The Lechmere trail - so far

[Fisherman]

Yes Harry, I can't see how anything else could realistically have been the case. And calling himself Charles Allen Cross, if his employers only knew him as Charles Allen Lechmere, would surely not have gone unnoticed by them, even if everyone else missed it.

Love,

Caz
X

"... calling himself Charles Allen Cross, if his employers only knew him as Charles Allen Lechmere, would surely not have gone unnoticed by them..."

There is not a shred of evidence that he ever used the name Cross. not a iot. Nothing. If I may remind you?

The mere suggestion is completely baseless and amounts to nothing at all but sheer conjecture. A figment of fantasy. Makebelieve.

There are heaps of evidence showing us that he DID use the name Lechmere.

Sandcastles, Caz, are washed out into the sea with the tide.

[Fisherman]

Ah, I'm beginning to see how the Lechmere theory works now. You conjure up a scenario that is not (quite) impossible - for instance the ripper attending an inquest he has no need to, simply because he is a psychopath - and hey presto!

You may as well apply the same principle to almost anyone - human, that is. The polar bear was just silly.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes, because no polar bear was found with the body, a body that was still bleeding from the neck wounds around six minutes after Lechmere had left it. And no polar bear changed his name in combination with the inquest. And no polar bear had a working route that took him past a number of the murder sites.

So no, it was not the polar bear who dunīit.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

As Patrick has pointed out, though, Lechmere wasn't really 'seen' was he? Not in the sense of 'seen, never to be forgotten'. The first time he was seen properly, in good light and for any length of time, was when he went voluntarily to the authorities, claiming to be 'the man' described as 'the man', not by PC Mizen, not by PC Neil, but by Robert Paul, a stranger and fellow carman, who clearly put 'the man' in the role of trying to get help for the woman, and just as clearly put Mizen in the role of a copper who couldn't have cared less.

I can see why Mizen was forced into admitting how he first heard about the woman, and not knowing any names initially he may have assumed the newspaper interview (where Paul put himself in the star role) featured the man he later found was called Cross.

What I can't see is why a guilty Lechmere felt any need at all to come forward as a result of Paul's story, since the bluff had worked so perfectly and nobody knew him from Adam. He had apparently done nothing wrong; nobody was looking for him or suspected him; and PC Neil had claimed first 'discovery' anyway (and everyone knows a copper's word is to be trusted before a cop-hating carman's ). The worst that could happen was Mizen being forced out of the woodwork to explain his continuing to knock up; his failure to take details from either man; and his initial silence when asked if he had seen anyone coming from Buck's Row. This could have led to Mizen describing 'the man' and the police searching for both, but by the time they managed to find Lechmere as well as Paul (if they found Lechmere and he admitted to being 'the man'), there would have been no more evidence against one than the other.

And don't tell me psychopathic killers thrive on all this unnecessary attention, because you claimed to be 'sure' he'd have preferred not to be seen in Buck's Row in the first place, but **** happens, which is presumably a bad thing - unless Lechmere had one more perversion I'd sooner not hear about.

Love,

Caz
X

You are just rehashing old points here, Caz. Plus you are guessing away.

The body was covered, down to over the knees. This implicates that Lechmere had already taken the decision to bluff it out the moment he heard Paul.

Whether Paul saw him good enough to ID him is hard to tell but we know that Mizen did, on the exact same night.

And saying that he could have stayed away predisposes that Lechmere was able to know that not a soul would step forward and say "But that sounds like Charlie Lechmere - HE walks that route to work at that time".
If anybody did, he would be a lot better served by being proactive than by leaving it to the police to conclude why the man who was found alone with the body would not come forward.

Is there nothing new at all you can produce?

[caz]

Cross would certainly have told his employers the reason he needed to be absent from work,and a good employer w ould assist a good employee.

