The Lechmere trail - so far

[Sally]

It rhymes badly.

It does? How about this then?

The theory of Crossmere the Killer
Couldn't be any sillier



No?

[Actually I thought that rhymed quite well, myself]

[Fisherman]

It does? How about this then?

The theory of Crossmere the Killer
Couldn't be any sillier



No?

[Actually I thought that rhymed quite well, myself]

"Killier", Sally?

No, to rhyme you need to be exact:

To listen to the advice of Sally
is to add to ignoranceīs tally

More like that. Have a try - itīs great fun once you get the hang of it!

[Sally]

It does? How about this then?

The theory of Crossmere the Killer
Couldn't be any sillier



No?

[Actually I thought that rhymed quite well, myself]

Except that - it's not so much of a theory really as a rhetorical construct founded upon a central premise for which there is no evidence whatever.

But hey, what the hell - 'theory' scans better, imagine the clutter that would've resulted if I'd tried to get all that into a two line verse.

[Sally]

"Killier", Sally?

No, to rhyme you need to be exact:

To listen to the advice of Sally
is to add to ignoranceīs tally

More like that. Have a try - itīs great fun once you get the hang of it!

Advice, Fish? I wouldn't dream of it. Simply my [albeit flippant] opinion - which is all any of us have at the end of the day [a gross simplification, true, but I'm feeling generous]

[caz]

Why would Cross feel compelled to come forward in light of the publication of the Paul interview? There's no description of him. His role is marginalized by Paul. This - to me - seems to work in his favor.

If Cross had killed Nichols, approached Paul, went with him in search of the police, found a PC (Mizen), and successfully avoided capture (with the murder weapon on his person), unnamed and unidentified, why would he feel that "he had no choice" but to come forward in light of this "bombshell" from Lloyd's/Paul?

He got away with murder and was compelled to kill again. Why would he now submit himself - again - willfully, to the police?

He wouldn't, Patrick. The killer's aim, as we know, was to go on to bigger and better things on his next big night out. He had the best reason in the world to keep his head down and not get himself associated with the Nichols murder. The theory that Lechmere chose Hanbury Street for his next 'job' to focus police attention on Robert Paul for a second time (yes, you heard it right) is even more risible than the Mizen Scam. For one thing it was likely to have been the victims who dictated where they were prepared to 'do business', and for another, if Paul had become a serious suspect as a result, it would have been as Lechmere's partner-in-crime, given the order in which they claimed to have arrived in Buck's Row.

You couldn't make it up.

Oh wait...

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

caz: But what if Paul was not always completely truthful , or the timepiece he was using not always 100% accurate to the minute?

What if it was the 1:st of September, what if the carmen walked very slowly, what if Neil was trying to save face after not having been in Bucks Row at 3.15, what if...

Of course, Caz, once we alter one entity, the others will be affected. However, if the puzzle is broken and makes no sense at all, then we should assume that we chamged a detail that was correct before our changing it.

What we must look for is a way to make sense of as many bits and pieces as possible. The further we reach in that respect and the more pieces can be fit into the puzzle, the better chance we stand of having it correct.

Did he check the time just as he closed his front door, or a minute or two before he was ready to leave, guessing that interval? Did he check the time again when he came across Cross, or did he guess afterwards how many seconds it had probably taken him to get to the scene from the last time he checked?

We canīt possibly know. We only know that Pauls picture of things was that he left home close in time to 3.45 and that it was exactly 3.45 as he came into the street.
As I have demonstrated, these timings make eminent sense when coupled to the timings of LLewellyn. They make less sense when compared to the PC:s, so some sources must be out on the time to an extent.
However, Paul said that it was EXACTLY 3.45 as he walked into Bucks Row, and that phrasing has nothing of guesswork about it. It speaks of knowledge, certainty and exactitude, and there is no other timing given in combination with the murder that has this quality to it.

As I said before, maybe Paul heard a clock strike the quarter hour as he entered Bucks Row, and maybe the PC:s heard that strike too. And then it stuck in their minds as the clockstrike close to the ensuing drama. It COULD be that simple.

Coupled with the habit people had back then of timing things by the hour, half-hour or, at best, the quarter-hour, when they had no fail-safe method of taking it down further to the nearest minute (unless like Dr. Blackwell they had a special reason to keep an accurate watch on them and to consult it on arrival at a murder scene, for example - 1.16 am precisely in Stride's case), I wouldn't feel confident in basing any theory on the seemingly universal 3.45 time given for the discovery (by anyone) of Nichols.

