Paul’s details (as he would have assumed the other policeman had already done that) and his slight negligence in continuing to knock up.
I think that is a more likely explanation for Mizen’s actions than accusing him of being as thick as pigshit.


Mr B
It's clear Mizen didn't rush off. Lechmere and Paul says he carried on knocking up. Mizen admitted to finishing knocking the door he was at.
If you measure out the distance covered by Neil and the Thane, who came and went before Mizen appeared, it is clear that Mien lingered a bit.

[caz]

Get the facts right, Caz. I have never argued that he only did so after the murder - I have said that we have no record of any other occasion when he called himself Cross.
Whether there were such occasions or not we cannot tell.

Fair enough, Fishy. Apologies for unintentionally misrepresenting you on this aspect.

I'm very glad to hear that you are open to the possibility that he had always been known as Charles Cross at Pickford's. Since there is no evidence either way, however, is it quite fair to argue that this name was to all intents and purposes a false one, given to the authorities following the murder in a deliberate attempt to deceive anyone?

If Pickfords had kept records which showed Charles Allen Cross on their books, but no Charles Allen Lechmere, would you still think his use of the former surname was a sign of dishonesty, or merely the obvious way to allow the police to check his identity and movements?

Do you think he volunteered his middle name Allen, which I believe was the same as his father's middle name? Sounds like it was originally a relative's surname, as the given name is typically spelled Alan. Or do you think he just said Charles Cross to begin with, and the police managed to get his middle name out of him for their records - the same police who never bothered to use any of the information to check the basics? If he didn't want the wife and kids or other relatives finding out about his dubious claim to fame and becoming suspicious, it seems unlikely he would have given the full name "Charles Allen Cross" completely unbidden. However, it's exactly the kind of thoroughness we have been told was typical of the man. He always bowed to authority by filling in all his forms and then some, like a good little working man who knew his place and held down the same job for decades. But at work he could have started as Charles Cross (quite legitimately) and simply carried on as Charles Cross - easier for all concerned, not least himself:

"Oh, by the way chaps, please call me Lechmere from now on. That's my real surname".

"Lechmere is it now, Charlie boy? Lawd almighty, who d'yer fink you are, yer big ponce?"

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

When his background, life patterns and probable movements are examined more issues come to light.
That in turns brings us back to his choice of name on that night, which at the very least looks odd.

Hi Ed,

It's only odd if you have convinced yourself he was known at Pickfords as Charles Lechmere and never as Charles Cross. It's not remotely odd otherwise, as I have pointed out. If the police had gone straight round to Pickfords to check the basics, as Lechmere could have expected them to, would it have been wiser to use the name he was known by there, or one that meant nothing at all to his employer or fellow employees? I submit that it wouldn't have taken two and a half minutes for a cool, calculating psychopath to work that one out, never mind two and half days. So while it may be 'total conjecture' that he was known as Cross at work and therefore gave that name because he'd been on his way there when he came across the body, it makes a heck of a lot more sense than the 'total conjecture' that he was only known as Lechmere, but was confident they wouldn't bother to ask where he worked or to check it out.

The fact is we know he gave a name that he is never known to have used himself despite his surname being recorded well over 100 times in a wide variety of sources.
So far as can be determined his true name was never discovered by the police investigating the Whitechapel Murders.

The fact is, you have no more idea than I have if he ever used the name Lechmere at work, and if he didn't it would explain why the police never knew it, nor needed to know it. If scores of men could have stood up and confirmed that the witness calling himself Cross had worked with them for years under that name, what more would the police have wanted? No sudden or deliberate attempt to conceal his true identity; no attempt to avoid the inquest or his responsibilities towards it.

Innocent or guilty there is no concrete reason for the name change that stands up to total scrutiny. From our stand point 125 or more years later it is a bit odd.

I beg to differ. I repeat - it's only odd if you have already concluded, with no evidence, that he was only known as Lechmere at home and work, and relied on the police - chocolate fireguards that they were - simply taking his word for the name and addresses he gave them, in which case he might just as well have said he was with a travelling circus and his name was Coco the Clown.

How about asking yourself if psychopathic serial killers, who are so in control that they can hold down a job for decades, are more likely to keep their work and murderous hobby in strictly separate compartments, so they are not caught out in awkward situations like the one you describe, or more likely to combine the two and hope for the best that they will still turn up on time for work, do a reliable and efficient day's work each time (or risk the sack) and be able to hide every last trace of what they were up to on the way?

Love,

Caz
X

[Mr Lucky]

If he was genuinely known as both Charles Cross and Charles Lechmere there was no reason why he couldn't simply inform the coroner;-

'..... I've work for Pickford's , where they know me as Charles Cross, for twenty years...'

[Lechmere]

Caz

As I pointed out it remains ‘odd’ as he could hardly assume the police would focus on checking him out at his workplace, and not at home. Your assumption is that he somehow knew that the police would just check his workplace (rather than his home) so he helpfully just gave them the name you think he was known as at work.