Yes Harry, I can't see how anything else could realistically have been the case. And calling himself Charles Allen Cross, if his employers only knew him as Charles Allen Lechmere, would surely not have gone unnoticed by them, even if everyone else missed it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

If all that is required is that a conjured up scenario is not impossible, we may even be able to bring a polar bear, Paul Cézanne and a bunch of lewd Transsylvanian dwarfs on the stage.

Ah, I'm beginning to see how the Lechmere theory works now. You conjure up a scenario that is not (quite) impossible - for instance the ripper attending an inquest he has no need to, simply because he is a psychopath - and hey presto!

You may as well apply the same principle to almost anyone - human, that is. The polar bear was just silly.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Iīm sure he would have preferred not to be seen in Bucks Row. But **** happens, as you will be aware of.

Hi Fish,

As Patrick has pointed out, though, Lechmere wasn't really 'seen' was he? Not in the sense of 'seen, never to be forgotten'. The first time he was seen properly, in good light and for any length of time, was when he went voluntarily to the authorities, claiming to be 'the man' described as 'the man', not by PC Mizen, not by PC Neil, but by Robert Paul, a stranger and fellow carman, who clearly put 'the man' in the role of trying to get help for the woman, and just as clearly put Mizen in the role of a copper who couldn't have cared less.

I can see why Mizen was forced into admitting how he first heard about the woman, and not knowing any names initially he may have assumed the newspaper interview (where Paul put himself in the star role) featured the man he later found was called Cross.

What I can't see is why a guilty Lechmere felt any need at all to come forward as a result of Paul's story, since the bluff had worked so perfectly and nobody knew him from Adam. He had apparently done nothing wrong; nobody was looking for him or suspected him; and PC Neil had claimed first 'discovery' anyway (and everyone knows a copper's word is to be trusted before a cop-hating carman's ). The worst that could happen was Mizen being forced out of the woodwork to explain his continuing to knock up; his failure to take details from either man; and his initial silence when asked if he had seen anyone coming from Buck's Row. This could have led to Mizen describing 'the man' and the police searching for both, but by the time they managed to find Lechmere as well as Paul (if they found Lechmere and he admitted to being 'the man'), there would have been no more evidence against one than the other.

And don't tell me psychopathic killers thrive on all this unnecessary attention, because you claimed to be 'sure' he'd have preferred not to be seen in Buck's Row in the first place, but **** happens, which is presumably a bad thing - unless Lechmere had one more perversion I'd sooner not hear about.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Re the DVD:
Thanks Christer, I'll see if anyone recorded the Aussie version.

I spoke to David last night. He said he would find out and get back to me.

[drstrange169]

Re the DVD:
Thanks Christer, I'll see if anyone recorded the Aussie version.

[Patrick S]

You know, Christer, I hope that you make it plain to everyone that this "conclusion" of yours hinges entirely on Jonas Mizen. You have tried establish this man as credible resource, tellin us that he retired from the the force years later with a fine record. You tell us, he was a CHRISTIAN, even (!!).

Parallel to this, you discovered that Charles Lechmere had more than 100 dealings with (what you call) "authority". Of course, it took a follow-up questions for us to learn that NONE of those 'authorities" were the police. ZERO! That must have been a troubling find for you. Pretty hard to white-wash, but you get an A for effort. In any event, the man - as best we know - had no criminal record or history, he had incredibly stable employment for the time, opened a business of his own, acheived financial security (if not wealth) was married and had a dozen children, left them a nice inheritance, died at a ripe age in his bed... And you tell us THAT...THAT is all meaningless! He's a textbook psychopath! DONT BE FOOLED.

So, when it helps YOU...believe in a man's lifes work! Believe in good Jonas and his faith in god! And when it helps you....DON'T fall for that BS about a man living a good life! Lechmere was a killer! He killed dozens for people throughout his life. He was several different serial killers all wrapped up in one! Yeah, yeah....while dealing with is compulsion to kill he was a dedicated worker, law abiding citizen, family man, busness man.....but, YOU know better! YOU see through it all! Even after all this time!

[barnflatwyngarde]

This thread has become a Mobius Strip!

