The Lechmere trail - so far

[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]

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.

[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.

[Bridewell]

Duplicate post - sorry.

[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.

[Abby Normal]

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.

In a court of law, at least in the US, when any item in contention comes up between a he said she said between the accused and police, and no other evidence points in any direction,The court always sides with Law enforcement.

And THAT is the only logical position you could come to. Unless you want to flip a coin. and have anarchy.

[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]

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

And how did he determine the "exact" time? In the LVP he can't have done.

[Patrick S]

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 think (2) is a more likely scenario than (1) and that Lechmere is exonerated.

Hi, Bridwell. To expand a bit.

To me, at least, it seems somewhat obvious what happened. Cross finds Nichols and calls to Paul. Together they examine her and go off to find a cop. As they exit Bucks Row, Neil enters, and independently discovers Nichols. Cross and Paul find Mizen in Bakers Row. They tell him there is a woman in Bucks Row. Regardless if Paul and Cross inferred or outright stated that they thought she was dead, Mizen regarded this as another false alarm, likely a woman lying drunk. He says, “Okay” (according to Cross) and continues knocking up (according to Paul). It should be noted that Mizen himself admits to 'knocking up where (he) was'. After perhaps continuing to knock-up and being in no particular hurry he makes his way to Bucks Row where he finds Neil with Nichols, who are by now joined by James Mumford, Henry Tomkins, and Charles Bretton who had been informed of the murder by Thain after he was dispatched by Neil to fetch Dr. Llewellyn. They estimate hearing the news from Thain at 4:15am.

Upon arrival, Mizen is sent to fetch an ambulance. It’s very clear he didn’t utter a word to Neil about Cross and Paul at the scene. He doesn’t mention it at the mortuary later that morning. He doesn’t mention the encounter at all – it seems – the rest of that day (Friday) or the following day (Saturday). On Saturday, Neil testifies that he found the body. Its clear he's oblivious the Bakers Row/Mizen business. He does not mention Neil or Cross. He mentions Mizen, although not by name: “seeing another constable in Baker's-row, I sent him for the ambulance”. To my mind if he knew about Mizen, Cross, and Paul he'd have mentioned it here in that the PC in Bakers Row IS Mizen. Sunday, Paul comes forward, claiming to have found the body first and telling his tale of alerting a PC in Bakers Row. Monday, Mizen appears at the inquest and tells his version.

If Paul does not come forward for his fifteen minutes, Mizen NEVER speaks of his Bakers Row encounter) and we never learn any of this.

[Robert]

I salute the appearance of a new life form : the Edfish. Half man, half fish.

[John G]

In a court of law, at least in the US, when any item in contention comes up between a he said she said between the accused and police, and no other evidence points in any direction,The court always sides with Law enforcement.

And THAT is the only logical position you could come to. Unless you want to flip a coin. and have anarchy.

I believe in English Law it is ultimately a matter for the jury to decide. American Law differs between different states. For example, the Supreme Court of Indiana controversially ruled that an officers testimony should be given precedence over video evidence.

To my mind, allowing the jury to decide is the most sensible approach. I mean, if you were on a jury and police officer appeared drunk, or was behaving erratically, whilst giving evidence, wouldn't you take that into account? And what if he made what you deemed to be a racist or sexist remark against the defendant? Shouldn't you be allowed to factor that into your deliberations?

[Fisherman]

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.

Since ALL other sources have it 3.45, I think that is an almighty reason to disagree! Plus it helps to know that the trek took two minutes to cover. And we know Nichols bled as Mizen arrived. So you are obviously joking. But why?

[Fisherman]

And how did he determine the "exact" time? In the LVP he can't have done.

Oh yes, he could. There were extremely reliable clocks around in 1888, so the technical possiblity was there - and had been for very many years.
Now, I donīt want it said that I propose that Robert Paul owned a millionaires watch, but I think we need to look at the realities before we make any calls.

There is every chance that Robert Paul owned a timepiece that was complately reliable. My own first watch had a tendency to be a bit too quick, so I was in the habit of correcting it every day, and therefore I always had the exact time.

As an aside, I think we are dealing with the PC:s being around five minutes off. I would therefore not be totally opposed to a suggestion that Paul Neil, Mizen and Thain all heard the exact same clock strike the quarter hour. If Paul heard it as he walked into Bucks Row, and if the PC:s also heard it and later thought that what happened was close in time to that clockstrike, then all our problems would dissolve like trolls in the sun.

Wouldnīt that be nice?

[Patrick S]

Oh yes, he could. There were extremely reliable clocks around in 1888, so the technical possiblity was there - and had been for very many years.
Now, I donīt want it said that I propose that Robert Paul owned a millionaires watch, but I think we need to look at the realities before we make any calls.

There is every chance that Robert Paul owned a timepiece that was complately reliable. My own first watch had a tendency to be a bit too quick, so I was in the habit of correcting it every day, and therefore I always had the exact time.

As an aside, I think we are dealing with the PC:s being around five minutes off. I would therefore not be totally opposed to a suggestion that Paul Neil, Mizen and Thain all heard the exact same clock strike the quarter hour. If Paul heard it as he walked into Bucks Row, and if the PC:s also heard it and later thought that what happened was close in time to that clockstrike, then all our problems would dissolve like trolls in the sun.

Wouldnīt that be nice?

Do you know what WOULD be nice? It would be nice if you'd address relevant questions rather than times that you think are vital to your 'blood evidence' (recall no blood was collected or photograhed, yet somehow YOU have blood 'evidence' (?) 127 years after it was washed from the pavement)! THAT would be nice. It would be nice if you'd explain Neil was allowed to testify at the September 1 inquest that he found the body. He didn't mention Cross. He didn't mention Paul. He did mention Mizen. He said he found a "PC in Baker's Row" and sent him for an ambulance. Mizen didn't take the opportunity to tell Neil that he'd just met two men who claim to have found the body before he had. Mizen also kept things to himself at the mortuary. He was silent all day on Friday, it seems. As I mentioned, Neil testified on Saturday. No one corrected him. No one added to the plot, mentioning Mizen and his friends Cross and Paul. That is....until....Monday, September 3. Mizen does testify to his encounter with Cross and Paul on Monday. Why? Why now? Would this testimony not have fit with, nay, contradicted Neil's testimony from Saturday? Why now? Glad you asked! Robert Paul's interview appeared in Lloyd's on Sunday, September 2. In it it describes his interactions with Cross and Nichols' body in Bucks Row and his dealings with Mizen in Bakers Row. He's not very flattering when discussing Mizen is he? Yet, somehow, Paul's comments - damning to Mizen - serve drive the killer, Lechmere, out of hiding! He appears at the inquest the next day, essentially corroborating Paul's account. Mizen testifies as well, to try an clean up the mess. Paul doen't come in to give official testimony until two weeks later on the 17th. Alas, the damage to your Mizen Scam, so prominently featured in MISSING EVIDENCE is done. And you've nothing to say. Honesty, what can you say aside from, "LOOK OVER HERE! LET'S TALK ABOUT TIME! LETS TALK ABOUT BLOOD EVIDENCE (???)! FIRE!!!!"

[Fisherman]

In a court of law, at least in the US, when any item in contention comes up between a he said she said between the accused and police, and no other evidence points in any direction,The court always sides with Law enforcement.

And THAT is the only logical position you could come to. Unless you want to flip a coin. and have anarchy.

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.