Charles Lechmere interesting link

[drstrange169]

Hello Lechmere,


>... you cannot see Baker’s Row from anywhere in the vicinity of Brown’s Stable Yard.<


Actually , that not true.

PC Neil only had to take a couple of steps back from the body, towards the middle of the road and he could see straight down. He had already seen Thain by this stage so if he was looking for another constable it wouldn't be from the Brady Street end.

As the times wrote,

" ... in the meantime ... (Neil) .. had rung the bell of Essex Wharf." (Times)

So we know he did move around before Dr. Llewellyn arrived, whether he did so before Mizen's arrival is not so clear.


>If Mizen believed ...<

We're talking known facts not, if, buts and maybes.



>While this was going on there would have been little time for Mizen and Neil to compare notes – and neither would have seen the need.<

Again, would, could and might, are spin.

It's hardly "comparing notes", to ask, "Did you see the killer running your way. Aren't all police debriefed after a major murder? Don't they write reports?



>Then we have the Paul press story – which was in a Sunday evening paper (not morning).<

I didn't know that, thanks.



>This was partially a work of fiction by Paul but also partly accurate.<

What is relevant here, is the accurate part, namely, Mizen did continue "knocking up" before going to Buck's Row". This means he went into the witness on the defensive.



> ... It was in the context of the press attempting to set the police’s investigatory agenda that Paul’s story appeared.
In those circumstances it is hardly surprising that Paul’s story was dismissed ...<

Except, none of the stories you cited were "dismissed until they were investigated.


>The officers at either end of Buck’s Row ... were reported as saying they:‘…had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention.’
Not no one leaving, just no one leaving to attract attention.<

Re-read my last post, I've already answered that.



>Mizen's written report - which would have been in front of the coroner ...<

I see, so he wrote a report mentioning two men, on the same Sunday that the police were denying there were two men;-)


>It seems obvious ...<

But we're not talking, seems, appears and look to be's. "Just the facts ma'am."



>Was Mizen consulted about the statement that had been issued by the police the night before?<

As I've already posted,

"These constables had seen no men leaving the spot"
(Manchester Guardian)

"These officers had seen no one leaving the spot to attract attention"
(The Times)

The facts as we know them, with no spin.


>I suspect not ...<

No, suspect, feel or fancy. Just the facts.


>Paul’s testimony tallied with Lechmere’s. His newspaper interview did not.<

Actually, minus the self aggrandizing, his newspaper interview did.


I reiterate my last post, looking at the facts not the spin, there are genuine grounds for questioning Mizen behaviour. Was he right, was he wrong? I don't know. But if, as Fisherman was, you're trying to build case against "Crossmere" based on Mizen's honesty then you have to offer actual evidence to support it, otherwise it's just another Cornwellian Sickert syndrome.

[Fisherman]

drstrange169:

PC Neil only had to take a couple of steps back from the body, towards the middle of the road and he could see straight down. He had already seen Thain by this stage so if he was looking for another constable it wouldn't be from the Brady Street end.

Dr Strange!

I know that you are discussing with Eward and not me, and I will leave Edward to answer most of your points. However, the point about Bakerīs Row being visible from Browns Stable Yard is interesting, since the totally wrong point is reoccuringly being made in this context.

It matters not if you could squeeze in a smallish view of the opening into Bakerīs Row if you leant against Essex Wharf, since Mizen did not meet and speak to the carman in that miniscule stretch that could (only perhaps) be seen.
For Jonas Mizen was at the eastern end of Hanbury Street at the stage he was approached by Lechmere, and he therefore had a stretch of some 30-40 yards to cover before he could possibly be visible at the opening in Bakerīs Row into Buckīs Row.

So no matter how we cut all of this, I think we must treat it as a fact (and you want facts, remember!) that when Neil could see Mizen, it was because the latter was en route to the murder spot, sent by the carmen. Whether he was truly still in the miniscule opening of Bakerīs Row that could (only perhaps) be seen, or whether he had managed to cover some stretch down Buckīs Row is written in the stars, but it is evident that Neil did NOT alert Mizen to the murder spot - he went there on his own accord after having spoken to Lechmere and after having left Hanbury Street, from where Neil could not possibly have seen him.

I enclose three snippets from the press bolstering the point I am making.

Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him...

Daily Telegraph

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...

Morning Advertiser

Constable G. Mizen, 56 H, stated that at a quarter past 4 on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, and a man passing said...

The Times

I find it important not to loose track of the really and truly important bits and pieces when we discuss matters like these.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Dr Strange

I was almost going to drive down to verify but I think this map negates the need.

