Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Barnaby]

Given the Cross/Lechmere chatter, I was surprised that there was no entry for PC Mizen in either the Police Officials webpage or as a sub forum on the Police Officials message boards. Was he grossly incompetent? What do we know about him? Hell, after all, here is a guy whose behavior we are questioning moments after a murder!

[Lechmere]

Mizen was from Essex not Sussex.

If you take Mizen's version of events he was approached by a man who told him he was wanted by another Policeman in Bucks Row as a woman was lying on the ground. That implied that the man who said this had been sent and had already spoken to a policeman, and also that the event he was being called to wasn't one of earth shattering importance and no indication was given to Mizen that a crime had been committed.
Hence not taking their details and finishing knocking up the door he was on are quite understandable actions.

[Lechmere]

Barnaby
There is no purpose in there being any Mizen threads as his involvement was clearly of no importance in the case, except to Lechmere obsessives.
It is far more relevant to discuss the Fenians or some such state conspiratorual cover up over Mary Kelly.

[DVV]

Barnaby
There is no purpose in there being any Mizen threads as his involvement was clearly of no importance in the case, except to Lechmere obsessives.
It is far more relevant to discuss the Fenians or some such state conspiratorual cover up over Mary Kelly.

Any detail concerning Mizen are welcome, so feel free to share.
His entry in the AZ says nothing, except that he joined the Met in 1873 and retired in 1898, having always served in H Division.

[caz]

If you take Mizen's version of events he was approached by a man who told him he was wanted by another Policeman in Bucks Row as a woman was lying on the ground. That implied that the man who said this had been sent and had already spoken to a policeman, and also that the event he was being called to wasn't one of earth shattering importance and no indication was given to Mizen that a crime had been committed.
Hence not taking their details and finishing knocking up the door he was on are quite understandable actions.

Hi Ed,

If we start from a position of general ignorance on the parts of Cross, Paul and PC Mizen (even if Cross's ignorance was put on), it's understandable that nobody indicated at that stage that a crime had been committed, much less that the woman had just been savagely murdered and mutilated. Tabram's murder was a while back, and may not have entered anyone's mind until the horrible truth emerged later. If innocent, Cross could not have been sure Nichols was dead; if guilty, it was better to adopt the same position. Evidently whatever was said to Mizen did not convey a great sense of urgency, or at least Mizen failed to treat it that way. But if he understood that a fellow officer needed his assistance, he was still negligent in his duties not to proceed there immediately after taking brief details from Cross or Paul. After all, they were perfect strangers to him, so they were either telling the truth that he was needed in Buck's Row, or were trying to pull a fast one somehow.

Only with hindsight could Mizen be expected to realise the seriousness of the matter, and therefore how poorly his own inefficiency would reflect on him. It's possible he added the bit about an officer at the scene wanting him (thinking of PC Neil and the ambulance request) to excuse the fact that he took no details from the carmen and didn't go straight to the woman's aid.

Love,

Caz
X

[Lechmere]

The trouble is Caz that Lechmere testified that he told Mizen: 'For my part I think she is dead'.
Not a position of ignorance.
Tabram's murder was about three weeks before. The press made an instantaneous connection so I think it is fair to assume Lechmere and particularly Mizen would have had it in mind.

Caz, tell me, is it your position that you refuse to believe that Lechmere said what Mizen claimed, which was along these lines:
a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying.

[caz]

The trouble is Caz that Lechmere testified that he told Mizen: 'For my part I think she is dead'.
Not a position of ignorance.

Well I'm afraid that is more your problem than mine, Ed. He thought right, and was proved right, but if he was the killer why would he have volunteered any such opinion? A woman was lying in the street senseless, is all he needed to know and all he needed to tell Mizen. Sounds to me like an opinion given in all honesty and innocence.

Tabram's murder was about three weeks before. The press made an instantaneous connection so I think it is fair to assume Lechmere and particularly Mizen would have had it in mind.

Ah, you took the bait again. If Tabram was brought to mind when Mizen was told about the woman in Buck's Row, wouldn't that make him even more negligent for not taking details from either carman or hot-footing it there?

Caz, tell me, is it your position that you refuse to believe that Lechmere said what Mizen claimed, which was along these lines:
a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying.

