The Lechmere trail - so far

[Bridewell]

Colin, read ALL sources! Thatīs the best advice I have for you.

As the only accounts we have are newspaper reports a judgement then has to be made on which to go with. SPE favoured The Times in The Ultimate and I see no reason to disagree.

[Bridewell]

Duplicate post - sorry.

[Bridewell]

Just continuing on my reference to the timings:- Neil gives his time for finding the body as 3.45am. We don't know how sure he was that he was exact but I conclude that he would have been as accurate as he was able. I'm allowing a margin of error of a couple of minutes either way which, to me, seems reasonable. That means that he found the body between 3.43am and 3.47am, by which time Cross/Lechmere and Paul had been and gone as neither makes reference to having seen the other. This in turn means that Cross/Lechmere & Paul have left the scene not later than 3.46am. Paul's evidence (and I think Christer & I agree about him if about little else) is that no more than 4 minutes had elapsed between their encounter with the body and their report to Mizen. Again, we don't know how accurate Paul's estimate of 4 minutes was but his wording suggests that, if anything, the time was less than 4 minutes. Having left the scene by 3.46am it would follow that the report to Mizen was at or about 3.50am which would pretty much fit with a Cross/ Lechmere arrival time at work of 4am as he claimed. So what conclusion is possible? One of two:-

(1) Mizen is right - Paul thought no more than 4 minutes had elapsed since the encounter with the body when in fact it was nearer half an hour.

(2) Neil, Paul & Cross/Lechmere were right - Neil was pretty much accurate with his timing; Paul was pretty much accurate with his timing; Cross/Lechmere was pretty much accurate with his timing and Mizen met the two men about 25 minutes earlier than he claims to have done.

Either Mizen is lying or both Cross/Lechmere & Paul are lying and Neil was miles out with his time estimate and in such a way as to dovetail neatly with their account.

Fisherman won't agree but I think (2) is a more likely scenario than (1) and that Lechmere is exonerated.

[Fisherman]

The timeline doesn't really make a great deal of sense:

3.45am Neil finds the body
4am Cross/Lechmere arrives at work
4.15am Mizen is approached by two men, one of whom later says, in his own evidence, that they (Cross/Lechmere & Paul) spoke to the officer not more than 4 minutes after they were with the body. That would mean that Mizen joined Neil more than half an hour after the former had found the body, during which time he (Neil) had done nothing at all about sending for help. The only way I can make sense of all this is to assume that someone's timings are out of kilter with the others - and that someone isn't Cross/Lechmere. If he arrived at work at 4am; if Neil didn't find the body before Crossmere/Paul; if Paul was right in saying that no more than 4 minutes had elapsed since they were with the body, Mizen must have lied about the time he was approached by the two men. They spoke to him several minutes before 4am and he continued knocking instead of responding as he should have done. No Mizen scam just wrong priorities from the man himself who lied about the time of his encounter with the two men in order to cover up the fact that he had (as was put to him) continued knocking up instead of responding as he should have done.

Colin, read ALL sources! Thatīs the best advice I have for you.

[Fisherman]

Hi Bridewell,

Surely that's the only logical position you can take, otherwise you would put yourself in the unenviable position of having to weigh evidence according to social status.

Fascinatingly, that is what they did back in 1888 - to an extent.

[Fisherman]

Bridewell: This is what he (Mizen) said, according to The Times:

stated that at a quarter past 4 on Friday morning he was in Hanbury Street, Bakers Row and a man passing said, "You are wanted in Bucks Row". The man named Cross, stated a woman had been found there. In going to the spot he found Constable Neil, and by the direction of the latter he went for the ambulance. When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury Street. Cross simply said he was wanted by a policeman, and did not say anything about a murder having been committed. He denied that before he went to Bucks Row he continued knocking people up.

Mizen did not know his name then, Colin - but the name was known at the inquest and by the papers there.

Some interesting points to note: For Mizen to have denied continuing to knock up there must have been an allegation that he did exactly that.

He did not deny it. He admitted that he had finished an errand he had begun before the carmen arrived.

Cross has not yet been in the witness box and yet Mizen names Cross as being the man who spoke to him.

No, he did not name him. He said that he looked like a carman. The name was something he got later - read the Echo of the 3:rd.

The two men "didn't say anything about a murder having been committed" yet they clearly did say, according to Mizen's own testimony, that it was a colleague who wanted him because "a woman had been found there". What did Mizen imagine was likely to be the case if an officer from another Division needed his help with a woman who had been found?

