The Lechmere trail - so far

[Michael W Richards]

Hey Fisherman,

You know I am fond of you, Ive made that clear over our years here, but....the bottom line on this issue is that odd coincidences and inconsistent witnesses do not make a murder case against anyone. You really should stop trying to insist there is one anyway.

Cheers amigo

[Patrick S]

Patrick, your posts speak for themselves, I will say that much for you. I hope as many as possible read them.

That's it? No dissection of every sentence and insulting jabs? I guess when you've been completely eviscerated (how appropriate in the case), you aren't quite so verbose. I guess even you aren't ready to defend the Paul Lied Too aspect of your conclusion. If you hold true to form, you'll spring that on us all at a later date and act as if it's been part of your conclusion all along. So, now you play the wounded indignant victim. Those who have paid attention won't buy it.

Your conclusion hasn't stood up. When you serve every response with a side order of smarm, you should be able to take it when things get rough. You seem to struggle with that. You presented two aspects of this case that remain interesting. The name issue, in light of this poor 'evidence' that you've presented is likely this: He told the police his name was Cross for some reason other than him being Jack the Ripper. His route through work and his mothers house....likely simple, as well. He lived and worked in and around the area where the murders occurred. And he found a body. Someone had to. Thus, we are left with what I suspected. You took the fact that he gave the name Cross and built this house of cards around it, and called it case closed. The Mizen scam has fallen apart. Your blood evidence doesn't exist. And now we must call Paul liar to believe any of it.

[Fisherman]

Patrick, your posts speak for themselves, I will say that much for you. I hope as many as possible read them.

[Patrick S]

If you want to be a pessimist, feel free. But you need to respect that people will not necessarily agree with you.

if thre were no contradictions at all, and everything was easy to decipher, the onehundred year delay in placing the case at Lechmeres doorstep would never have happened.

Tif we are to solve the case by looking at the evidence, then we must realize that the keys to the solution will be very small, very well hidden and very easily overlooked. Otherwise the wealth of people trying to solve it over the many years that have passed would have delivered the solution double quick.

We differ here, Patrick. You think that the confusion resting within the material means that we may just as well drop the case and go home.

I thik that it is the other way around: the caleidoscopic and confusing material means that the ossibility is always there that things have been overlooked.

This held true for the Mizen scam, and it held true for the blood evidence. Nobody saw the potential in that material until now, and that is something that should give us hope.

You have taken it upon yourself to claim that the Echo article about the blood is the one that has got it wrong.

Letīs compare it to one of the sources that have the sequence the other way around:

Here is the Morning Advertiser:

"I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman."

And here is the Echo:

"Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman. Witness asked him what was the matter, and Cross replied, "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there." Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance.
The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter."

The medical implications are clear: There is only one occasion when the blood can have been "somewhat congealed" and still flowing - when Mizen arrived at Browns a few minutes after Lechmere left. Therefore the Echo is much more likely to be correct.
Semantically, we can also see what happened - Mizen started to speak about the ambulance and his return with it, before the coroner was satisfied that he had been told all about the first visit to Browns. So the coroner asks if there was anybody else than Neil at the site when Mizen FIRST came there, and Mizen replies that there was not - and then he adds that blood was running from the neck towards the gutter.

But the Echo is in minority - a number of papers support the Morning Advertiser version, seemingly implicating that Mizen spoke of the second time he came to Browns, half an hour after Lechmere left.

This is where I mean that the truth has been hidden and Lechmere safeguarded by the wordings in the different papers. It is not until he is properly researched that it shows that there IS evidence pointing to Mizen having commented on the blood as it looked a few minutes after Lechmere left.

There are other straws in the wind. This is how it is worded in the Daily Telegraph:
"Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body."

Once again, we can see the order in which the message was delivered - FIRST Mizen speaks of the ambuance, and THEN he adds that Neil was alone when Mizen first got there. So we have corroboration for that part!

In the end, it is always going to be a question of whether we use our time to fit the material together or whether we spend it telling everybody that it canīt be fit together.

I have to say. I just read this a second time. Your argument is collapsing and this is pathetic. I suggest you take a break, regroup, and come back with some new material. May I suggest "Paul the Ripper: Carman Hated the Cops, Ripped Women to Mock Them!"