No refusal, I hope I keep an open mind and my options open where the evidence doesn't help me iron out the apparent contradictions either way.

But if you can bear to take 'by a policeman' out of the above sentence (because Mizen may have put it there innocently and subconsciously with hindsight, having seen PC Neil at the scene when he got there) it becomes no more than the simple truth. Cross wasn't making idle conversation by telling Mizen about the woman. The clear inference was that a copper was needed to go there and sort it out.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

Hang on, Ed. You don't know that he wasn't known at work and at home as Charles Cross. The point is, if the police had checked at Pickfords or the family home (and we don't know they didn't), and he was only known as Lechmere in both places, would they not have found it as 'odd' (or as sinister or suspicious) as you do, that "the one time he 'finds' a dead body he chooses to tell the authorities that he was called Cross"? He had two days to think about what details they might reasonably ask him for, yet he comes up with a name that would look 'odd' if the authorities bothered to check?

You then contradict yourself with this:

If discovered – by being checked out - he could explain the use of Cross.

Either it was 'odd' to use that name for "the one time he 'finds' a dead body", or it could be explained away by reference to his late stepfather. Which is it?

Love,

Caz
X

[FrankO]

But if he understood that a fellow officer needed his assistance, he was still negligent in his duties not to proceed there immediately after taking brief details from Cross or Paul. After all, they were perfect strangers to him, so they were either telling the truth that he was needed in Buck's Row, or were trying to pull a fast one somehow.

My thoughts exactly, Caz. Mizen didn’t just neglect to go to Buck’s Row immediately, he also neglected to ask any questions. And that's odd to say the least, because, after all, he was being called away from his beat/chore and I amagine that a good reason would have been required to leave your beat/chore and that a PC wasn’t supposed to believe just anybody because they had such pretty blue eyes. So a few questions like ‘Did you find the body or was the PC already there when you arrived?’, ‘Did the PC take your particulars?’ or ‘What was the matter with the woman, was she drunk, wounded, violated?’ would have been perfectly in order.

All the best,
Frank

[DRoy]

The trouble is Caz that Lechmere testified that he told Mizen: 'For my part I think she is dead'.

Lech,

It seems you trust Lechmere's testimony regarding this comment yet choose to distrust his testimony in other places. If you trust this testimony then how can you accept Mizen's comments (mentioned in the same post)...

a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying.

Here is Mizen saying a woman was lying, nothing about Lech telling him the woman might be dead. Who is lying/misleading/mistaken/forgetful Lech or Mizen? How do you determine within their testimony what is real or not?

Mizen (as Caz noted "in hindsight") would have a reason for adding 'the policeman' in his testimony and he'd also have reason for not adding in Lech's statement that she might be dead.

In the alternative, Lech actually told Mizen he thinks the woman is dead (after killing her) in order to be more convincing?

Cheers
DRoy

[Lechmere]

Caz
It isn’t my problem at all. I embrace the testimony. I don’t try and explain it away and try to reinterpret what Mizen really meant to say as you do. Can you bar to take Mizen’s words as written without wielding a red pen over bits you don’t like – such as 'by a policeman'.

But you are now tripping over yourself.

Lechmere testified that he told Mizen that he thought the victim as dead.
If Lechmere was innocent, then I guess you have to believe that this is what he actually told Mizen on the night in question. Don’t you?

If Lechmere was telling the truth (and you show extreme reluctant to countenance the faintest possibility that poor Mizen was telling nothing but the truth) then Mizen was lying, and he blundered quite unforgivably in failing to take Lechmere and Paul’s details and in not going immediately to Bucks Row.

If Lechmere was the killer I would suppose that he testified to the inquest that he told Mizen that the woman was dead because this would have been what he had said in his original statement which would have been before the coroner. Press reports implied that it was obvious that she was dead. Paul’s interview (which almost certainly promoted Lechmere to come forward) confirmed this impression (and no doubt Paul was influenced in making this claim by those first press reports).

By saying he thought she was dead, rather than saying he was not sure – I would suggest makes him look more innocent. Otherwise he would be admitting to abandoning an injured and still living woman.

Either way, telling the inquest that he told Mizen the woman was dead did not incriminate him in anyway. It helped to undermine Mizen if anything.