I would point out that it remains ‘odd’ as he religiously (some think sinisterly) recorded his name as Lechmere when dealing with any sort of authority so far as we are able to determine (on about 110 or more humdrum occasions).
Yet the one time he ‘finds’ a dead body he chooses to tell the authorities that he was called Cross, and you think it is realistic to shrug this off and think up an excuse for him, such as that perhaps he was known as ‘good old Charlie Cross’ at Pickfords.
Even if he was known as Cross and home and work – for which there is not the faintest scintilla of evidence – it would still be ‘odd’ that on this occasion, when faced by authority, he called himself Cross.
And it is not true to say that we have no evidence about what he called himself, whether it be at home or at Pickfords. We have over 100 pieces of such evidence. You may wish to discount this evidence, but nevertheless it remains as inconvenient evidence of what he chose to call himself.

Talking of chocolate fireguards, calling himself Coco the Clown would have been a far riskier. If discovered – by being checked out - he could explain the use of Cross. He could not explain the use of Coco the Clown. If he was guilty, that presumably was why he chose to call himself Cross, of all names.

You then change tack and ask an interesting question:

How about asking yourself if psychopathic serial killers, who are so in control that they can hold down a job for decades, are more likely to keep their work and murderous hobby in strictly separate compartments, so they are not caught out in awkward situations like the one you describe, or more likely to combine the two and hope for the best that they will still turn up on time for work, do a reliable and efficient day's work each time (or risk the sack) and be able to hide every last trace of what they were up to on the way?

Like everything Lechmere related this has been covered before, but less frequently than some of the other somewhat tediously rehashed arguments.

Imagine you are a psychopath living in the East End in 1888 and you wished to indulge in your more bestial fantasies.
The dead of night seems to be the most sensible time to do it. That is a given.
What if you had a job that meant you traversed those East End streets day after day for twenty years?
Over those 6,240 nights (or so – I allowed him Sunday’s off) do you suppose it might have occurred to you that maybe you could sate yourself while walking those near deserted streets and then slip unnoticed into your workplace as one of the first early morning starters?
You would have plenty of time to work it out in your head.
And you would also be painfully aware that if you were ever to gratify your vile urges then that was the only option open to you.
Sure there would be risks involved – but then that was an occupational hazard for the serial killer known to us as Jack the Ripper. Just as leading a double life, concealing any incriminating evidence and carrying on as if nothing was awry went with the territory.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Ed

Cog
Your implication is that thick as pigshit Mizen failed take Lechmere or Pauls’ name or address despite being told that there was a woman lying possibly dead in the next street, (and not being told that he was wanted by another policeman around the corner) and that he compounded his thick as pigshitness by carrying on knocking up.

To make Lechmere innocent – Mizen has to be as thick as pigshit.

I think it is far more likely that Lechmere actually did tell him that there was a woman lying down in the next street and that Mizen was wanted by a policeman there. That explains Mizen’s slight negligence in not taking Lechmere or Paul’s details (as he would have assumed the other policeman had already done that) and his slight negligence in continuing to knock up.
I think that is a more likely explanation for Mizen’s actions than accusing him of being as thick as pigshit.

So you now freely and of your own accord, move from your previously vague assertion that Cross/Lechmere said there was a copper in the next street who needed assistance, to a straight "I think it is far more likely that Lechmere actually did tell him that there was a woman lying down in the next street"

Thanks Ed...leaving aside the "Mizen-derived" assumption that some copper in Bucks Row had sent them, that's exactly what he testified at the inquest isn't it?

All the best

Dave

[Fisherman]

Hi Ed



So you now freely and of your own accord, move from your previously vague assertion that Cross/Lechmere said there was a copper in the next street who needed assistance, to a straight "I think it is far more likely that Lechmere actually did tell him that there was a woman lying down in the next street"

Thanks Ed...leaving aside the "Mizen-derived" assumption that some copper in Bucks Row had sent them, that's exactly what he testified at the inquest isn't it?

All the best

Dave

I cannot see what you are after here, Dave...?

Edward says what we have always said - that Lechmere told Mizen that he was wanted by another PC in Buck´s Row, where there was a woman lying.

Those are the exact components we have always pointed out.

And indeed, this is exactly what Mizen testified at the inquest.

It is NOT, however, what Lechmere tesitified at the inquest. He claimed not to have spoken of another PC, he stated that Mizen had been informed that the woman was likely dead, and he pressed the point that both he and Paul had spoken to Mizen.

I am often being told that Mizen lied about the other PC, because he wanted to explain why he did not rush off immediately to Buck´s Row.
That is of course balderdash - when a colleague requests your attendance, there is every reason to get going pronto.

Mizen was either told that there was a woman lying on the ground in the adjacent street, a woman that quite possibly was dead or dying, and who could therefore have had an accident or who could have fallen prey to street violence, and who was potentially very much in need of immediate help.

Or he was told that there was a woman lying in Buck´s Row, no mentioning of any dire circumstances, where a colleague of his was already present and in charge of the situation.

In which scenario is it more credible that Mizen proceeded to knock a person up before he went to Buck´s Row?