[Patrick S]

If you want to be a pessimist, feel free. But you need to respect that people will not necessarily agree with you.

if thre were no contradictions at all, and everything was easy to decipher, the onehundred year delay in placing the case at Lechmeres doorstep would never have happened.

Tif we are to solve the case by looking at the evidence, then we must realize that the keys to the solution will be very small, very well hidden and very easily overlooked. Otherwise the wealth of people trying to solve it over the many years that have passed would have delivered the solution double quick.

We differ here, Patrick. You think that the confusion resting within the material means that we may just as well drop the case and go home.

I thik that it is the other way around: the caleidoscopic and confusing material means that the ossibility is always there that things have been overlooked.

This held true for the Mizen scam, and it held true for the blood evidence. Nobody saw the potential in that material until now, and that is something that should give us hope.

You have taken it upon yourself to claim that the Echo article about the blood is the one that has got it wrong.

Letīs compare it to one of the sources that have the sequence the other way around:

Here is the Morning Advertiser:

"I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman."

And here is the Echo:

"Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman. Witness asked him what was the matter, and Cross replied, "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there." Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance.
The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter."

The medical implications are clear: There is only one occasion when the blood can have been "somewhat congealed" and still flowing - when Mizen arrived at Browns a few minutes after Lechmere left. Therefore the Echo is much more likely to be correct.
Semantically, we can also see what happened - Mizen started to speak about the ambulance and his return with it, before the coroner was satisfied that he had been told all about the first visit to Browns. So the coroner asks if there was anybody else than Neil at the site when Mizen FIRST came there, and Mizen replies that there was not - and then he adds that blood was running from the neck towards the gutter.

But the Echo is in minority - a number of papers support the Morning Advertiser version, seemingly implicating that Mizen spoke of the second time he came to Browns, half an hour after Lechmere left.

This is where I mean that the truth has been hidden and Lechmere safeguarded by the wordings in the different papers. It is not until he is properly researched that it shows that there IS evidence pointing to Mizen having commented on the blood as it looked a few minutes after Lechmere left.

There are other straws in the wind. This is how it is worded in the Daily Telegraph:
"Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body."

Once again, we can see the order in which the message was delivered - FIRST Mizen speaks of the ambuance, and THEN he adds that Neil was alone when Mizen first got there. So we have corroboration for that part!

In the end, it is always going to be a question of whether we use our time to fit the material together or whether we spend it telling everybody that it canīt be fit together.

You responsed a few days ago that there really is no reasonable questions as to Lechmere's guilt. And this is the proof? We are asked to trust Mizen in all things. Assume he reacted promptly and properly. Let's ignore the fact that Paul said he approached and spoke to Mizen. Lechmere said he approched and spoke with Mizen. Yet, Mizen says he spoke with one man and it was Cross. Mizen was a cop. He was a Christian. We'll believe him. Paul said he told that Mizen that Nichols was likely dead. Cross says that Nichols was likely dead. Mizen says otherwise. Again, we go with Mizen. We'll ingore the fact that a WHOLE LOT happened in Buck's Row from the time Paul and Cross left and found Mizen (two mintues by your estimation) and the time Mizen made it back to Buck's Row (using your estimatin about four minutes, perhaps less - we can't use your timeframes when it helps and ingore them when they don't, can we, Christer?). In those four mintues we have One cop finding the body, discovering the injuries, summoning anther cop, dispatching him to fetch a doctor, and folks from the neighborhood gathing 'round to have a look. Like I say, ignore that. Look over here: CROSS IS A LIAR! MIZEN SCAM! Cross is Jack the Ripper...and now...and this is new......PAUL IS A LIAR!

God. This is priceless.

[Fisherman]

Hey, thanks for the words about the dog. Never thought it would be so tough, actually. 13 year old pug. Sad day.

As far as contratictions go.... That's kind of my point, as well. I don't put much stock in what was said, printed in the papers, etc. There are so many contradictions throughout the case that it's hard to put enough stock in testimony, interview, observations, etc. draw a conclusion about much of anything, much less name a killer.