Confident? That is a word that leads the thought to somebody being certain of something, and as I said, there can be no absolute certainty here. We do, however, have Pauls wording (exactly 3.45), endorsed by Baxter and Swanson, and we do have the fact that it seemingly fits with Llewellyns given timings. The 3.45 is in a manner of speaking the firm anchoring around which the other timings revolve.

Would it not have suited Robert Paul to stick with 3.45 regardless of any possible inaccuracy on his part, in support of his beef that the police (PC Neil) came late to the party but claimed to be first? If Paul had arrived just two, three, four or five minutes earlier, then left with Lechmere to fetch Mizen, there would have been little wrong with the cops arriving at 3.45 (or thereabouts) and saying so.

There would have been a lot wrong with that timing, since it would require that Thain would have spent a whole lot of time covering a two-minute stretch. Once again, ALL the parts must make sense, and they fit better in some ways than they do in others.
There are many bits and pieces that must be fit in for the timing schedule to make an overall sense. Once we do the work it will lead us to 3.46 being a very good suggestion for the time Paul found Lechmere.

Assuming Nichols was on the main Whitechapel Road looking for likely doss tokens when she met her killer, how can anyone be sure Lechmere would have had enough time to leave home, get solicited by her and agree to go to Buck's Row (a street where he might encounter familiar faces he has seen before on his walk to work - Robert Paul was luckily a stranger who used that route at the same time) and attack her there before the next person happened along?

To rule out the possibility that Lechmere could have managed this, you need to stretch things rather dramatically. And sure enough, sometimes things go down in a very stretched manner. If the body was found at 3.38 by Lechmere, it would tally with his given time of departure. Then, Paul may have arrived at 3.38.30, being very confused about the time and thinking for some reason that it was 3.45 exactly.
Then Paul could have been very mistaken about the time it took to examin the body and walk to Mizen - maybe it took six and a half minutes and not "no more than four" as he said.
If so, Mizen would have been contacted at 3.45, just as he said.
And then Mizen could have knocked up people for another five minutes before departing, so that he reached Browns at around 3.52.
And up there, Neil and Thain could have spoken for six minutes about the weather, the latest football game and law enforcing on the whole. If so, Thain could have left the minute before Mizen arrived, that is to say 3.51. If he then spent the time between 3.51.30 and 3.56, four and a half minutes, with the butchers, having a cup of tea and brushing off his cape, he may actually have arrived at Llewellyns place at around 3.58 - which would tally with what Llewellyns implicates.

Who am I to say that this was not what happened? I really cannot swear it did not.
But I CAN say that such a schedule looks much like a mockery. And I CAN add that I can provide a schedule that works from Paul having arrived at Browns at 3.46 that is very much more in accordance with the given evidence.

Maybe we can allow us to dribble away the implication of the timings given like this. But guess what?
If these mock timings are correct, then Paul arrived at 3.38.30.
If these mock timings are correct, then Mizen saw the body at 3.52.

It would mean that you and those who think and argue the way you do, would be provided with a timeline that allowed for Lechmere to look innocent - in regards of the timings.

But it would equally mean that Polly Nichols bled from the wounds in her neck THIRTEEN AND A HALF MINUTES after Pauls arrival up at Browns. To this time, we must then add at least a minute or two if we are hoping to introduce another killer. That takes us up to a bleeding time of around a quarter of an hour.

Jason Payne-James said that if the neck was cut first, she would bleed out in a minute or so. There is also the very clear and real possibility that the neck was NOT cut first, and that the blood that left through the neck oozed out after she had been cut subsequently to the abdominal wounds having been inflicted.

On hearing my question whether she would be likely to bleed three, five or seven minutes, Payne-James said that he could see the first two timings work, whereas seven minutes was a suggestion that was not very realistic.

I wonder what he would say about the suggestion of a fifteen minute bleeding?

The simple truth, Caz, is that your best chance to introduce an alternative killer lies with accepting the timings I suggest. If there was a "mere" gap of around six minutes between Pauls finding Lechmere and Mizens seeing the body bleed from the neck cuts, then we may just be able to cram another man in. It remains less likely than Lechmere being the killer, but sometimes "less likely" proves to be the real solution.