[Patrick S]

caz: Hi Fish,

Have you quite forgotten that Cross denied at the inquest that he told Mizen he was wanted by another policeman and this was never questioned? It follows that PC Mizen's claim to the contrary fell on deaf ears at the very least, or was simply not believed.

I think I have forgotten more about the case than you ever learnt about it. to be perfectly honest.

But not this, however! I know quite well that Lechmere denied it - he would have had little other choice, don`t you think?

Why? If one doesn't believe in "Chuck the Ripper" why would one think he had "little other choice"?

Was it questioned further? Well, we donīt know, do we? There may well have been a discussion about it.

As you have said, "LOOK AT THE SIGNS!" The signs are there that it certainly was questioned further. Do you honestly believe that Mizen's superiors just shrugged their collective shoulders and said, "Ah, well! We KNOW that this Cross fellow isn't a killer....after all..he doesn't look or ACT like a killer. So, it stands to reason that our Jonas lied to us about all this 'wanted by another policeman' business....but why would he.......AH, well. Who cares!?....let's move on...what for LUNCH?!??!

But in the end, I donīt think that discussion was instigated with any insight that a killer could be revealed by realizing the true implications.
To my mind, police, jury and coroner all were uninclined to see tht the carman could be the killer, for reasons I have often given.

Because - as you've said - Cross was a psychopath (because YOU know he was Jack the Ripper) thus he fooled them all. These poor fools! As we know...you see the whole police department as fools...boobs with the wool pulled over their eyes by this cunning carman (and torsoman in later years)... ...all except poor, fair, good, wise, holy Jonas! He would NEVER tell a lie (even when it's obvious WHY he would lie (hint: the same reason Thain lied about telling Tomkins and the boys about the body....another hint: they didn't want to get FIRED...).

We can see clearly that Mizens actions were in lince with having been lied to otherwise he would have been able to give Neil away when the latter claimed to have found the victim first.

No. We can clearly see that Mizen's actions are clearly in line with having LIED himself. BUT, you can NEVER admit this because without MIZEN as the last honest cop you're whole absurd house of cards falls apart. As we NOW know we MUST view Paul as a liar (you state that what little we have from him shows he HATED the police!). So, he lies because he hates the cops. And Cross lies because...well...isn't it obvious...HE'S Jack the RIPPER (and the Torso Killer, etc.)! AH! But there is MORE there, as you likely know, Christer. We don't have JUST Paul and Cross, telling us that Mizen lied to cover up his inaction? We have more.......and you know it.

But what was the outcome of the matter as such? Where did it land, if it did not land in suspicion against Lechmere? Reasonably, it landed in a conclusion that Mizen could have misheard or misunderstood the carman. And there is every chance that Mizen was asked about it by his superiors. What he answered, though is not known to us.

Wait. NOW you want to admit that somthing is not KNOWN? NOW you want to stop INVENTING chronologies of events that lead to an invented income? The timing of Mizen's testimony. The questions asked of him and the questions asked of Cross CLEARLY show this WAS an issue. And, we can CLEARLY see WHO was believed. As we know...Cross was NOT investigated, was he?


It could have been a case of Mizen saying "maybe I did misunderstand". Or a case of him saying "No, I am sure that the carman said that", but that his superiors were disinclined - for whatever reason - to buy it.

His superiors likely got the real story from Mizen. They likely realized that this was embarrassing not just for Mizen but for the Metropolitan police! Just as Thain's telling workmen of a body while on an errand to fetch a doctor - especially coupled with Mizen's complete lack of urgency in responding to Buck's Row - would embarrass HIM personally and the police in general. I believe it's pretty clear that this was internal issue and it was handled internally.

There is also the possibility that nobody went any further into the errand - the police did not do their homework very thoroughly in all parts of the case, did they?