If you want to be a pessimist, feel free. But you need to respect that people will not necessarily agree with you.

if thre were no contradictions at all, and everything was easy to decipher, the onehundred year delay in placing the case at Lechmeres doorstep would never have happened.

Tif we are to solve the case by looking at the evidence, then we must realize that the keys to the solution will be very small, very well hidden and very easily overlooked. Otherwise the wealth of people trying to solve it over the many years that have passed would have delivered the solution double quick.

We differ here, Patrick. You think that the confusion resting within the material means that we may just as well drop the case and go home.

I thik that it is the other way around: the caleidoscopic and confusing material means that the ossibility is always there that things have been overlooked.

This held true for the Mizen scam, and it held true for the blood evidence. Nobody saw the potential in that material until now, and that is something that should give us hope.

You have taken it upon yourself to claim that the Echo article about the blood is the one that has got it wrong.

Letīs compare it to one of the sources that have the sequence the other way around:

Here is the Morning Advertiser:

"I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman."

And here is the Echo:

"Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman. Witness asked him what was the matter, and Cross replied, "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there." Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance.
The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter."

The medical implications are clear: There is only one occasion when the blood can have been "somewhat congealed" and still flowing - when Mizen arrived at Browns a few minutes after Lechmere left. Therefore the Echo is much more likely to be correct.
Semantically, we can also see what happened - Mizen started to speak about the ambulance and his return with it, before the coroner was satisfied that he had been told all about the first visit to Browns. So the coroner asks if there was anybody else than Neil at the site when Mizen FIRST came there, and Mizen replies that there was not - and then he adds that blood was running from the neck towards the gutter.

But the Echo is in minority - a number of papers support the Morning Advertiser version, seemingly implicating that Mizen spoke of the second time he came to Browns, half an hour after Lechmere left.

This is where I mean that the truth has been hidden and Lechmere safeguarded by the wordings in the different papers. It is not until he is properly researched that it shows that there IS evidence pointing to Mizen having commented on the blood as it looked a few minutes after Lechmere left.

There are other straws in the wind. This is how it is worded in the Daily Telegraph:
"Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body."

Once again, we can see the order in which the message was delivered - FIRST Mizen speaks of the ambuance, and THEN he adds that Neil was alone when Mizen first got there. So we have corroboration for that part!

In the end, it is always going to be a question of whether we use our time to fit the material together or whether we spend it telling everybody that it canīt be fit together.

[Patrick S]

Yes, he does. "The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down. Before he did so he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint."

Not very likely to have come from a long dead, stone cold Nichols...!

What he said about Nichols body temperature is straw man argument. It's irrelevent. It's a seperate point. Fisherman entertains it here to take out eyes off the ball. Paul insinuates that cops had not been on the beat, thus they hadn't seen the body. Let's say Llewellyn is right about time of death. I'm going to assume that Paul had very little expertise when it comes to things of this nature. After all, a LIVING human being can have quite cold hands and feet. The point is this: Paul's statment makes it clear that HE TOLD MIZEN THAT HE THOUGHT NICHOLS WAS DEAD. This jibes with what Cross said at the inquest. Thus, we have two man saying Mizen knew that Nichols was likely dead and not just drunk. We have two men (Cross is silent on the point) saying that Mizen continued knocking up where he was after he got this information (Mizen himself, and Paul). I think Paul assumed that Mizen continued knocking up. He clearly did not see Mizen make his way to Buck's Row. Ah! But, we trust Mizen completely. He wasn't simply covering for a poor decision. It's clear from everyone's testimony that he didn't run to the scene. He said, "Okay." No one says he ran off and to offer assistance to the cop who supposedly summoned him ala the Mizen Scam!

No we indict poor Robert Paul. A police hating liar with an axe to grind. We have two liars: Paul and Cross. One Jack the Ripper: Cross. One unwitting dupe: Paul. And one sainted dedicated unimpeachable cop: Mizen. Thus we have...the Mizen Scam!

To quote George C. Scott as George S. Patton, "I love it! God help me, I do love it so!"

[Patrick S]

Patrick S: Pure foolishness.