Perhaps that it was a drunken woman in need of help and a colleague who had no permission to leave his beat.

What about the timings in all this? Mizen says the two men approached him "at a quarter past 4", yet Robert Paul told the inquest that when they met Mizen "not more than 4 minutes had elapsed from the time he saw the body".

But all other sources have it as 3.45. This article is simply in error on this score.

Then we have Crossmere saying that he left home at 3.20am and arrived at work at 4am.

He said he left home at 3.30, and that he was late. He will proably also have said that he normally left at 3.20.

We also have Neil claiming that he had spoken to the slaughterhouse men at "a quarter past 3, or half an hour before he found the body" ergo he found the body at 3,45am.

So he thought.

If all these timings are taken in conjunction and as being at least approximately correct it would mean that Neil found the body at 3.45am and it was then found again by Crossmere (then Paul) sometime between 4am and 4.10am. It would also, of necessity, mean that Cross/Lechmere arrived at work some minutes after he said he did.

Or my scenario is correct. Remember Thain and Llewellyn!

Either Paul is a million miles out with his time estimate

It was no estimate - he said "exactly" 3.45.

or the body was found twice and not in the order we've always assumed.

Eh...?

That, in turn, would mean that Neil had found and left the body before Crossmere and Paul turned up. Why, if he was the killer, would Cross/Lechmere return to find his own victim if, as would have to have been the case, he had already got away scot free. Perhaps it's just me but I'm wondering if Cross/Lechmere found a body which Neil had already discovered.

Yes, Colin. Perhaps that IS just you...

[John G]

Yes, Abby, it has. When I was being interviewed for the magistracy in late 2007 I was asked by the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee what weight I would place on the evidence of a police officer. I replied that a police officer's evidence stands or falls on its own merits like anybody else's. I stand by that to this day.

Hi Bridewell,

Surely that's the only logical position you can take, otherwise you would put yourself in the unenviable position of having to weigh evidence according to social status. I mean, how much weight would you place on the evidence of a peer of the realm, local MP (probably not a lot!), Police and Crime Commissioner, or a vicar? And why should a witnesses evidence be accorded less respect simply because they're deemed to be of a lesser social status? Or they are employed in what is deeemed to be a less respectable occupation, such as journalist perhaps! To my mind, that approach leads towards a very slippery slope indeed.

[Bridewell]

Sorry but I think your profession may have made you cynical.

Yes, Abby, it has. When I was being interviewed for the magistracy in late 2007 I was asked by the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee what weight I would place on the evidence of a police officer. I replied that a police officer's evidence stands or falls on its own merits like anybody else's. I stand by that to this day.

[Fisherman]

Paul is on record as saying 'we told him what we had seen.' To counter this, Fish concocted a group identity theory whereby Paul saw himself as a member of a duo, with Crossmere as the duo's spokesman. According to this, Paul went round the corner while Crossmere was talking to Mizen, leaving time for Crossmere to tell Mizen that he was wanted by a policeman, with no chance of Paul correcting him.

A bit contrived? Just a tad!

If I and Edward think this is a bad point of yours and agreed that you should be informed of that, it may well be that I did the honours since Edward does not post out here.
Afterwards, I would be quite correct to tell you that we had informed you about ur stance - me being in Sweden and Edward residing in Britain.

Thatīs how this extremely contrived matter works.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Apolgies, John. You're right. I got carried away.

Absolute respect!

If more people put their hands up and admitted when they perhaps overstepped the mark, the Casebook would be a far better and respectful place for people to discuss and disagree without rancour.

[Jon Guy]

Apolgies, John. You're right. I got carried away.

Good man, Patrick :-)
Thanks for that

[Bridewell]

Re The Timings

The timeline doesn't really make a great deal of sense:

3.45am Neil finds the body
4am Cross/Lechmere arrives at work
4.15am Mizen is approached by two men, one of whom later says, in his own evidence, that they (Cross/Lechmere & Paul) spoke to the officer not more than 4 minutes after they were with the body. That would mean that Mizen joined Neil more than half an hour after the former had found the body, during which time he (Neil) had done nothing at all about sending for help. The only way I can make sense of all this is to assume that someone's timings are out of kilter with the others - and that someone isn't Cross/Lechmere. If he arrived at work at 4am; if Neil didn't find the body before Crossmere/Paul; if Paul was right in saying that no more than 4 minutes had elapsed since they were with the body, Mizen must have lied about the time he was approached by the two men. They spoke to him several minutes before 4am and he continued knocking instead of responding as he should have done. No Mizen scam just wrong priorities from the man himself who lied about the time of his encounter with the two men in order to cover up the fact that he had (as was put to him) continued knocking up instead of responding as he should have done.

