Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[eighty-eighter]

This gap has always interested me. It is always shown as open in old maps. Does anyone know if it was gated in 1888?

Access to Essex Wharf buildings maybe? If so I should imagine it would be gated, presuming they were security conscious.

[eighty-eighter]

PC Neil probably missed Cross and Paul by Brown's stable gates by seconds. He turned into Bucks Row from Thomas St (now Fulbourne St) at, he stated, about 3:45 am. Thomas St emerged into Bucks Row at about 50 yards from the Board School on that street. Neil walked down Bucks Row from the opposite direction to Lechmere/Cross and Paul.

Apparently a search was made shortly after the discovery of Polly's body of all wharves, enclosures and East London and District railway reserves. How thoroughly, who knows!

I remember seeing that before it was damaged by fire on a visit to Bucks Row in the 1960's, also Essex Wharf, but can't remember details of the railway sidings, frustratingly!

Hi Rosella,
In which case I wonder if it could have been a possibility that Cross glanced back just as he got out of line of sight with the murder spot and saw pc Neil, or perhaps his light?
I read or heard somewhere that he was trailing Paul as they left Bucks Row so Paul might not have seen the pc. In which case that might explain why Cross said what he did to pc Mizen and would mean he wasn't lying after all, at least not about that bit.
Looks like there was no chance of the killer hiding and returning to the scene of his foul deed anyhow; Definitely consign that possibility to the waste bin! Of course that doesn't preclude that a killer was still about, just that he'd done.

[Rosella]

Hi eighty-eighter. Yes, that could have been the explanation. He may also have heard PC Neil before he saw him, policemen's boots not being exactly silent! I don't believe that Lechmere was the killer, and my guess is that the killer made himself scarce after hearing Lechmere/Cross's boots approaching on the road.

[The Good Michael]

I read or heard somewhere that he was trailing Paul as they left Bucks Row so Paul might not have seen the pc. In which case that might explain why Cross said what he did to pc Mizen and would mean he wasn't lying after all, at least not about that bit.

Cross said that he didn't tell Mizen a policeman wanted him in Buck's Row, so he would be lying if he saw a cop and said that.
Mike

[eighty-eighter]

Cross said that he didn't tell Mizen a policeman wanted him in Buck's Row, so he would be lying if he saw a cop and said that.
Mike

That's at odds with the account by pc Mizen if the programme researchers/makers have got their evidence right, and I have no reason to doubt their version, after all they have probably gone into it in much more detail and for longer than you or I?
I believe it was pc Mizen himself who testified that Cross indeed had said that to him on that night (about there being a pc at the murder scene waiting for him). Yes Cross later denied it apparently. Depends which version you want to believe I guess. If true then Cross seemed to contradict himself for some reason, which could also be deemed odd.

[Robert]

Hi Eighty Eighter

Neil could not have entered Buck's Row until Crossmere had got past Thomas St. So if Crossmere looked back and saw Neil, Neil surely would have heard Crossmere, and even seen him since I dare say he would have looked up and down the street as he turned the corner. Yet he said there was not a soul about.

[Fisherman]

Hi Eighty Eighter

Neil could not have entered Buck's Row until Crossmere had got past Thomas St. So if Crossmere looked back and saw Neil, Neil surely would have heard Crossmere, and even seen him since I dare say he would have looked up and down the street as he turned the corner. Yet he said there was not a soul about.

Yes, I agree that Neil would no doubt have heard Lechmere if he was still in Bucks Row when Neil turned into it.
However, I make the distance from Thomas Street up to Bakers Row around 70 yards +.
And Lechmere did not hear Paul earlier until the latter was half of that distance away from him...?

Strange, is it not? How is it that Neil would surely have heard Lechmere from twice that distance?

All the best,
Fisherman

[David Orsam]

How so?

Hi Abby,

My answer is premised on the following two assumptions (1) Lechmere was the killer and (2) PC Mizen asked him for his name when they spoke.