Thatīs not a very good start, Patrick.

Address the Paul statement please as it relates this statement by you:

Lie number one: Charles Lechmere said at the inquest that he thought that the woman was dead. It is reasonable to suggest that he was under an obligation to tell PC Mizen that the errand was in all probability a very grave one.

But no matter which source we look at, it is clear that Mizen only professes to have been told that a woman was lying flat on her back in Bucks Row. Mizen specifically says that the carman never said anything about any murder or suicide.

To refresh your memory, Paul said this the following. Thus, Mizen WAS told that Nichols was likely dead.

"It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head. "

Iīm sorry, Patrick, but there are a number of flaws in this reasoning. Let me point them out to you:

This account of what happened is very obviously not correct. For instance, Lechmere is left out of the account altogether after Browns Stable yard. Paul claims that he left Lechmere by the body, and set out to find a PC himself.

We know that Paul said something totally different at the inquest: "The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman. "

We may therefore conclude that at least one of these accounts must be flawed and untrue. Can we conclude which of them is the better candidate? Yes, we can, since both Lechmere professes to have walked with Paul to Bakers Row (and beyond), just as we know that Mizen said that much as he was contaced by one carman only, they were both there together. So the inquest version is corroborated, and we may leave the paper interview aside.
It cannot be used to substantiate that Paul did speak of a dead woman to Mizen.

As an (interesting and relevant) aside, it of course also applies that it is nowhere even said in the interview that Paul claimed to have told Mizen that he did think that the woman was dead. He only says, and I quote: "I told him what I had seen". No further elaboration is made. "Thereīs a woman lying in Bucks Row" could well be that story, as you may appreciate.

Not that it matters, once we have concluded that the paper interview must stand back to the inquest material anyway.

Ah! So, in order to have the Mizen Scam we must have Paul Scam? And we must take every thing that Mizen says as gospel, because, after all, he was a Christian. And in order to reach your desired conclusion we must pick and choose what we believe. We must interpret Cross' actions as that of psychopath. You yourself have stated that you view Cross actions while assuming his guilt. I think you lost me last year when you said, "Try viewing Lechmere's actions with an eye on him being guilty....." Everyone else seems to understand the folly in that. Still....we'll continue...even though this is a rout.

Add to this the fact that you have Lechmere acting as if he wants to be arrested. He goes to Paul. He invites Paul to view the victim. He doesn't touch Nichols becuase you say he knows that in doing so he'll expose her horrible injuries. Ah! Lechmere's magical crystal ball again. Lechmere didn't know what Paul would do. He could have tried to prop her up without Lechmere's help. He could have shaken her and said, "Madam? Are you okay?" Hell, he could have said, "THAT'S MY WIFE!" He could very well have produced a match and lit it above her body, exposing the blood. Ah! But Lechmere knew he would not do any of things! Becuase he was a psychopath AND...he had that crystal ball. The same one you have except, well, you are operating 127 years later......

So he survives his time alone with Paul and Nichols body in Buck's Row. Still free to continue his kill crazy rampage, as he eventually does right up until his dying day, as you say. What does he do? Does he say, "I'll go off this way and look for a cop, you go that way? Nice to have run into you, stranger."? I mean, Paul handn't seen him that well. Had not met him previously. It was dark. They had not introduced themselves or shared personal details. Addresses. Places of employment. Off into the night he could have gone. AH! Nope. Lechmere consults that crystal ball and sees.......it's safe to contiue with Paul and find a cop. And they do! They find Mizen. Mizen, that paragon of virture. That last honest cop. That man of GOD! And just as the crystal ball predicted......he's not seached. He just killed a woman and went looking for a cop with stranger he could have easily avoided meeting....... Extra bonus (thanks to the crystal ball).... He's not asked to return to return to site with Mizen! And why not? Because of the Mizen Scam! That brilliant ploy conceived of by a man who, seconds before courted danger, flaunted his crime, damn the torpedoes! He wanted to flaunt his murder even as it threatened his freedom and his ability to kill again. That compulsion that drove him above all others. That is...right up until the Mizen Scam. Right up until he changed his mind at JUST the right time.....and......VIOLA!.....MIZEN SCAM TO THE RESUCE...in he nick of time....and Lechmere goes off alone....free to continue his grizzly work until he dies in his bed, surrounded by loved ones, at a ripe age, in 1920. I mean, sure he could have gone off alone when he heard Paul. He could have never met Paul. Never even taken the chance that he'd be recongnized. Never could have given a name, fake or otherwise. Oh, I forgot. He had that crystal ball.