And by the way.
I would suggest that he did not in fact tell Mizen that he thought the woman was dead.
I would suggest that this was a little lie he told the inquest and the police.
He would not have actually told Mizen that he thought the woman was dead as that would have alerted Mizen that a crime had been commissioned. That would surely have resulted in Mizen taking his details, which I would suggest he was keen at that stage to avoid if at all possible.

Which neatly takes me to the bit where I ignored your daintily proffered bait.

If Lechmere had told Mizen that there was a dead woman in Bucks Row, then it is stretching credulity to think that Mizen would not have instantaneously twigged that there had been another dead woman found just down the road a few weeks before and that it had caused quite a stir.

This again makes Mizen a total buffoon for not taking Lechmere’s and Paul’s details.

But if Lechmere had not said that there was a dead woman in Bucks Row, but had informed Mizen:
‘that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying’
a different complexion is put on Mizen’s actions.
There isn’t an inference that Mizen was wanted – it was clear that he was wanted.
What wasn’t clear was the urgency with which he was wanted, or the seriousness of the matter at hand.


But if Lechmere had said (as you suggest on the basis of nothing but your imagination)
‘that he was wanted in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying’
There is no inference that he was wanted by a policeman. But it would be a strange construction for an innocent man to come out with anyway.

Incidentally, Lechmere contradicted himself at the inquest.
He initially testified that in conversation with Paul over the body he said:
"I believe she is dead."
Then when he met Mizen he claims he said:
"She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead."
By claiming he thought she was dead from the outset, it makes it look like he had nothing to hide in saying she was dead to Mizen. He claimed Paul was unsure over whether or not Nichols was dead.
But when questioned by the coroner, Lechmere said:
‘In his opinion deceased looked as if she had been outraged and gone off in a swoon; but he had no idea that there were any serious injuries.’
So under cross examination he said he didn’t think she was dead after all.
What do you make of someone who changes his story under cross examination?

By the way there is manifestly no contradiction in it being clearly odd that Charles Lechmere always used the name Charles Lechmere in all his dealings with authority (which we know he did) apart from when he went to the police after being fingered as being spotted standing close to a freshly mutilated body, and his coming up with an alias that he could explain away if push comes to shove.
I am at a loss to know why you think choosing an explainable alias exempts the one and only use of that alias as being odd.

[Lechmere]

DRoy

Usually good liars don’t lie with their every word but base their lies around truth.

But that is not strictly relevant for the point you raised.

I quoted Lechmere’s reported statement at the inquest.
It should be clear that I disbelieve Lechmere’s claim, which was contrary to Mizen’s testimony.

I don’t trust Lechmere’s testimony. I don’t think he told Mizen that the woman was dead as that would have put Mizen on the alert and invited a search. Mizen may have asked Lechmere and Paul to come back with him to Bucks Row or at the very least Mizen would have asked for their details.
I would suggest that if you look at Mizen’s actions they are consistent with him being told:
‘that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying’.
He was an experienced policeman. There is no reason to disbelieve Mizen.

Lechmere on the other hand delayed in coming forward until after the publication of Paul’s newspaper story. He gave a name to the police that he was never to use when dealing with any form of authority in his life – as known. He was found by the dead body by Paul before he had raised the alarm.
Yet people want to believe Lechmere over Mizen.

Who is taking the more reasonable stance –those who believe Mizen or those who believe Lechmere?

[FrankO]

If Lechmere had told Mizen that there was a dead woman in Bucks Row, then it is stretching credulity to think that Mizen would not have instantaneously twigged that there had been another dead woman found just down the road a few weeks before and that it had caused quite a stir.

What was it that kept Mizen from asking questions, searching the men, taking their details and taking them back to Buck’s Row, Edward? Was it the fact that Lechmere didn’t tell him the woman was probably dead? Or that Lechmere did tell him there was already a PC in place?

What wasn’t clear was the urgency with which he was wanted, or the seriousness of the matter at hand.

And that is precisely why Mizen should have asked questions.

Incidentally, Lechmere contradicted himself at the inquest.
He initially testified that in conversation with Paul over the body he said:
"I believe she is dead."
Then when he met Mizen he claims he said:
"She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead."

There’s no contradiction, Edward, just an addition. It says: “She looks to me to be either dead or drunk;…” That’s not the same as: “I think she’s drunk.”.

He claimed Paul was unsure over whether or not Nichols was dead.