Lechmere (who would have been concealing a bloody knife) could easily have panicked under such circumstances and given his name as "Cross" to PC Mizen. It could well have been the first "false" name that popped into his head (bearing in mind he once did go by the name of Cross) . After having got to work, cleaned up and cleaned the knife, he relaxed, realised there was no evidence against him and decided he had nothing to fear by coming forward (and, indeed, that it would be in his interests to do so in order to avoid the police hunting for him). However, he could hardly now say that his name was Lechmere, as that would look suspicious, so he continued to give his old family name but a genuine address and his real employer's name.

For me, that would make sense of the otherwise absurd scenario whereby he is supposed to be hiding his identity but giving his actual address. In the above scenario, he is not hiding his identity at all but simply providing information consistent with what he told the constable on the night of the murder.

It is, I think, a much neater explanation than those which have so far been proposed but the trouble with it is that Mizen's evidence suggests that he did not know the names of the two carmen. He certainly never says he asked them their names. It is just about possible that Lechmere and Paul introduced themselves to each other and Lechmere gave him the name Cross, again meaning that he had to stick with it at the inquest. I might add that the whole thing would be more compelling if Lechmere had been discovered by Paul kneeling over the body, as the documentary suggested, but the fact that he was first seen in the middle of the road makes the entire notion of Cross being the murderer far less likely for me.

[Fisherman]

... the fact that he was first seen in the middle of the road makes the entire notion of Cross being the murderer far less likely for me.

Imagine that you are the killer. You are stabbing and cutting into Nicholsībelly when you suddenly hear that somebody has entered the street. Your first reaction is to ask yourself "run or stay?"
Then, realizing that the newcomer could sound the alarm when arriving at the body, you decide not to take the risk to run into the arms of a PC. You choose to stay and to try and bluff the newcomer.

The first thing you need to do is to hide the abdominal wounds. You pull the dress down. Then you conceal your weapon, and you check that the sight of Nichols in the dark deos not give away what has happened.

Then what do you do?

Stay, crouching over the Nichols, making it very clear that you have been in contact with the body?

Or step back, and disenable Paul to draw any such conclusion, instead feigning that you have not even been over the street?

Which is the more natural thing to do? Which gives you the better chance to look innocent?

To me, a good bluff would involve NOT standing too close to the body. Just like you say, the further away, the more likely it will be that we buy the bluff.

I mean - you did!

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Hi Fish

I have no idea of the yardage of the thing. It didn't look very far to me on the map, and given the nature of men's shoes and the stillness of the night, it seemed to me that Neil would definitely have heard Crossmere (and BTW, I think that Paul was with him, so that's two pairs of shoes. Indeed it is vital to your theory that Crossmere and Paul should have reached a policeman together).

I notice you are assuming that Neil only turned into Buck's Row at the precise moment that Crossmere reached the top of the street.

[David Orsam]

That's not so much what troubles me Fisherman. In fact, I agree with you that running away would have been foolish and even walking calmly along the street might have been a risk. It's just that Cross was so certain that Paul had not seen him next to the body that he gave evidence at the inquest that he was stood in the middle of the road and Paul independently gave evidence at the inquest to the same effect. It was a bit lucky for Cross that Paul saw no movement at all. Anyway, I don't entirely disagree with you otherwise I would have said that Cross is not a suspect at all. What I was trying to say was that the whole (fairly weak) case against Cross would have been a lot stronger if he really had been kneeling over the body of Nichols when Paul first saw him.

[Fisherman]

That's not so much what troubles me Fisherman. In fact, I agree with you that running away would have been foolish and even walking calmly along the street might have been a risk. It's just that Cross was so certain that Paul had not seen him next to the body that he gave evidence at the inquest that he was stood in the middle of the road and Paul independently gave evidence at the inquest to the same effect. It was a bit lucky for Cross that Paul saw no movement at all. Anyway, I don't entirely disagree with you otherwise I would have said that Cross is not a suspect at all. What I was trying to say was that the whole (fairly weak) case against Cross would have been a lot stronger if he really had been kneeling over the body of Nichols when Paul first saw him.

It all boils down to how dark it was. If Lechmere stood in the middle of the street without being able to make out Paul for, say, ten twenty seconds, then he could be sure that Paul had not seen him moving either. And he had ample time to interview Paul later on, since he chose to take up company with his colleague.