Sorry, Fisherman. I can be every bit as rude, ascerbic, and concenscending as you. This thing is laughable. It's downright silly. And, again, I'm embarrassed for you. Since, NOW, and this is a new one to me.....PAUL is a liar too! This was an element I was not prepared for. It just adds to the fun, though.

Bear in mind, I didn't want to do this. You asked me for to. You begged me. You wouldn't take no for an answer. I said, "I want to be positive." And now, look at what's happened. You're humiliated. You've been reduced to this...... I feel like I've just heavyweight fighter who has just knocked out a featherweight in the first round. Sure its victory. And, yeah, the payday is nice. But it was too easy. Its almost a hollow victory. Almost.

Keep up the good work, pal.

Great stuff.

[Patrick S]

Hi Patrick
all good and valid points. Especially about the Mizen scam being a simple misunderstanding-which I also believe was probably the case.

One thing-dosnt Paul contradict himself though between what he told the papers and at the inquest re how long Nichols was lying there, how cold she was etc.?

sorry to hear about your dog. seriously. recently been through it. My sympathies.

Hey, thanks for the words about the dog. Never thought it would be so tough, actually. 13 year old pug. Sad day.

As far as contratictions go.... That's kind of my point, as well. I don't put much stock in what was said, printed in the papers, etc. There are so many contradictions throughout the case that it's hard to put enough stock in testimony, interview, observations, etc. draw a conclusion about much of anything, much less name a killer.

[curious4]

curious4: "Carman" is a strange term to American ears, but what I've found out is that they were what we'd call "teamsters"-- and they have quite a rollicking history here, too. Thank you for the interesting bits you posted about the life of a carman, very helpful.

Hello Pcdunn

You're welcome. Always good to have a bit of background information :-).

Best wishes
C4

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish
In that news interview it seems that paul is saying that she must have been there along time before they discovered her body.

But dosnt he say things at the inquest that contradict this and indicate that he thought she must have been killed recently?

Yes, he does. "The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down. Before he did so he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint."

Not very likely to have come from a long dead, stone cold Nichols...!

[Pcdunn]

curious4: "Carman" is a strange term to American ears, but what I've found out is that they were what we'd call "teamsters"-- and they have quite a rollicking history here, too. Thank you for the interesting bits you posted about the life of a carman, very helpful.

[curious4]

https://www.victorianlondon.org/publications/lifeandcharacter-9.htm

Found this as well - makes carmen sound rather jolly :-)

