Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Robert]

Well, he'd been graded as 'good.' So maybe he'd been graded as a good egg.

[GUT]

This could simply be a misunderstanding.

Crossmere and Paul encounter Mizen and tell him that he's wanted in Buck's Row because there's a woman lying there, dead or drunk.

Crossmere is telling Mizen that he needs to go to Buck's Row because there's a woman lying in the street, possibly dead. He isn't telling him that he's wanted by another policeman.

Mizen encounters two Carmen. One of them tells him that he's wanted in Buck's Row. Mizen assumes that he means by another policeman and tells the carmen that he'll go along. When he gets to Buck's Row, he finds what he expects to find and thinks nothing more of it.

Subsequently, in Mizen's memory, Crossmere told him that he was wanted by another policeman in Buck's Row because that was how he interpreted what was said at the time.

Subsequently, Crossmere denied telling Mizen that he was wanted by another policeman, having simply told him that he was 'wanted'.

One eplanation in which nobody need have lied.

I think that something like this probably happened. It makes no sense for Crossmere to have told Mizen that he was wanted by another policeman in Buck's Row when he was accompanied by Paul, who knew as well as he did that it wasn't true.

Sally I've been saying the same thing over and over again, but common sense and real life experience of people mis-remembering due to outside input [e a policeman actually being there] don't seem to count for much in Ripperland.

[Trevor Marriott]

If you make yourself clear, I'll do my best to understand you.

However, I wouldn't have expected the coroner to be shown his police statement in 1888. I may be wrong, of course.

Chris
This argument regarding the taking of statements before an inquest cropped up before with regards to the Eddowes inquest. Setting that inquest aside it was established that the policy of The Met Police was to take statements in advance of the actual inquest. So someone at the inquest would have had all the witness statements in front of them, likely as not the coroner.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4QS0H0

[Robert]

Caroline Maxewell, 14, Dorset-street, said: My husband is a lodging-house deputy. I knew the deceased for about four months. I believe she was an unfortunate. On two occasions I spoke to her.
The Coroner: You must be very careful about your evidence, because it is different to other people's. You say you saw her standing at the corner of the entry to the court ? - Yes, on Friday morning, from eight to half-past eight. I fix the time by my husband's finishing work. When I came out of the lodging-house she was opposite.

[Archaic]

Well it might be what happened, Sally. The Lechmerians counter...

Ah, yes, Question Mark and the Lechmerians...

No wonder poor ? cried 96 tears.

Archaic

[Garry Wroe]

Tell me why we should believe that he wasn't simply trying to avoid press attention in an attempt to shield his family and - possibly - himself. As a general member of the public who was unlucky enough to stumble across a murder victim on his way to work; would you want to be involved if you could avoid it? In an age where it was relatively easy to use an alias, I should think that many would've been tempted to do what Crossmere did - for simple, explicable reasons.

Emma Smith was thought to have been killed by one of the local extortion gangs. Robert Paul alluded to Buck’s Row being dangerous after nightfall. If Lechmere suspected that Nichols was another victim of Emma Smith’s killers and feared retribution on account of his status as an official witness, he had every reason to want to avoid his name being splashed all over the newspapers.

[Rosella]

Surely we are looking at this from having the benefit of lots of hindsight. When Lechmere and Paul saw Polly's body it was in the almost impenetrable gloom of an unlit street. They didn't know what had happened to her. She could have fallen down in a drunken fit and died, or just collapsed and died, for all they knew.

Surely, considering they didn't even notice the wounds on her neck, they wouldn't have jumped to the conclusion that this woman was a murder victim. Both of them took a look at her, then because they were both late for work, they hurried on.

[RockySullivan]

Surely we are looking at this from having the benefit of lots of hindsight. When Lechmere and Paul saw Polly's body it was in the almost impenetrable gloom of an unlit street. They didn't know what had happened to her. She could have fallen down in a drunken fit and died, or just collapsed and died, for all they knew.

Surely, considering they didn't even notice the wounds on her neck, they wouldn't have jumped to the conclusion that this woman was a murder victim. Both of them took a look at her, then because they were both late for work, they hurried on.

How did they miss that her throat was cut twice and the abdominal mutilations. Robert Paul felt to see if she was alive. Her skirt was up and they put it down how didn't they see the cuts? Was it that dark...if so how could the ripper cut with such precision in such darkness? There was zero blood on the body. Could someone have lit a match while he cut?