So maybe there was another killer. And maybe Lechmereīs giving the wrong name, disagreeing with Mizen and not being heard by Paul are just coincidences.

Or maybe I am correct: It is ridiculous not to accept that the carman is now the prime suspect for the Nichols murder, that he is very probably the killer of Polly Nichols and that he is the absolutely best bid for the role of Jack the Ripper.

[Pcdunn]

Where did you get that from? If Lechmere was the killer, it would seem that he simply was cool enough to handle upcoming situations plus he had a good deal of luck. Like more or less all serialists who have had a significant number of victims. It also applies that his case was handled by a police force that made a number of mistakes and who worked form a prejudiced agenda.

I look forward to hear your explanation about why he would have been a super serial killer who made no missteps. Surely you would not say something like that with no substantiation.

Or would you?

It is the impression of Lechmere which I have received from reading your comments about him over several months. It was also intended as a humorous comment. My apologies for misinterpreting your comments, if I have done so.

[Fisherman]

Iīll tell you what, Caz. You are being rather lazy here, throwing forward suggestions on isolated timings.
Put them all together for me, and make it work as well as possible, using the given timings as closely as you can. All of it, not just a randomly picked detail. The PC:s, the blood, Paul, Lechmere (includin his given time of departure), Llewellyn (including what he said about the people surrounding the site), Thain (including his stop at the horseknackers), Mizen (including his return route to Bethnal Green police station), the information that Llewellyn spent ten minutes only at the site, the suggested correlation between his departure and Mizens arrival back with the ambulance, etcetera. All of it.

Bring that together and make sense of it as best as you can. And donīt blame me if it leaves you with the impression that Lechmere is the probable killer.

[Fisherman]

It is the impression of Lechmere which I have received from reading your comments about him over several months. It was also intended as a humorous comment. My apologies for misinterpreting your comments, if I have done so.

I prefer sense to apologies, to be frank. Could you point me to any comment I have made where I have called Lechmere a super serial killer?

I donīt mind the odd addition of some humour, PcDunn - on the contrary. And I can clearly see how it can be entertaining to jointly try and make fun of somebody who has a conviction, the way I do.

I have however been subjected to a lot of comments that have been very lacking in the humour department. There is and has been trolling and smearing in relation to the suggestion that Lechmere was the killer, a behavior that is as ill informed as it is sad.

I am having serious trouble telling these matters apart at times. Maybe it is just me and maybe it lies upon me solely to make the correct calls about what is malicious slander and what is humour. I can only suggest that you present suspect of your own and stand by him - and find out what Ripperology is really about in this context.

Of course, now that you say that it was meant as a humorous remark, I accept what you say and I thank you for being clear about it.

[caz]

There were two carmen who did NOT leave the spot to attract attention - they instead acted very responsibly.
That is the only explanation I can offer.

And it's a piss poor one, Fish, if I may be so bold.

Remember, at this point Mizen appears to have told nobody about his little conversation with Lechmere (Paul, according to Mizen, not taking any part in it).

So even if Mizen interpreted the question to mean: "Did you see anyone suspicious leaving the murder scene", and not: "Did anyone leave Buck's Row to attract attention" (to which he should have replied: "Yes, two workmen left Buck's Row to attract my attention"), it is still very odd that he didn't mention them, given that they had come from the murder scene, were total strangers to him, and nobody else (PC Neil et al) had mentioned seeing either of them. Certainly less than thorough, at the very least.

If I am correct, and if the Mizen scam went down the way I suggest, then these exact seconds would have been where the case really hung in the balance. If Lechmere had asked Neil about the carmen, he would get the answer that Neil had not seen any carmen. And that should have had Mizen and the police getting highly suspicious.

If you mean had Mizen asked Neil about the carmen, I agree. But remember, if Lechmere invented the PC at the scene, he wasn't expecting Mizen to find one there, in the convenient shape of Neil, in which case he must have anticipated Mizen finding just a murdered woman and no PC with her and getting highly suspicious anyway.

If Lechmere had NOT told him that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row - if there had been no scam, that is - then Mizen would have been baffled to read how Neil took the honour of having found the body, when he himself knew that the carmen had found it first.
Rationally resoning, he would in such a case have gone to his superiors and told them about the carmen. But that never happened.