Could Neil see Mizen’s route from anywhere in the vicinity of Brown’s Stable Yard?

I will leave you to answer
(Sounds to me like you should go on a walking tour down those there parts).

When I gave the ‘if Mizen believed’, I also gave the alternative view. So I spun it both ways to illustrate the implications of your suggestion at the moment Mizen met Neil.

As I pointed out, it is a fact that Mizen was from a different Division, so there would have been the possibility of misunderstanding and communication problems.
However his report would have been prepared on the Friday not the Sunday – not after the appearance of Paul’s story. This is not a fact but the most likely scenario.

The significance of some of Paul’s story being a work of fiction is that it would probably have diminished the value of the legitimate parts of it in the eyes of the police on the Sunday.
The same Sunday night police statement debunked the Brady Street blood trail.
You can almost hear exasperation in the voice of the police in having to respond to such claims.
These are not facts but you must set things in context

When the police made their statement on Sunday evening you do not know that they re-interviewed Mizen or Thain. They may have just relied on checking their reports. That may be the explanation for the ‘no man leaving the spot to attract attention’ qualifier. We don't know.

To go back over your ‘facts’ about Mizen.

It isn’t a fact that Neil could have seen Mizen on Baker’s Row.
It isn’t a fact that the next mention of Paul was on Sunday morning – it was on Sunday Evening (as you concede).

You give this as a fact:
When the police were adamantly denying Paul's story about finding the body first, Mizen didn't confirm the story, despite Paul giving Mizen's exact position and what he was doing.

If Lechmere had told Mizen that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck’s Row because a woman was lying there, (which one must presume was in his written report compiled on the Friday) then Mizen would not have believed that the two carmen were the first finders of the body.
You have no idea whether or not the police rechecked this detail with Mizen before issuing their counter statement – which would have been relatively soon after the release of Paul’s story.
As Mizen was not based at Bethnal Green they may just have relied on his report.

At the inquest Mizen did not give inaccurate evidence. Often when giving evidence a witness will initially give the main details with other relevant facts being obtained via questioning.
The coroner would have had Mizen’s report in front of him mentioning two Carmen which is clearly why the coroner asked that question.
There is no evidence of an attempt to mislead on Mizen’s part.
So there is no reason to suggest that Mizen deliberately or accidentally gave a false impression of events.

The facts as you present them owe more to the fictional crime novels of Patricia Conwell.

I would agree that two men leaving a crime scene is significant.
However no one at the time did.
Try to find one report anywhere that suggests it is significant.
Is there a whisper in the press? In any of the extant police reports? In the memoirs of any policeman? In any Jack the Ripper book subsequently written?

Everyone has been blindsided by it. And many stubbornly remain blindsided.

[drstrange169]

Hello Fisherman,

>>I enclose three snippets from the press bolstering the point I am making<<


Are those snippets from my Mizen piece over at jtrforums?
Either way, obviously I'm very familiar with them.
The "facts" are, they don't tell us whether PC Mizen ignored (as Paul claimed) or acted on what he was told.

[drstrange169]

Hello Lechmere,


>(Sounds to me like you should go on a walking tour down those there parts).<


I didn't think the tours did Durward Street.

Now that I live in Australia, it's definitely a lot harder to head off down there these days. As it is, the last I was there was the JTR conference back in November. But obviously we have one advantage in Australia that you don't, a ruler:-)

(See your map amended accordingly at the bottom of this post)

No matter how many times either of us has been down Durward Street, one thing is indisputable, PC Neil knew Bucks Row on a Victorian early morning better than any of us.

Now if you ask me my "spin" on this, I'd agree with you that it more "likely", because of the degree of difficultly, that Mizen came up Bucks Row before Neil saw him.
But, when I flew back to Australia from the conference on Malaysia airlines, had you asked me, is it likely that the flight could disappear without a trace and the best equipment on the planet wouldn't be able to find it, I would have said, not likely at all.

Had you gone on to say the same company would have a flight shot down by a missile two months later ... well, you get my point.

No matter how unlikely something seems, anything that is possible, IS possible.



> ... it is a fact that Mizen was from a different Division, so there would have been the possibility of misunderstanding and communication problems.<<

Wasn't that precisely why Inspector Abberline (late of "H" division) was brought in to the case?



>>However his report would have been prepared on the Friday not the Sunday<<

That makes it worse not better



>>To go back over your ‘facts’ about Mizen.

