Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Sally]

Hi Caz,

Practically zero, Sally, I'd have thought. Nobody ever found the distinctive blotchy man with red whiskers, who was actually seen entering MJK's room with her, did they?

Yes, good point. Blotchy was never identified, in spite of Cox’s fairly detailed account and the fact that he and Kelly had probably been out together in public earlier that night.

Apparently, Paul would suddenly have become the cop's best friend and found his fellow carman with no trouble at all, even if Mizen by any faint chance had not been paying full enough attention to Cross to recognise him again. Maybe Cross had one of those faces nobody could possibly forget - in which case foul murder on the streets was not perhaps what he ought to have been doing with his life.

There’s a photo of him somewhere – either on this or the other recent Crossmere thread – I honestly can’t remember which… they all morph into one after a while! Fisherman, I think, thought it was likely the face of a killer – but I have to say he looks quite unremarkable to me. Then again, to be fair, I’m not sure I subscribe to the curious notion of ‘criminal features’ that I’ve seen bandied around in Crossmere discussions – I don’t think many people do these days.

But I digress…

In context, the idea that either Paul or Mizen would recognise Crossmere again is improbable:Neither of them knew him; neither of them had ever seen him before that morning to the best of our knowledge; neither of them was with him for very long; both of them were focussing on other matters; the lighting conditions were poor; and human memory is notoriously unreliable. Even if, as you say, one or the other of them had picked out Crossmere again, how would they have proved anything? What was there to prove? I don’t think he had anything worry about in terms of detection.

I find that the problem with the Crossmere theory is that it’s built entirely on conjecture – conjecture built upon conjecture, in fact. Fundamentally, it rests upon an underlying assumption that Crossmere was a murderer and therefore a psychopath [where B doesn’t necessarily follow A in any case] for which there is no evidence at all. Every counterargument is addressed – if at all – with a convoluted explanation which has been constructed in order to make the theory ‘fit’ The major ‘pins’ that apparently hold it all together appear to be made out of silver paper.

None of it works unless you accept to begin with that Crossmere was a murdering psychopathic genius. It’s reached the point at which it’s almost possible to predict what Murdering Charlie would have done according to 'Team Lechmere' –

So , we might reasonably ask, for example, how Crossmere could possibly have known when lying to Mizen about a policeman in Bucks Row that there would really be a policeman in Bucks Row? Surely it was a bit of a risk?

But no! Au Contraire – Murdering Charlie had [of course] spent many weeks learning the beats of the policeman throughout the whole of the East End – such was his evil genius – and so knew perfectly well that another policeman would be on the scene by the time Mizen got there.

And possibly - although this is conjecture at this stage pending ongoing research – MC had also observed Mizen – and therefore knew that Mizen would dally before making his way to the murder site.

Finally – and most genius-tastic of all – MC had secretly watched Paul on his way to work and calculated the exact time he would need to stop crouching over the body of his latest victim – because of course, she wasn’t the first – and place himself in the middle of the road so as to look like an innocent carman.

There’s safety in numbers, after all.

The story of Murdering Charlie is so fabulous [literally] that I fear common sense will have a hard time competing.

[eighty-eighter]