[Robert]

Paul is on record as saying 'we told him what we had seen.' To counter this, Fish concocted a group identity theory whereby Paul saw himself as a member of a duo, with Crossmere as the duo's spokesman. According to this, Paul went round the corner while Crossmere was talking to Mizen, leaving time for Crossmere to tell Mizen that he was wanted by a policeman, with no chance of Paul correcting him.

A bit contrived? Just a tad!

[Patrick S]

Steady on, Patrick :-)
It`s okay (I think) to lay into a theory but we shouldn`t get personal. Christer is a good man and always (up to a point anyway) takes the time to reply to people. He is an excellent researcher, though we may disagree on his conclusions.
I look forward to your dissertation. Will it be in The Ripperologist ?

Apolgies, John. You're right. I got carried away.

[Patrick S]

If there was a "Dislike" button on Casebook i'd press it.

What did Mizen do wrong? Its not like they came up to him screaming bloddy murder. there was uncertainty of her condition. Mizen probably heard that kind of thing 10 times a day.

Was he punished for his actions that night? Reprimanded? did the coroner caution him? Negative.

It could have been a simple misunderstanding, or misremembering (especially since when he arrived at the body the other PC WAS there).

or maybe Lech lied-it dosnt need to be because he was the killer-maybe he just didn't want to be late for work. Maybe lech misspoke accidently.

We have PC giving sworn testimony on record. The whole PC lied to cover his arse excuse is one of the lamest arguments Ive ever seen on Casebook.

Sorry but I think your profession may have made you cynical.

Hi, Abby. I don't disagree with the substance of what you've written here at all. I do not think that Mizen committed an unpardonable sin, and I don't feel that he shold be harshly judged for it. What I do see as something approaching a sin is trying to fit Cross as Jack the Ripper based upon Mizen and Paul's (reported) words and actions in Bakers Row.

I think these items are facts. There can be associated assumptions made but these are facts:

1. After 3:45am on Friday, August 31, Paul and Cross found Mizen in Bakers Row and told him there was a woman lying in Bucks Row.

2. Subsequent to this meeting, Mizen went to Bucks Row and found Neil there with Nichols body. Neil sent Mizen to fetch an ambulance.

3. An Saturday September 1, Neil testified at the inquest that he had found the body in Bucks Row. He does not mention Mizen and his encounter with Paul and Cross.

4. On Sunday, September 2, Robert Paul's statement appears in Lloyd's. He claims to have come upon the body before Neil had and that he then informed a PC that he found in "Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row". He says that policemen continued to 'knock up' and did react in a manner that he (Paul) found appropriate. He gives his occupation as 'carman' and refers to another man who had arrived first. This other man, Cross, is referred to by Paul only as 'a man'.

5. On Monday, September 3, Mizen testifies at the inquest that he met a 'carman' and 'another man' in Bakers Row and they told him a woman was lying in Bucks Row.

6. Also on Monday, September 3, Cross testifies as to his encounter with Mizen in Bakers Row.

Based simply on these facts alone it seems that Mizen likely didn't react with seriousness or timeliness to the information he was given in Bakers Row. It seems obvious as well that he didn't share the information with Neil at the scene, or with any police oficials after the fact. Neil was allowed to testify - unchallenged - that he alone found the body. No mention is made by him of Mizen, Paul, or Cross. Paul gives his interview on Sunday. Mizen appears at the inquest on Monday and explains the meeting in Bakers Row.

Do I think that Mizen did something terribly wrong? Absolutely not. He perhaps made a snap judegement that this was another false alarm. A woman lying drunk, no more. He then simply omitted information that may lead one to conclude that he didn't act he himself probably felt - after the fact - that he should have.

Prior to Nichols there has been Smith and Tabram. Tabram (most recently) had occured almost two months prior. One can understand Mizen's reaction.

One can also assume that for every genuine emergency there were many false-alarms. I think that Mizen's reaction is quite understandable. When he gets to Bucks Row and sees Neil and a dead woman, he clearly decides to keep his mouth shut about Cross and Paul. He keeps his mouth shut at the mortuary. He keeps his mouth shut all day Friday and Saturday, the day of Neil's inquest testimony. He comes forward Monday, after Paul's comments in Lloyd's appear on Sunday.