SWARTH, hard-handed Labour has more votaries in London than any other city in the whole wide- rounded compass of the world; great, grave, weighty men, with that old solid Saxon cast of countenance which gives such an earnest and serious appearance to all their actions, and who are no more capable of capering, shouting, and dancing round trees of Liberty, like our volatile neighbours, than elephants. Even drinking and smoking, with such men as these, is one of the sober businesses of life - rest after labour; and they look upon it to be as necessary as either eating or sleeping. A glance at their bulk, bone, and sinew, tells you that those limbs were "pastured in England." The loads some of these men carry would break an ordinary back - they might have served their apprenticeship with Atlas, and began business by first bearing heavy worlds upon their shoulders.
First amongst these stands the Carman - the Mercury of our merchants; he brings the "gifts the gods provide us" to our very doors. To his keeping ships consign their cargoes, at his bidding the heavy railway trucks are emptied, and he bears into our streets luxuries for which the ocean has been ploughed, treasures for which the mine has been searched through its deep darkness, and comforts for which hill and valley, with [-66-] all their waving corn, hanging fruit, and lowing flocks and herds, have been plundered. No marvel that with such a trust he walks erect, carries his whip somewhat jauntily, and looks with a proud eye at his horses - subjects who obey his very nod, and, unlike the human wicked world, never entertain a thought of dethroning him. Look at his boots - heavy although they are, they are neatly laced, and fit him like gloves; he prides himself on his r6unded and well-shaped leg; and there is a kind of natural dignity in his measured march, as he paces stride for stride beside his beautiful and high-fed horses. He seems to have been distinguished for his musical taste before the time of Shakspere, for the poet tells us that Shallow, when of Clement's Inn, sung such tunes as "the carmen whistled." In this he has not degenerated, and you may often catch a stray note while following him, though the tune, like his own pace, is solemn and slow. He is a good husband and an indulgent father, and when the weather is fine and his load light, and his journey extends to some distant suburb, you will often see his wife and children, who waited at some appointed place, accompanying him. Sometimes he lets his little son carry the long whip. and walk beside him for a short space, and his heart dilates as he pictures, in that chubby specimen of small humanity, a future Carman like himself. He seldom uses his whip, unless to crack it, for he has a brief, gruff, peculiar method of saying "Now, then," which never fails to quicken the pace of his horses when he sees them lagging. Even when his work is up-hill, and with a heavy load, he trusts more to a few encouraging words and friendly pats, at every necessary halt, than he does to the lash, for between him and his horses [-67-] there is somehow a silent understanding. If there is one thing more than another about which he makes a little extra display, it is his delivery-book, which fastens with a brass clasp, and is carried in a pocket, made purposely, within the left-hand side of his jacket. This book he is rather fond of pulling out, and apparently cogitating over its contents, although all the entries he has to look after are the signatures of the receivers. The marks and figures are strange puzzles to him at times, and convey no more notion of what he has delivered, than an hieroglyphic whose meaning is buried in the bye-gone nights of Egyptian darkness. He also takes great pride in furbishing the ornaments of his harness, and is as particular about not tarnishing the lustre of the respectable "House" to which he belongs, as the confidential clerk who presides over the office. He rarely calls his employers masters, but speaks of them as "Our Firm."
A thorough London Carman is very "knowing" in localities; and if a toll can be avoided, and he is not pressed for time, he is as sure to "do the pike" as a cabman who has bargained to carry his fare home and clear the gates. He is invariably attended by a dog, which might have been trained by Ducrow, for it is capable of riding upon anything, from a cask to the end of a sugar-cane, and all it seems to delight in is balancing itself on all kinds of imaginable things, and barking at every object that passes; for which purpose it is eternally running from one end of the vehicle to the other, like some poor fellow who is endeavouring to take up a dishonoured bill by getting his own acceptance discounted - with this difference, that the dog does all the barking and growling, while the other [-68-] finds it thrown in gratis. The Carman is fondly attached to his dog, and rarely takes a meal without allowing him to share in it. He is very kind to any poor brother of the whip whom he sees tugging up-hill in vain, with a weighty load and an ill-fed team; it needs but little persuasion to induce him to unyoke one or two of his own powerful horses and rush in to the rescue. We have seen many of these little kindnesses done in the hilly streets of the City; and we have drawn strange conclusions from them. In a few words, my rich and aristocratical masters! we have thought that if a few of you acted to your fellow-men as the Carmen do to one another in need, the foundations of Europe would not be jarring to the very centre, as they are now. Place a helping hand upon a willing heart, my friends, and the very beating of its gratitude will so stir your sluggish souls, that you will feel as if cutting your pen-feathers and getting ready-winged for immortality. We have seen a soul in the silent shaking of the hands between two Carmen, when one has rendered the other aid as we have described, which would have put to shame all the studied return of thanks ever showered forth after the "sacking" of England in Exeter Hall. A poor old wayfarer has but to ask the Carman for a lift, and if he is one of those whose heart is in the right place, he will pull up by the roadside, and be thought none the worse of by his employers for his kindness. For passing to and fro, as he ever is doing, along the stirring streets, or in the dusty suburbs, he sees Splendour seated in her chariot and squalid Misery [-69-] crawling and bent with age and hunger upon the pavement; and although he says but little, he thinks the more, and thanks God that he is a Carman, and wishes that the poor people were as comfortable as his horses.
He is an unmerciful denouncer of idleness, and thinks that those who are able and will not work ought not to eat. His politics are taken from the Advertiser and Dispatch; and although he is an out-and-out liberal in his notions, yet he is sensible enough to know that it is all nonsense about all men being equal. "Because as how," he says, "I knows them what if they had a thousand to-morrow would never do a hand-stir until every farthing of it was spent." Then he has no end of apt and homely illustrations - how Bill this, and Jack that, and Jem the other, had all such chances as no man had before, and although the bread was, "as the saying is, put into their mouths, howsomdever they were too lazy to eat it." He is gallant enough to say that he should not like to see his young "missus" go out to work, "because as how she s been brought up a lady, and shows so much feeling for the horses." There are touches of delicacy about his character, such as "not" seeing the poor fellows who drag trucks about the streets lay hold of his cart or waggon, or it maybe slackening the pace of his horses when the men come panting up behind, attempting in vain to overtake him; nor would they ever succeed were it not for the word "gently" which only the horses hear, for he pretends not to notice the party thus assisted. We are drawing one of the most favourable of the class - one who seldom changes masters. There are others who delight in carrying off a wheel, if they can manage it [-70-] nicely; who rap out an oath loud enough to electrify a nervous, man, and lay their whips on everything that comes in their way. Such as these the poet Gay describes running into the "gilded chariots, and
Lashing on with spiteful rage
His ponderous spokes the painted wheels engage;
Crushed then is pride, down falls the shrieking beau,
The slabby pavement crystal fragments strew;
Black floods of mire the embroidered coat disgrace,
And mud enwraps the honours of his face."