I enjoyed the channel 5 documentary on Cross I must say, but then I've enjoyed all the previous ones too because we all lap up anything JtR on telly don't we? Because of my, ahem, maturing age, I've seen a fair few suspects come and go, and I've lost count of the "final solutions"!
However this documentary differed from all the others in one vital aspect; Cross/Lechmere was the first person to find the body of a widely accepted ripper victim and hence there was a physical connection that is indisputable. That's a short sentence but it carries a lot of weight. The other fact that was interesting to say the least was that Nichols had, according to all reports, literally been slain very close to when Cross purported to find her.
Whether I go along with him as a serious suspect or not (and I'm still sitting on the fence right now until I know more), but if that murder had occurred under those circumstances today, then I think its fair to say that Cross aka Lechmere would be whisked down the station and treated to the third degree pretty damned sharpish. Especially if it could have been proved that he lied to the police.
Another thing; Paul attested that he had been very wary of Cross who literally walked straight into his face and even made physical contact with him as he told him of his find. Paul's intuition that this was a figure to be afraid of may be of note. Did Paul's "sixth sense" kick-in at that point for some reason - and if so why?
Certainly if I had found the body I don't believe I would have acted in that way, Cross appeared very brazen in his interactions with both Paul and later pc Mizen.
You could almost visualize a scenario where-by Cross/Lechmere had been slightly surprised by Paul (possibly because he was already "busy" with Nichols), and by the time he'd clocked Paul's approach it was too late to flee. So taking the "fight or flight" theory he confronted the possible witness brazenly to ascertain whether Paul suspected him of anything beyond being the body finder. Who knows but supposing Paul had then said something along the lines of "what were you doing with that body", "was it you" what would have happened next?
I don't think the fact that Cross/Lechmere was a porter and the murder sites were on his way to work time-wise and geographically speaking carries much weight, this must have applied to many other men. I don't think his broken background makes much difference either, again most of Whitechapel came from a broken family background; it was just that type of place.
But the fact that he was proven there, on his own, at around, or shortly after her time of death, in my opinion does. I think the modern day police detective and barrister also said as much. That's the bit that interests me.

[Monty]

I think that a lot of people on here have entirely missed the significance of the report by Inspector Spratling on 31 August 1888.

The fact of the matter is this. Inspector Spratling's written report of 31 August contained an account of the discovery of the body which stated that the body was discovered by PC Neil. Full stop. It did not mention - because Spratling clearly did not know - that a carman had, in fact, discovered the body. Once Inspector Spratling had sent his report to the Assistant Commissioner that was it for the police with regard to events surrounding the discovery of the body. I am confident that any of the police experts on the board will confirm this. In other words, they didn't send such a report to the AC before they thought they had established all the facts and once they had done so they were not going to continue to investigate the facts surrounding the discovery of the body. That was done. Over. Finished. They were on to the murder investigation, speaking to local residents, chasing suspects, hunting the murderer. They were not, repeat not, going to be speaking to either Mizen or Thain about the events surrounding the discovery of the body. That was all sorted. The Assistant Commissioner had been informed. The report had been filed. Finito. Am I making myself clear? Spratling had obviously received a report from PC Neil regarding his account of the discovery of the body at 3:45am and that included all the information the inspector needed to know about the discovery of the body, which Spratling included in his report to the AC. Neil had found it and had then been assisted by Mizen and Thain. That was the full story. There was no more to tell as far as the police was concerned. They were not expecting to be conducting further enquiries so as to write again to the AC saying, "ooops, sorry that special report was all wrong".

Anyone who thinks - as at least one person seems to - that after Spratling sent his report to the Assistant Commissioner on the Friday he thought to himself "Actually, you know, I'd better find out what Mizen has to say about all this", does not understand police procedures. And Mizen himself had nothing to say in any case. Based on what Cross had told him - or what he assumed, if you prefer - PC Neil had found the body and simply asked a couple of members of the public to locate another constable for assistance. So PC Neil's report to his superiors would contain everything that Spratling and the AC (and Abberline) could possibly need to know.

Hopefully that ends this entire discussion.

Spratlings report is a Special Reoprt, the initial report in a murder enquiry. It lays down all the facts as known at that stage of the investigation, and are relayed up the divisional ranks. Special Reports are dispatched immediately to Central Office Scotland Yard for their review and, if required, assistance or advice. Special Reports which contain requests for action had a green docket attached to them, which were removed once the action was complete.

Further Reports are updates, and are either issued as and when, or at least every fortnight. And contain the current status of the investigation, highlighting new information.