AH! So, we - again - must believe that the police as an organization did not 'do their homework very thoroughly in all parts of the case'...but MIZEN!?! Mizen! He WAS thourough! HE told the truth. He went to Buck's Row like a shot! HE was SCAMMED! Good, honest, god-loving Jonas! DUPED! SCAMMED! By a mere carman! This is PRICELESS! We have an organization that you deem not thourough and not doing their homwork...you exempt Mizen - a member of that organization - from the accusation for ONE REASON: Because he MUST be exempt for you sell this baloney!


Mizen's claim doesn't add up, because if he was initially told a policeman already at the scene (PC Neil) had sent for him, he'd have asked himself, on finding out what had happened, why Cross had not appeared to know the woman had been attacked, never mind murdered, nor even that the request for assistance was urgent.

I have seen a hundred proposals from people who think they know what Neil would have said or not. I am not very likely to buy any - or all! - of these proposals, for obvious reasons.

From Mizen's point of view, why would Neil not have made that crystal clear when sending Cross to fetch help? Neil had no trouble ascertaining the woman had had her throat cut, so why wasn't that reflected in the message Mizen supposedly got from Cross?

What WAS reflected is that Mizen was flustered by the lack of this information. That is all you need to know.

DO YOU EVER realize that you have to be inside so many different people's heads to make this absurdity of yours work that it's laughable? You've invented motivation for everyone!

I submit it was because Cross never did claim another PC was in need of Mizen's presence. Mizen said it in case Nichols could have been attacked between Cross asking for his help and him responding.

Mizen followed protocol, Caz. He was not to blame for anything at all. It is a myth that this would have been so. You speak about the "gullible" Mizen, but what would constable Caz have done if two men appeared and said "A colleague of yours sent us, he said he needed some help with a woman lying in the street a block away"?

Come on now, Caz! Admit it! You'd have just continued knocking on doors, wouldn't you? You'd have said, "Alright', and walked on. You'd have not told the men that you were concerned in the least. You would not have aksed their names. You would not have asked for any clarfication. You'd have not said if you were going to GO to Buck's Row or not. You'd have just...continued getting people up for work...a job obviously more important to the public welfare than "a woman lying in Buck's Row".

Would you immediately have realized that you could be bluffed? By two men who seemingly helped instead of getting the hell out of there?

This is a bluff you invented by YOU.....but...let's play this out....by TWO men? So now PAUL is doing the bluffing, too? This is new. Hold on. Recently you've had to add the "Paul the Liar" element to make this all add up. So, are you now adding a "Paul the ACCOMPLICE" element? I need to know this so I can prepare myself for your next "internationally sent documentary".

If you answer yes, then you are a truly great intuitive detective - or a pathetic liar.

Pretty harsh talk for a guy who gets his feelings hurt so easily. =

[/B]

'Round and 'round we go.

[Fisherman]

caz: Hi Fish,

Have you quite forgotten that Cross denied at the inquest that he told Mizen he was wanted by another policeman and this was never questioned? It follows that PC Mizen's claim to the contrary fell on deaf ears at the very least, or was simply not believed.

I think I have forgotten more about the case than you ever learnt about it. to be perfectly honest.
But not this, however! I know quite well that Lechmere denied it - he would have had little other choice, don`t you think?
Was it questioned further? Well, we donīt know, do we? There may well have been a discussion about it.
But in the end, I donīt think that discussion was instigated with any insight that a killer could be revealed by realizing the true implications.
To my mind, police, jury and coroner all were uninclined to see tht the carman could be the killer, for reasons I have often given.

We can see clearly that Mizens actions were in lince with having been lied to otherwise he would have been able to give Neil away when the latter claimed to have found the victim first.

But what was the outcome of the matter as such? Where did it land, if it did not land in suspicion against Lechmere? Reasonably, it landed in a conclusion that Mizen could have misheard or misunderstood the carman. And there is every chance that Mizen was asked about it by his superiors. What he answered, though is not known to us.
It could have been a case of Mizen saying "maybe I did misunderstand". Or a case of him saying "No, I am sure that the carman said that", but that his superiors were disinclined - for whatever reason - to buy it.
There is also the possibility that nobody went any further into the errand - the police did not do their homework very thoroughly in all parts of the case, did they?