No, because Mizen would be crapping himself at the realisation that he had sent on their way two men who should have been asked some serious questions about their 'discovery'.

Love,

Caz
X

[Patrick S]

I prefer sense to apologies, to be frank. Could you point me to any comment I have made where I have called Lechmere a super serial killer?

I donīt mind the odd addition of some humour, PcDunn - on the contrary. And I can clearly see how it can be entertaining to jointly try and make fun of somebody who has a conviction, the way I do.

I have however been subjected to a lot of comments that have been very lacking in the humour department. There is and has been trolling and smearing in relation to the suggestion that Lechmere was the killer, a behavior that is as ill informed as it is sad.

I am having serious trouble telling these matters apart at times. Maybe it is just me and maybe it lies upon me solely to make the correct calls about what is malicious slander and what is humour. I can only suggest that you present suspect of your own and stand by him - and find out what Ripperology is really about in this context.

Of course, now that you say that it was meant as a humorous remark, I accept what you say and I thank you for being clear about it.

I prefer sense, too, Christer! Try showing some. No one is buying this lemon. That should tell you something.

By the way, I miss our talks.

[Fisherman]

caz: And it's a piss poor one, Fish, if I may be so bold.

You may be just as bold as you wish to, Caz. If "bold" is the word for it. The wording in the papers was that nobody had been seen leaving or entering the street so as to attract attention. We donīt know how the question was put to the PC:s and watchmen. It could have been the exact same wording, but it could equally have been "Did you see anybody running away or acting strangely?"

In neither case is it a piss poor explanation for why Mizen could have denied that such a thing happened. You must not loose track of how he would have predisposed that Neil would have told the story about the carmen, and you must not forget that there must have been an explanation for why he never mentioned the carmen.

Remember, at this point Mizen appears to have told nobody about his little conversation with Lechmere (Paul, according to Mizen, not taking any part in it).

That is correct. It is in line wtih how he would not have told Neil about the carmen either, two minutes after he left them in Bakers Row. He would have considered it unneccesary, and that may well have coloured his thinking throughout. He knew that Neil had been interviewed, and he MUST have predisposed that Neil had mentioned the carmen to his superiors. He could thus not hope to keep them under wraps - if anybody should feel like suggesting such a thing for whatever reason.
Are we agreed on that?

So even if Mizen interpreted the question to mean: "Did you see anyone suspicious leaving the murder scene", and not: "Did anyone leave Buck's Row to attract attention" (to which he should have replied: "Yes, two workmen left Buck's Row to attract my attention"), it is still very odd that he didn't mention them, given that they had come from the murder scene, were total strangers to him, and nobody else (PC Neil et al) had mentioned seeing either of them. Certainly less than thorough, at the very least.

Odd? Yes, I agree that it was slightly odd. Or perhaps unfortunate is the better word. But if he was sure that his colleague had spoken about them with his superiors, and described the role they had played, how he had sent them for a colleague etcetera - and how could he NOT be sure that this had happened? - then we may at least say that Mizen would have been totally justified to think that the carmen already belonged to the knowledge of the police command.

Making what you will call a circular argument, I think we must accept that if the Ripper was able to sail through the net of the police, then he would have had to be lucky in a number of matters. A thing like this fits that reasoning eminently: it is slightly out of what we may have accepted to have happened, and so it may have helped built the bridge that gave the killer a flight route.
This is a relatively subtle argument, I realize that - but the inability to catch the killer on behalf of the police and the inability to find him on behalf of the many people who have tried since needs an explanation.

If you mean had Mizen asked Neil about the carmen, I agree.

That is what I mean, yes, thank you.

But remember, if Lechmere invented the PC at the scene, he wasn't expecting Mizen to find one there, in the convenient shape of Neil, in which case he must have anticipated Mizen finding just a murdered woman and no PC with her and getting highly suspicious anyway.

Absolutely! That must have been a very real option in his eyes. There is every chance that he had kept track of Neil and hoped for him to be in place (which is where that interesting passage in the Daily Telegraph is tantalizing: Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her. Just then they heard a policeman coming. Witness did not notice that her throat was cut, the night being very dark. He and the other man left the deceased...
Was that Neil they heard? If so...