All in my book, page 103 ;-)

Monty

[Abby Normal]

I enjoyed the channel 5 documentary on Cross I must say, but then I've enjoyed all the previous ones too because we all lap up anything JtR on telly don't we? Because of my, ahem, maturing age, I've seen a fair few suspects come and go, and I've lost count of the "final solutions"!
However this documentary differed from all the others in one vital aspect; Cross/Lechmere was the first person to find the body of a widely accepted ripper victim and hence there was a physical connection that is indisputable. That's a short sentence but it carries a lot of weight. The other fact that was interesting to say the least was that Nichols had, according to all reports, literally been slain very close to when Cross purported to find her.
Whether I go along with him as a serious suspect or not (and I'm still sitting on the fence right now until I know more), but if that murder had occurred under those circumstances today, then I think its fair to say that Cross aka Lechmere would be whisked down the station and treated to the third degree pretty damned sharpish. Especially if it could have been proved that he lied to the police.
Another thing; Paul attested that he had been very wary of Cross who literally walked straight into his face and even made physical contact with him as he told him of his find. Paul's intuition that this was a figure to be afraid of may be of note. Did Paul's "sixth sense" kick-in at that point for some reason - and if so why?
Certainly if I had found the body I don't believe I would have acted in that way, Cross appeared very brazen in his interactions with both Paul and later pc Mizen.
You could almost visualize a scenario where-by Cross/Lechmere had been slightly surprised by Paul (possibly because he was already "busy" with Nichols), and by the time he'd clocked Paul's approach it was too late to flee. So taking the "fight or flight" theory he confronted the possible witness brazenly to ascertain whether Paul suspected him of anything beyond being the body finder. Who knows but supposing Paul had then said something along the lines of "what were you doing with that body", "was it you" what would have happened next?
I don't think the fact that Cross/Lechmere was a porter and the murder sites were on his way to work time-wise and geographically speaking carries much weight, this must have applied to many other men. I don't think his broken background makes much difference either, again most of Whitechapel came from a broken family background; it was just that type of place.
But the fact that he was proven there, on his own, at around, or shortly after her time of death, in my opinion does. I think the modern day police detective and barrister also said as much. That's the bit that interests me.

hello 88
as does me. that along with the missing time.

[eighty-eighter]

Was Nichols dead or dying?

Hello there Abby,

Yes, something else which interests me re. Cross/Lechmere; if my memory of the documentary is right (haven't got time to watch it again right now, and I apologise if I've got this wrong), but didn't Paul believe Nichols was just barely alive upon getting close to her? Wow, could she have actually been dying at that time? And also strange didn't Cross/Lechmere say something along the lines of "No, she's dead"? He seemed very certain - wonder why? If Paul was right then Nichols must just literally have been murdered. How did the killer get away so quickly?
That is also a bit suspicious in my book.
Taking that further could Cross/Lechmere have refused to help Paul move her because he knew her head would loll over and expose the fact that her neck had being deeply cut? Makes you wonder. Certainly his behaviour at the crime scene I'm beginning to find mighty odd.

[Sally]

Hi Eighty-Eighter,

If you haven't already, have a look at the recent thread which discusses the documentary in full:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8463

Perhaps - just perhaps - all is not so cut and dried as it may appear to you at this stage.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Eighty-Eighter,

If you haven't already, have a look at the recent thread which discusses the documentary in full:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8463

Perhaps - just perhaps - all is not so cut and dried as it may appear to you at this stage.

There are none so blind as they that cannot see !

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

[Robert]

I suppose that's because they're - er - blind.

[Chris]

I suppose that's because they're - er - blind.

Usually quoted as "those who will not see", I think ...

[eighty-eighter]

Hi Eighty-Eighter,

If you haven't already, have a look at the recent thread which discusses the documentary in full:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8463

Perhaps - just perhaps - all is not so cut and dried as it may appear to you at this stage.

Thanks for that Sally, I hadn't reached that forum yet, did you intend the pun "cut and dried" by the way?

