The Lechmere trail - so far

[Abby Normal]

If there was a 'Like' button on Casebook I'd press it. You and I know that officers take pains to cover their backs in the face of criticism. That is not to say that all of them were doing so but certainly some. One of the most common entries in the disciplinary records then, as in later years, involved drinking (or even drunkenness) on duty. P.c. Alfred Long was dismissed for the latter in 1889, yet is hailed as a model policeman by some and his timings taken as sacrosanct. I would never argue that officers' timings should be discarded as worthless but they should be treated with caution. Mizen claimed he was told that a colleague needed his help in Bucks Row when that was clearly not the case. That looks like back covering to me.

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.

[Patrick S]

caz: Hi Fisherman,

Isn't this argument rendered completely untenable by the known reactions of Lechmere to the fact that Paul was trying to avoid him, not yet aware that some poor woman was lying nearby and might need his help? Lechmere was having none of it. He actively prevented Paul from going on his way by touching him on the shoulder and persuading him to go with him to look at the woman. You say that Lechmere could not leave the scene without suspicion if Paul were to discover she had just been murdered, so how on earth was he expecting to stop Paul finding out, having specifically collared him to gawp at her? Remember, Lechmere has no idea who Paul is, or anything about him.

Here we go again with all of these "completely untenable" arguments!

Point one. Paul was not likely to miss the woman. He said that she was impossible to miss, more or less: "If a policeman had been there he must have seen here, for she was plain enough to see."

So it seems there was no practical chance of this happening.

Furthermore, when Paul arrived at the yard gate, Lechmere was standing still in the middle of the street. It therefore seems he had decided beforehand to bluff it out. Keep in mind that it seems he had covered the wounds to the abdomen - that should tell the story.

The fact that Paul tried to avoid him would in that context have been something that Lechmere was not willing to allow for. He knew that the woman would be seen, he know that Paul would see him and he also knew that if he did not interact with Paul, there was a clear risk that Paul would either A/ notice the murder and/or B/ pass the body by, and then contact the police once the murder was discovered. Such a thing would of course allow Lechmere to leave the body afterwards and get out of the area, but he would do so with a man on the loose who could testify about Lechmereīs having been in place. It would carry with itself a great risk of the police deciding on hoim being the probable killer and starting to look for him with the aid of Paul.
No matter which choice he opted for, it would involve risks. Never loose track of this - there was ALWAYS going to be risks involved in what the Ripper did. He was not squeamish. He would not cancel on account of being afraid.
I think he made a very clever choice. And, as I said, it seems he decided on trying it before he knew who the stranger was.

Lechmere : "Here, come with me and look at this woman."

Paul : "Okay, sorry, I was wary at first 'cos of the rough sorts you can get round here. She doesn't look too good, does she?"

Lechmere : "Okay, that's close enough, buster."

Paul : "What? You wanted me to help find out what was the matter with the poor dear and you're in luck because I have some first aid skills, so let me just... Good God, her head's nearly off!"

This little amusement on your behalf is really enlightening. Compare with how things developed, and how Lechmere said he would not help prop her up. It comes wuite close to what you think is a joke!

Lechmere was on a hiding to nothing if Paul had a mind to examine the corpse more closely.

Yes, that is absolutely true!

His only options would be to physically prevent Paul from doing so, immediately raising suspicions of foul play, or to flee, hoping Paul hadn't by now seen and heard enough to get him identified.

To some extent, he could have ruled what happened. He could have instructed Paul what to do, what to feel etcetera. And keep in mind that he drew the line when a prop-up was suggested! He may well have been very much in control - and he may have enjoyed it.
But overall, there was always going to be a risk that Paul saw that the woman had been killed.

How the carman would have solved that issue is something we can only speculate about. Maybe Neil would have found two dead bodies. Maybe Lechmere would have said "Good God, letīs find a PC! You take that road and Iīll take this!"

Caz, in discussing all of this you need to respect that my suggestion is that we are dealing with a psychopath. They thrive on playing games, lying, playing the upright citizen etcetera. If Lechmere decided long before Paul reached the stable gate to bluff the oncomer - and the hiding of the wounds indicates this - then we can be sure that this was a man who had nothing at all against taking his chances and playing a dangerous game.

There is nothing at all untenable about it, Iīm afraid.

Hi, Christer! I hope you're day is going quite well. I see you've made a few inane and ridiculous, cherry-picked points to 'caz' here. I liked her dialouge very much! You, it seems, not so much. Alas, as I'm sure you've read, I've managed to rather easily further reduce your conclusion to rubble, exposing it - to an even greater extent - as the laughingstock its become. Fact. Dates. Those kinds of things.....very tough to refute, I'm afraid. They tend to stand up against romantic notions of 'scams' and crystal balls, don't they?

You'll be pleased to know that I'm working on a dissertation that will bring it all together and serve - hopefully - as resource for anyone foolish enough to buy into this mealy-mouthed blather. By putting all of the actual information and chronology of events in one spot, we should able to comfine your pathetic little tale to history's dustbin. If only you'd have brought even cursory analytical skills to this task, you'd have saved yourself a lot of embarrassment. Still, I give you an 'E' for effort, but, sadly, and 'F' for foolishness.

Don't dispair. Thanks to your 'hit job' on Cross, we've managed to learn a great deal about Jonas Mizen and why he behaved as he did. We know he didn't tell his superiors or collegues about his redezvous in Bucks Row. We now know why he didn't, why he testified as he did, came forward when he did. I'm not saying the man wasn't a good Christian Gentleman and keeper of the policemans sacred and solemn oath. I am rather convinced that he messed up 'royally' in the Nichols affair. I'm sure he learned a lesson and became better cop as a result. Perhaps you'll become a better resesarcher, journalist, and Ripperologist as a result of this fiasco.

We can hope.....

[Patrick S]

Yes, SOMEONE was covering his back. Explain to me why Lechmere said that both he and Paul spoke to Mizen, whereas Mizen himself said that Lechmere was the guy doing the talking.
Who is telling the truth here, and what is on stake for the respective parties? Why would not Mizen admit that both men had spoken to him - if that was indeed the case?

LOOK THERE! OVER THERE! Don't look here! If you do you'll see that I'm diverting your attention from....you know.....actual facts.

[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.

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. Cross has not yet been in the witness box and yet Mizen names Cross as being the man who spoke to him. 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? 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". Then we have Crossmere saying that he left home at 3.20am and arrived at work at 4am. 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. 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. Either Paul is a million miles out with his time estimate or the body was found twice and not in the order we've always assumed. 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.

[Jon Guy]

Perhaps you'll become a better resesarcher, journalist, and Ripperologist as a result of this fiasco.

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 ?

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[Jon Guy]

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

Good man, Patrick :-)
Thanks for that

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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...