[Chris]

Chris
This argument regarding the taking of statements before an inquest cropped up before with regards to the Eddowes inquest. Setting that inquest aside it was established that the policy of The Met Police was to take statements in advance of the actual inquest. So someone at the inquest would have had all the witness statements in front of them, likely as not the coroner.

I don't say they wouldn't have taken statements before the inquest. I just doubt whether the statements would have been made available to the coroner.

I'll be happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. I'm just going by the fact that the police guarded statements so jealously later on. Until quite late in the 20th century, they were made available only to the prosecution, not to the defence or - as far as I know - even to the judge.

I think the surviving records of the Eddowes inquest include only the depositions taken in court, and not copies of any statements made to the police.

[Rob Clack]

I don't say they wouldn't have taken statements before the inquest. I just doubt whether the statements would have been made available to the coroner.

I'll be happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. I'm just going by the fact that the police guarded statements so jealously later on. Until quite late in the 20th century, they were made available only to the prosecution, not to the defence or - as far as I know - even to the judge.

I think the surviving records of the Eddowes inquest include only the depositions taken in court, and not copies of any statements made to the police.

Didn't MacDonald have copies of the statements at the Mary Kelly? At least of those who were appearing?

Rob

[Trevor Marriott]

Didn't MacDonald have copies of the statements at the Mary Kelly? At least of those who were appearing?

Rob

The Met took statements from witnesses. The City apparently didnt

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KNRE4NY

[FrankO]

Sally I've been saying the same thing over and over again, but common sense and real life experience of people mis-remembering due to outside input [e a policeman actually being there] don't seem to count for much in Ripperland.

I have an example of how memory works, GUT. A couple of weeks ago a number of friends and I were to go to the theatre on a Saturday night. One of them sent us a whatsapp the night before proposing to meet at his home a couple of minutes to 8 PM. I live less than 5 minutes away from him going by bike. So, the next evening, when I was ready to go at 5 to 8 PM, he called me asking where I was, as he claimed we had made the appointment for 7.45 PM. I said that we made the appointment for just before 8 PM, but he maintained it was 7.45 PM. On arriving at his place, he admitted that he had been wrong. He had meanwhile checked the whatsapp he’d sent us, but he was convinced it had been 7.45 PM because of the fact that one other friends had arrived at that time and because he somehow had put 7.45 PM in his mind after sending the whatsapp.

All the best,
Frank

[Sally]

Surely we are looking at this from having the benefit of lots of hindsight. When Lechmere and Paul saw Polly's body it was in the almost impenetrable gloom of an unlit street. They didn't know what had happened to her. She could have fallen down in a drunken fit and died, or just collapsed and died, for all they knew.

Surely, considering they didn't even notice the wounds on her neck, they wouldn't have jumped to the conclusion that this woman was a murder victim. Both of them took a look at her, then because they were both late for work, they hurried on.

Hi Rosella - I think that's probably about right - they didn't know what had happened. They apparently told Mizen that they thought she was dead or drunk - and sadly, the sight of a drunken woman lying in the street wasn't so uncommon at the time, so it would have been a reasonable guess. Mizen himself may have expected to find a woman incapacitated or dead from drink.

Assuming that neither carman was a murderer, I don't know that it's safe to assume that they knew that Nichols had been murdered - they weren't with the body for long; were in a rush to get to work; and were in poorly lit conditions.

Where the Crossmere theorists have seen conspiracy here, confusion is at least as likely.

[Sally]

Emma Smith was thought to have been killed by one of the local extortion gangs. Robert Paul alluded to Buck’s Row being dangerous after nightfall. If Lechmere suspected that Nichols was another victim of Emma Smith’s killers and feared retribution on account of his status as an official witness, he had every reason to want to avoid his name being splashed all over the newspapers.

Thanks Garry - yes, I've often thought that fear of retrubution makes sense. If I can take a leaf from Team Lechmere's book here and play 'Guess the Personality' from what we do know of him; it seems reasonable to conclude that Crossmere may have been the cautious, careful type.

[MrBarnett]

Mizen's been graded? Like an egg?

In the grading process, policemen are examined for both interior and exterior quality before they’re sorted according to weight (size). Grade quality and weight (size) are not related to one another. Policemens of any quality grade may differ in weight (size). In descending order of quality, grades are designated AA, A and B...

All policeman must be clean to pass grading requirements, but a small amount of staining is permitted in Grade B.

Hmm...

With a little red lion stamped on his forehead ?