[David Orsam]

The problem is that I can't understand why you said "So the police were happily telling the newspapers that Neil was the second person to discover the body (excluding Paul)", if they were in fact telling the newspapers that Neil was the first person to discover the body.

In fairness Chris, you asked me to elaborate on this sentence which I did in a long post (#516) - but now you have come back to asking me about it, despite there now being no need for me to do so due to the elaboration! My suggestion is that you simply ignore it. As far as I am concerned, the sentence makes perfect sense in the context of the post I was replying to but just forget about it.

[David Orsam]

So you are assuming that Mizen was telling the truth? Surely you understand that it has been suggested he wasn't?

Of course I do. But the discussion we have been having over the last few (hundred???) posts started when it was said that an honest Mizen must have had genuine concerns about Cross and thus must have reported them, so that the police would have been all over Cross like a rash. Once I explained why this was wrong the discussion then morphed into you arguing that the police would nevertheless have ascertained "the essential facts" by which you clearly meant the exact words spoken to him by Cross (#413). This must have been on the basis that Mizen was telling the truth otherwise there were no actual facts in existence which the police could have ascertained. In response (#414) I said that if you thought the exact wording was an "essential fact", it was perhaps time to agree to disagree. However, the discussion continued to where we are today which has been in the context of Mizen telling the truth. But if we start with the premise that Mizen was lying, the entire case against Cross, such as it is, falls away entirely - something even Fisherman all but admitted to me on this board. In any case, following my discussion with Monty in the "Leaving one's beat" thread, I am no longer sure that there is even a plausible argument that Mizen lied.

[David Orsam]

I'm afraid it doesn't, David, for as you pointed out, we don't know when on the Friday that report was sent.

You have completely missed the point. It doesn't matter when the report was sent, it was the fact that it was sent at all. That report contained a summary of the facts for the Assistant Commissioner surrounding the discovery of the body as those facts were believed to have been by Inspector Spratling. Namely that Neil found the body and was assisted at the scene by "Smizen" and Thain. He would not have sent such a report if he had not believed that this was the complete story of the body's discovery and if he had not completed all his enquiries in respect of the discovery. To that extent, he was not going to make any further enquiries and, for the reasons I have already explained, he would not have appreciated that he was mistaken over the weekend had it not been for the reports in the Sunday newspapers which set the investigating team off on new enquiries.

And the notion that the police would not have asked the nearby constables whether they'd seen a man heading from Buck's Row, or a man and a woman heading towards Buck's Row, is absurd.

I have already dealt with this point very clearly and you are just repeating an unsupported opinion, using the word "absurd", based on a false premise. Any constable patrolling in Whitechapel who had seen any suspicious men in the vicinity (with or without a woman in tow), or had any material facts about the murder, would have reported this immediately. Abberline didn't summon them all into his office in Scotland Yard for an little chat.

[David Orsam]

This is very confusing. Have you changed your mind, or what?

I have not changed my mind. There is nothing inconsistent about the two quotes of mine that you have reproduced. In the first one, the "confusion" that I was referring to in my post #482 was a response to the "confusion" you mentioned in your post #481 (in response to my #477) which was the confusion created by the Sunday morning newspapers reporting for the first time that two carmen had discovered the body of Nichols. Of course that led to the police having to re-open their investigation of the events surrounding the discovery. They found Cross and Paul and the new police understanding of the events surrounding the discovery of the body was reflected in Abberline's report of 19 Sept.

So I absolutely maintain that "Once Inspector Spratling had sent his report to the Assistant Commissioner that was it for the police with regard to events surrounding the discovery of the body" - obviously unless any new facts emerged, which they did on the Sunday. My point was that they would not have made any further investigations relating to it off their own bat.

[Robert]

I have not missed any point. I know what your point is. I don't agree with it.

BTW, is there any particular reason why you say that "he would not have appreciated that he was mistaken over the weekend had it not been for the reports in the Sunday newspapers which set the investigating team off on new enquiries"?