The case against Lechmere, by the way, is not fairly weak. If it had been, Scobie would not have spoken of a trial and Griffiths would not have said that he is of tremendeous interest!

I myself have been guided by a good number of smallish details when deciding that he is the man we are looking for. Take the lie to Mizen, for example; when I first saw how it could be the perfectly shaped lie to pass by the police, I asked myself: But how did Lechmere dare to lie with Paul by his side?

Then I set out to see whether it is a proven thing that Paul WAS by his side. And lo and behold - it is not.

Then I found how Mizen said that one man - not two men - had spoken to him, whereas Lechmere claimed that both men informed the PC. That was another nail in the coffin.

Then I noticed how Lechmere said that he informed Mizen that the woman could well be dead - whereas a baffled Mizen sdaid that the carman said nothing about any murder or suicide.

Then I saw how all of Mizenīs actions were in line with having been lied to.

How large was the chance that all these elements would be in line if Mizen was NOT lied to? Itīs virtually non-existant.

The evidence is very strong once we weigh these elements in, and that was what Scobie and Griffiths did. I never spoke to Scobie myself, but I know that Andy Griffiths was very much taken with the multitide of pointers, all directing matters down the very same lane.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish

I have no idea of the yardage of the thing. It didn't look very far to me on the map, and given the nature of men's shoes and the stillness of the night, it seemed to me that Neil would definitely have heard Crossmere (and BTW, I think that Paul was with him, so that's two pairs of shoes. Indeed it is vital to your theory that Crossmere and Paul should have reached a policeman together).

I notice you are assuming that Neil only turned into Buck's Row at the precise moment that Crossmere reached the top of the street.

I think that Lechmere would have been well past the corner as Neil turned into the street, and quiote possibly already up at Mizenīs side (if itīs okay that I use the word "side" here...?)

If he had only just turned the corner, Neil would have heard him, thatīs what I think.

... and it IS interesting if PC:s can hear things for twice the distance than carmen can - on still nights.

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Fish, of course you can use the word 'side' here.

Actually, can we not agree that if Neil entered Buck's Row at the precise moment that Crossmere and Paul reached the top of the street, then Neil would have been roughly 35 yards from the pair when they passed Thomas St? This is because Neil would have been going at a steady plod, whereas Crossmere and Paul would have been hurrying along because they were both late. If they were walking roughly twice as fast as Neil, then they would have walked the 70 yards to the top of the street in the same time that Neil walked 35 yards to the junction with Buck's Row. Hence when they passed Thomas St, Neil would have been roughly 35 yards away.

[David Orsam]

I've read what you say Fisherman but I still consider it be a weak case from the account you have provided. I understood Andy Griffiths to have been saying no more than that Cross would be a person of interest to a modern murder inquiry, which I do agree with, while Scobie referred to a "prima facie case" and you and I have discussed this previously. Ultimately though I'm not swayed by opinions offered by commentators for the purposes of televisual entertainment because I like to consider the evidence for myself.

On that, I would just pick up on a couple of factual points:

1. Yes, Cross and Paul might have been separated briefly so that Paul wasn't in ear shot when Cross mentioned the policeman to Mizen but you still can't ignore the fact that Paul said that he "and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman...and told him what they had seen" while Mizen said that when Cross spoke to him "he was accompanied by another man".

2. You say, "I noticed how Lechmere said that he informed Mizen that the woman could well be dead - whereas a baffled Mizen said that the carman said nothing about any murder or suicide.". That's not quite right. Lechmere's evidence was that he told Mizen that the woman could be "dead or drunk". He specifically told the coroner that "he did not think the woman had been murdered". So why would Mizen have been "baffled" at no mention of murder or suicide? Cross never claimed he said either thing! Mizen's evidence was that he was told that a woman was lying in Buck's Row. This is broadly consistent with Lechmere's account that he did not really know what was wrong with the woman. I find it difficult to see any real significance in this point.

If you are seeking for proof of murder in small points they need to be very good ones! I do look forward to reading the book when it comes out though.