Mizen's claim doesn't add up, because if he was initially told a policeman already at the scene (PC Neil) had sent for him, he'd have asked himself, on finding out what had happened, why Cross had not appeared to know the woman had been attacked, never mind murdered, nor even that the request for assistance was urgent.

I have seen a hundred proposals from people who think they know what Neil would have said or not. I am not very likely to buy any - or all! - of these proposals, for obvious reasons.

From Mizen's point of view, why would Neil not have made that crystal clear when sending Cross to fetch help? Neil had no trouble ascertaining the woman had had her throat cut, so why wasn't that reflected in the message Mizen supposedly got from Cross?

What WAS reflected is that Mizen was flustered by the lack of this information. That is all you need to know.

I submit it was because Cross never did claim another PC was in need of Mizen's presence. Mizen said it in case Nichols could have been attacked between Cross asking for his help and him responding.

Mizen followed protocol, Caz. He was not to blame for anything at all. It is a myth that this would have been so. You speak about the "gullible" Mizen, but what would constable Caz have done if two men appeared and said "A colleague of yours sent us, he said he needed some help with a woman lying in the street a block away"?

Would you immediately have realized that you could be bluffed? By two men who seemingly helped instead of getting the hell out of there?

If you answer yes, then you are a truly great intuitive detective - or a pathetic liar.

[caz]

I think most people would favour the testimony of a policeman over that of a person picked at random from the street. Somehow, we all want to believe that the world is explainable and possible to "read".

Funnily, in the case we are discussing, we know that we are choosing between a man who gave the wrong name to the police and a serving PC with an eminent record.

And still, the man who presented himself by an alternative name to the police is the person we give the benefit of a doubt whereas we convict the PC of whom we have no evidence of any flaws at all. And even a contemporary colleague to that PC chimes in and starts speaking about how policemen are used to covering eachs others backs.

Hi Fish,

Have you quite forgotten that Cross denied at the inquest that he told Mizen he was wanted by another policeman and this was never questioned? It follows that PC Mizen's claim to the contrary fell on deaf ears at the very least, or was simply not believed.

Mizen's claim doesn't add up, because if he was initially told a policeman already at the scene (PC Neil) had sent for him, he'd have asked himself, on finding out what had happened, why Cross had not appeared to know the woman had been attacked, never mind murdered, nor even that the request for assistance was urgent. From Mizen's point of view, why would Neil not have made that crystal clear when sending Cross to fetch help? Neil had no trouble ascertaining the woman had had her throat cut, so why wasn't that reflected in the message Mizen supposedly got from Cross?

I submit it was because Cross never did claim another PC was in need of Mizen's presence. Mizen said it in case Nichols could have been attacked between Cross asking for his help and him responding.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Since it has been up before, Dust, letīs return to the Swanson and Swanson/Abberline reports. You seem to think that Swanson wrote 3.45 in error in the 19th of October report. But this time is factually given twice in the report, so it seems that there was no error.
Swanson says that Nichols was last seen by Emily Holland at 2.30, and an hour and a quarter after that, she was found dead,

And hour and a quarter. 3.45.

[Fisherman]

>>Thank you Drstrange, you have demolished all the points put by Fisherman.<<

Hello Harry, Christer is a smart man, no doubt about it, but he gets so fixated with his theory that he loses sight of what is obvious to everyone else.


>> courts usually expect a person appearing there, to be presentable. There is nothing printed in the papers of that time, that Cross, although in working clothes, was not presentable. I'm sure Baxter would have passed some remark, had it been otherwise.<<

The key thing to remember here is that these were real people. Going to an inquest for someone like Xmere, meant a loss of money. If he regularly started work at 4 a.m. Xmere could put in 5 hours before the inquest started. The inquest paid a shilling a day, that combined with whatever work he could squeeze in beforehand would have covered his costs, perhaps even made a slight profit.



There would be nothing odd about Xmere turning up in his apron given the circumstances.

So why would the paper remark on it? You seem to forget this point.