I´ve said it before and I´ll say it again - just because Lechmere was able to pull the wool over Mizens eyes 126 years ago, we should not accept to have it done to ourselves today. Not when we can clearly see how he did it.

The dividing point is Lechmere´s assertion that Paul also spoke to Mizen, telling him that he believed the woman to be dead.

If he Paul this, why is it that Mizen clearly states that ONE carman spoke to him? Why does he not say "As I was standing on the corner of Hanbury and Baker´s Row the other night, these two men came up and told me..."?

Why does he tell us all, very clearly, that Lechmere was the only man speaking to him, whereas there was another man around, who went down Hanbury Street?

Think about it Dave:

Did Mizen stand to gain from lying about that?

Could he have forgotten that both men approached and spoke to him?

Then turn it around: Lechmere, if he had conned Mizen about that other PC and about the seriousness of the errand - would he stand to gain from saying that both he and Paul spoke to Mizen?

Would such a thing clinch that he was the man we should rely on, whereas Mizen was the one who either got it wrong or lied?

Before you - or anybody else - tell me that Mizen was the one who erred, I am going to need an explanation as to why Mizen said that it was just the one man telling him about the woman, if in fact both men told him.

What is your take and your explanation to this?

If you arrive at the same conclusion that I do - that there was nothing to gain on Mizens behalf from not telling it as it was, whereas Lechmere stood to gain massively from lying about it, then we have the liar cornered.

The only question that remains to be answered after that is: Why did Lechmere tell Mizen that there was another PC awaiting him in Buck´s Row, why did he lay the errand out as one of no pressing seriousness, and why did he lie about who spoke to Mizen?

The answer is obvious - because he wanted to get past Mizen, no further questions asked, no being taken back to the crime scene and no being searched.

I think you could benefit from reading the material once more. If nothing else, it will show you that Edward never for a second changed his mind or description of what happened.

You will excuse me for not answering any reply of yours in the near future - I´m off on vacation. Have a nice summer, and I´ll see what you´ve come up with when I return!

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Cog
I don't think I've moved anywhere - freely or under duress.
We have two versions of the Lechmere-Mizen conversation.
I think Mizen's version is more likely to be true - Mizen's known actions tie in with his version being true.
I see no reason to accuse Mizen of either be g grossly negligent or as thick as pigshit. This is necessary to believe Lechmere.
But this small aspect of the case is yet another instance where those who wish to decry the possibility of Lechmere's guilt refuse to accept even the possibility that a simple explanation may be correct - in this instance that Mizen may have been telling the truth.
This is another example of the Lechmere nay-sayers putting themselves resolutely into an unrealistic absolutist position that is contrary to basic common sense.

[Mr Lucky]

Fish,

Let me be the first to congratulate you on your apparent location of some contemporary source material that finally backs up some of your speculation known as the ‘Mizen scam’ regarding the meeting between Paul, Cross and Mizen.

why is it that Mizen clearly states that ONE carman spoke to him?

Not sure, need to look at the quote in context, so where does this exact phrase appear, where Mizen "clearly states" that ONE carman spoke to him? Where exactly does this information appear in the record ?

Why does he tell us all, very clearly, that Lechmere was the only man speaking to him,

"Very clearly"? Hold on Fish, you have the advantage on us here, perhaps you should allow us to have a look at just exactly where its recorded that Mizen testified "very clearly, that Lechmere was the only man speaking to him"- particularly before asking the rest of us questions about it .

Before you - or anybody else - tell me that Mizen was the one who erred, I am going to need an explanation as to why Mizen said that it was just the one man telling him about the woman

?, perhaps we could take a step back and you could show us just where Mizen said that it was "just the one man telling him about the woman" then we might be able to help you out.

I think you could benefit from reading the material once more.

I would be very happy to do so Fish, if only it was clear where I could find the following;-

Mizen clearly states that ONE carman spoke to him
Mizen tells us all, very clearly, that Lechmere was the only man speaking to him
Mizen said that it was just the one man telling him about the woman

Any way Fish, I'm sure it'll wait until you return from your holiday. Have a nice time

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Ed

I see no reason to accuse Mizen of either be g grossly negligent or as thick as pigshit. This is necessary to believe Lechmere.
But this small aspect of the case is yet another instance where those who wish to decry the possibility of Lechmere's guilt refuse to accept even the possibility that a simple explanation may be correct - in this instance that Mizen may have been telling the truth.
This is another example of the Lechmere nay-sayers putting themselves resolutely into an unrealistic absolutist position that is contrary to basic common sense.

But regardless of all this, the facts awkwardly remain that Mizen simply DIDN'T do any of the things he ought to have...he DIDN'T take down their names, he DIDN'T drop everything and rush off and in fact he DIDN'T show the slightest sign of intelligence (much as it pains me to so describe a fellow Sussex man).

Conclusion - he was, at best, thick as pigshit - at worst, as you seem to suggest (note not I, who've emphatically denied it on this occasion at least) a liar

All the best

Dve