(I did delete a rather unfortunate sentence though).

[Abby Normal]

Patrick S: Pure foolishness.

Thatīs not a very good start, Patrick.

Address the Paul statement please as it relates this statement by you:

Lie number one: Charles Lechmere said at the inquest that he thought that the woman was dead. It is reasonable to suggest that he was under an obligation to tell PC Mizen that the errand was in all probability a very grave one.

But no matter which source we look at, it is clear that Mizen only professes to have been told that a woman was lying flat on her back in Bucks Row. Mizen specifically says that the carman never said anything about any murder or suicide.

To refresh your memory, Paul said this the following. Thus, Mizen WAS told that Nichols was likely dead.

"It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head. "

Iīm sorry, Patrick, but there are a number of flaws in this reasoning. Let me point them out to you:

This account of what happened is very obviously not correct. For instance, Lechmere is left out of the account altogether after Browns Stable yard. Paul claims that he left Lechmere by the body, and set out to find a PC himself.

We know that Paul said something totally different at the inquest: "The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman. "

We may therefore conclude that at least one of these accounts must be flawed and untrue. Can we conclude which of them is the better candidate? Yes, we can, since both Lechmere professes to have walked with Paul to Bakers Row (and beyond), just as we know that Mizen said that much as he was contaced by one carman only, they were both there together. So the inquest version is corroborated, and we may leave the paper interview aside.
It cannot be used to substantiate that Paul did speak of a dead woman to Mizen.

As an (interesting and relevant) aside, it of course also applies that it is nowhere even said in the interview that Paul claimed to have told Mizen that he did think that the woman was dead. He only says, and I quote: "I told him what I had seen". No further elaboration is made. "Thereīs a woman lying in Bucks Row" could well be that story, as you may appreciate.

Not that it matters, once we have concluded that the paper interview must stand back to the inquest material anyway.

Hi Fish
In that news interview it seems that paul is saying that she must have been there along time before they discovered her body.

But dosnt he say things at the inquest that contradict this and indicate that he thought she must have been killed recently?

[Fisherman]

Hello Fisherman

Shame. It might have settled the question one way or the other. But if Pickford's records don't go back as far as 1888, where did Arthur Ingram get his information from? That is, that the Broad street Pickford's only delivered meat?

Best wishes
C4

There are records of the flow of goods. But there are no records of the specific carmen and their work.

I am less than sure that Pickfords handled meat only - it seems it was a bulk commodity, though.

Yes, it would have been extremely interesting if we could follow Lechmereīs moves, but that was not to be...