It isn’t a fact that Neil could have seen Mizen on Baker’s Row.<<

Sorry, but as my ruler shows, it is.



>>The facts as you present them owe more to the fictional crime novels of Patricia Conwell.<<


I'm not sure whether it was a spelling mistake or a deliberate pun, but I like it!

[Lechmere]

Mizen's path would have taken him around the corner into White's Row by that big blue dot above your ruled line and out of sight of the Essex Wharf gates.
(There's a tour going down Durward Street this Bank Holiday Monday.)

[caz]

Aha. But would it not be a bit odd if Lechmere - having been baptized Lechmere, having wed Elizabeth Bostock to the Lechmere name, having his mail delivered to a postbox with the name Lechmere on it, having given his kids the name Lechmere, signing every document we can find with the name Lechmere - was actually instead known as Cross at his home address?

I think that would be decidedly odd.

Hi Fishy,

How about he was also known as Cross at home - not 'instead'?

Are you saying that he kept the name Lechmere since it was the name he was baptized into, and signed official documents with that name so as not to cause any inconvenience with the authorities?
And that he used the name Cross in his day-to-day life, since he actually felt that he was Charles Cross, and had always called himself Charles Cross?

Not necessarily. I don't know any more than you do what name or names he went by every day at work, or whether "Charles Allen Cross" would mean anything to the folks at home.

If so, please explain why he told the police authorities that his name was Charles Cross when he told all other authorities that his name was Charles Lechmere.

I don't know any more than you do. But you believe he was stupid enough - "after having had two days to think about it" - to give a name to the police in the context of murder that he never used in any other context. You also believe the police were stupid enough to take this name on trust and not check at his home or work, where you believe they would have drawn a blank. I believe it's more likely that he did think carefully about what name to give the police, knowing they might seek confirmation via a home or work address, and therefore gave a name that would be recognised by the people there. If the police found his real name was different, it wouldn't matter as long as he had been known as Charles Allen Cross at Pickfords for as long as anyone could remember. If the police found he'd never been known as Cross it would be the one-off use of an alias - any alias - by a murder witness that would look distinctly odd, and arguably suspicious, not his choice of alias. Using his late stepfather's name in this context only would have served him no better than using the name of his cat, or an old friend, or some other name he was particularly fond of.

Many of the signatures we have on him were signed by officials from different authorities who had asked him: State your name, please! whereupon he always, no exceptions found, answered Charles Allen Lechmere.

This time over a police sergeant at a desk will have said: State your name, please!, and he goes Charles Allen Cross...?
After having had two days to think about it?

Precisely. And that would indeed be 'odd' if he had no way to verify the name, given the likelihood he would be asked for an address, and given the fact that he gave two, both correct.

Itīs not only Edward that fails to get this, Caz - Iīm equally thick myself.

I'm saying nothing.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Caz
If your tortured logic were applied across the board them no one would tell a lie in case they were caught out and no one would commit a crime in case they were discovered and punished. But you know what they do.
People take risks if they think it is worthwhile. Hell, some people just like taking risks.
Sometimes taking a risk unexpectedly leads to other potentially compromising situations.

Eh? Where did all that come from? Criminals have to lie all the time if they want to avoid punishment. They also have to take risks every time they go out to commit a crime. But guilty or innocent, people don't generally tell the police completely unnecessary lies - lies which can quickly and easily be uncovered - unless they are simple.

That's why I can't see Charles Allen Lechmere giving his name as Charles Allen Cross to the police for no obvious reason if nobody could vouch for him by that name on one simple enquiry.

Whatever Lechmere was, he doesn't come across as simple. And your theory demands that he be anything but.

Love,

Caz
X

[Lechmere]

Caz
You refuse to accept that he may have chosen to call himself Cross as a educated risk, based on:
(a) he wouldn't be checked out further as he would have thought that his performance was convincing; and
(b) if he was checked out he would be able to bluff out a reason why he gave that name.
You also refuse to concede that there may have been a good (guilty) reason for him choosing to call himself by a name that he would not be readily recognised under.