And it turned out that he rightfully claimed this, because this is what can be gathered from Paul's inquest statement some 2 weeks later. For example, the DN of 18 September worded it as follows: "He and the man examined the body, and he felt sure he detected faint indications of breathing."

But when questioned by the coroner, Lechmere said:
‘In his opinion deceased looked as if she had been outraged and gone off in a swoon; but he had no idea that there were any serious injuries.’
So under cross examination he said he didn’t think she was dead after all.

Again, not true. She looked as if…, but after examining her he apparently formed the opinion that she was dead.

The best,
Frank

[DRoy]

Who is taking the more reasonable stance –those who believe Mizen or those who believe Lechmere?

Lech,

I understand what you are saying but as I've said before there could be just a simple explanation like Lech having an affair or even using prostitutes. His actions and words would be no different. Lech could lie because he's trying to avoid his wife finding out he didn't really start his shift when he said he did because he was sleeping with Lady X who happened to live on the way to work. I'm not actually suggesting this as a theory as there is no evidence of it but I think the same could be said for him being a serial murderer.

His actions, his testimony, I agree, something doesn't seem right. You and Fish have made me consider that. However, what is the weight of the lies we interpret to be lies and are we able to prove them? Lying to save your own @$$ for cheating, or being an exaggerator or being forgetful doesn't make you a killer.

It is quite bold in my opinion to accept all testimony as evidence except one man's while picking and choosing what out of that testimony was true and what wasn't while filling in the blanks with circumstantial 'evidence' and conjecture all based on personal interpretation of the testimony 'evidence'!

I've seen it done a million times when discussing a suspect. While it is allowed and I'd even say quite interesting, it is also complicated (sometimes mind boggling) to discuss other aspects of the case with those who might forget the expectations/rules they preach when they ironically contradict those expectations/rules within their own suspect posts. (No names mentioned purposely)

Cheers
DRoy

[FrankO]

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.

I’ve been away to Italy for a couple of days, Christer, visiting my girlfriend (she is Italian) and it was great too, even though I wasn’t in her company all the time... Hope you had a good vacation, by the way!

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?

What, in those two sentences in the quotation, suggests that Paul continued down Hanbury Street while Lechmere was speaking to Mizen?

My answer would be: nothing. The first sentence says that Paul was in company of Cross when the latter spoke to Mizen. To me, that means that Paul didn’t move away from Cross (or at least, not much) while Cross was talking to Mizen. The second sentence just tells us Paul went down Hanbury Street. What it doesn’t tell us is when he went that way. And since the first sentence tells us that Paul doesn’t distance himself from Cross and Mizen to any significant stretch, it follows that Paul only went down Hanbury Street after the short conversation between Cross and Mizen had ended. And that’s precisely what Mizen says according to the Star of 3 September and the Times of 4 September.

It was Mizen´s conception that the two knew each other and worked together and therefore walked to work in company.

I think it’s rather the other way around, Christer: because the two men walked and approached him together, Mizen got the impression that they worked together.

If Paul was ten feet away, they would be in company. If he was twenty, thirty or forty feet off - same thing.

If Paul was ten feet away, then I would agree with you. If it was 15 feet, then maybe I would agree. If it was 30, no. Not without the confirmation on Mizen’s part that Paul, in fact, had walked off and that he’d seen Cross catch up with him afterwards.

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.

Obviously, Paul could have denied that he’d spoken to Mizen if, in fact, he hadn’t. Whether Paul could give Lechmere away with regards to his lie about a PC being already in Buck’s Row, depends on the question if Paul actually was out of earshot. And that’s very far from a given; it’s not even suggested, considering all the versions of Mizen’s inquest statement.

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.

Unfortunately, Mizen wasn’t asked if the second man also spoke to him or not, so we can’t claim that he did not admit that both men spoke to him.

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.

That’s the only thing the Morning Advertiser shows us, and, therefore, a welcome addition.

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.

That Paul didn't take an active role is supported by Mizen's inquest statement. I have no problem with that, it's not something odd or suspicious. That Paul was out of earshot as Lechmere spoke to Mizen, however, is something else completely.

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.

Just as Mizen would obviously had said "one carman walked on and the other caught up with him after we had spoken", if that's actually what happened.

All the best, Christer!
Frank