If someone gives a false name then obviously no one can vouch for them under that name. That is what happens. But do you know what? People still give false names.
There is no reason why he would have been 'stupid' to come up with the name 'Cross' after two days. The stupid option would certainly be to choose a Coco the Clown type name.
The 'stupid' option would be not to come forward at all after Paul went to the papers.
The 'stupid' option would be to give false contact details once he was forced to come forward.
The false name was anything but a stupid option. Besides anything he successfully remained unknown under his real name until about ten years ago. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

[Fisherman]

... you believe he was stupid enough - "after having had two days to think about it" - to give a name to the police in the context of murder that he never used in any other context. You also believe the police were stupid enough to take this name on trust and not check at his home or work, where you believe they would have drawn a blank.
Caz
X

Slight correction there, Caz - I think he was CLEVER enough to use the name Cross, since any other name - apart, of course, from Lechmere (and possibly, but not credibly, Forsdike) - would have potentially revealed him as a liar to the police.
The name Cross has the distinctive advantage of BOTH hiding his identity from those who took part of the inquest reports in the papers, and providing him with an excuse for why he had used it, had the police found out.

They apparently never did.

If you take a look at how he ALSO avoided to give his address in front of the inquest, you will (I hope) be able to see exactly how he operated.

There were three parameters involved in this identification process:

1. His name
2. His working place
3. His address

He would not have minded giving the police the real answers to all these questions - to them, he was just a meek carman, and he was never under any suspicion at all.
However, if he DID give them his right name, it would seem odd if he later called himself Cross at the inquest. And this he had to do, to keep his friends, family and neighbours out of the know.
He therefore gave the information to the police as follows:

1. Charles Allen Cross
2. Pickfords
3. 22 Doveton Street

This ensured that he could tell the police "look what a truthful man I am" if they had gone further into him. Thatīs why the choice of "Cross" is clever - he could have lied and said that he often called himself Cross in honour of his dead PC stepfather.

The problem was, however, that not only the police, but also the papers wanted his identity information. And that information would go out to people he knew.
In that department, he wanted to stay undetected, in order to be able to carry on, no questions asked from the ones who knew his treks and timings. So in that case, he gave the information:

1. Charles Allen Cross
2. Pickfords
3. No information

... and that took care of the problem. He now only had to hope that he was not further investigated. If he had been, then his efforts to keep the information from family and friends would have been in vain. But as it worked out, he had it his way.

And that, by the way, answers your little snippet about how I think the police were stupid - yes, they were. Stupid AND prejudiced as to who would be murderers and who would not.

They should have checked him. It would have saved a good many lives. But the fact that he is called Cross by Swanson goes to prove that they never did so. And in that same report, Swanson even tells us that the two carmen found Nichols jointly. And if THAT does not tell you how qualified the police were, well ...!

All the best,
Fisherman

[FrankO]

If you take a look at how he ALSO avoided to give his address in front of the inquest, you will (I hope) be able to see exactly how he operated.

How uncommon was it to not give an address, Fish?

Best,
Frank

[Lechmere]

It was normal procedure for non specialist witnesses to give their address in open court.
Do you want this expressed in percentage terms?

[Fisherman]

It was normal procedure for non specialist witnesses to give their address in open court.
Do you want this expressed in percentage terms?

Maybe he does, Edward.

The people that witnessed in a professional capacity were:

Neil
Spratling
Llewellyn
Helston
Mizen
Thain
Mann
Hatfield
Ede

Out of these, the ones who divulged where they lived were Llewellyn (who needed to give his address since it was of importance to the understanding of the events), Mann and Hatfield (who were pauper house inmates at the Whitechapel workhouse, to which the mortuary belonged). Ede, who did not give his address, is somewhere inbetween an official and a "private" witness, he worked for the railway and saw a man on the rails, that he believed acted strangely. It could be argued that Mulshaw should belong up here too, since he was a guardian at work, but I put him in the lower category instead, since he is also inbetween categories to some extent and since I donīt think he would have had much professional training.

The "private" witnesses were:

Tomkins
William Nichols
Monk
Holland
Green
Purkiss
Walker
Paul
Mulshaw
Cross/Lechmere

They all established where they lived, with the one exception. Guess who?

All the best,
Fisherman

[caz]

It was normal procedure for non specialist witnesses to give their address in open court.
Do you want this expressed in percentage terms?

But did Lechmere know this when he decided to go to the police and give his name as Cross? Surely he must have been prepared for the question (at the cop shop if not the inquest): "So, Mr Charles Allen Cross, where do you live and/or work?"

If so, why would he have given a name that nobody at home or work would have vouched for? And how could he have expected not to be asked for an address when delivering his testimony?

That would have been down to pure luck, or negligence on the part of the authorities. Had he been asked, he could hardly have got away with a "shan't tell and you can't make me".

Don't you think the odds are rather heavily against Jack the Ripper being the only bloody inquest witness during the period who was not required to give his address?

Love,

Caz
X

[GUT]

The big question should be why didn't they ask his address?

After all any witnesses job is to answer questions.