In the end, though, no matter if he felt there would have been another PC in place or not, it remains that he will have had the knife on his person when meeting Mizen. And in that case, he needed to get past the PC no matter what. That would have been the top priority. Afterwards, he could always deny having spoken about another PC - just as we know he actually DID. Remember that the inquest would in both cases know quite well that any information about another PC would have been wrong, no matter if there was such a man in place or not. And if they could believe Lechmere when a man WAS in place, why would they not believe him when a man was NOT in place...?

No, because Mizen would be crapping himself at the realisation that he had sent on their way two men who should have been asked some serious questions about their 'discovery'.

No, he would not, Caz - he did nothing wrong and he had a very good explanation and justification for his actions. He had been told that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row, and that PC had cleared the carmen from any role in the drama. Otherwise, he would not have sent them on their way.

[Patrick S]

It should be noted that the official records of the inquest into Mary Ann Nichols’ death have not survived. The information we have comes to us from press coverage of the inquest and the media statements made by those involved. There are some notable inconsistencies contained in this information. Many of them involve the meeting in Baker’s Row involving Paul, Lechmere, and PC Mizen.

Both Lechmere and Paul offer similar descriptions of Mizen’s reaction upon hearing that “a woman was lying in Buck’s Row”. Lechmere stated that Mizen replied, “Alright” and walked on. Paul states, “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…”

Both Lechmere and Paul stated that they informed PC Mizen that the woman in Buck’s Row may be dead. Lechmere stated in his inquest testimony that he told Mizen, “She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." Paul in his statement to ‘Lloyd’s Weekly’ flatly stated, “I had told him the woman was dead.” Mizen, however, contended that he was told only that a woman was lying in Buck’s Row, stating that he was told, “You are wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row, where a woman was lying.”

This brings us to another major inconsistency. Mizen claimed at the inquest that he was told that he was “wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row”. Such information might lead Mizen to assume that Lechmere and Paul had been interrogated and released by the policeman already on the scene in Buck’s Row. Thus, he’d let the men go on their way, forgoing questioning them further, or searching either man. However, neither Paul nor Lechmere agree with Mizen on this point. Lechmere testified after Mizen, on day two of the Nichols’ inquest. He was asked directly if he’d told Mizen another policeman was awaiting him in Buck’s Row. This exchange was published in the 'Telegraph' on Tuesday, September 4:

A Juryman: “Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's Row?”

Witness: “No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's Row.”

Robert Paul’s statement in Lloyd’s makes no mention of a policeman waiting in Buck’s Row.
“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.”

Paul makes it clear that no policeman was present in Buck’s Row. In fact, he stresses that he believes that the police had not been doing their jobs effectively inferring that the police had not been adequately patrolling the area.

The available information tells us that PC Jonas Mizen was likely not forthcoming about his meeting with Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul on the morning of the Nichols’ murder. His subsequent inaction with respect this meeting reinforces this point: Mizen did not relate this meeting to PC Neil at the scene. He also did not inform his superiors – it seems – as PC Neil testified on Saturday, September 1, that he and he alone discovered “Polly” Nichols body. PC Mizen was not called to give testimony in the inquest until Monday, September 3, the day after Robert Paul’s interview appeared in ‘Lloyd’s Weekly’. Paul stated in his interview that he “saw (a policeman) 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….” It is reasonable to assume that Paul’s statement either compelled Mizen to share his encounter with Paul and the heretofore unnamed “other man” (Lechmere) in Bakers Row, or Mizen had been asked about Paul’s statement by his superiors. Duty rosters would easily have identified the PC on duty “in Church Row, just at the top of Buck's Row” at 3:45am on August 31.

It seems likely that Jonas Mizen, himself, upon learning that the woman he’d been told about by the two men he’d met in Baker’s Row had been murdered, judged his response to be potentially embarrassing. Thus, he did not volunteer his information to PC Neil in Buck’s Row. He did not inform his superiors that he’d met two men who had claimed to have found the body before Neil’s arrival. He allowed Neil to testify to the fact that he and he alone had discovered Nichols’ body at the inquest into her death the following day. Mizen was not compelled to share his information until after Paul had related his version of events in ‘Lloyd’s Weekly’, the day after Neil’s inquest testimony.

[Patrick S]

I would also suggest that PC John Thain misreprested the events near Buck's Row on the morning of August 31, 1888.

There is obvious disagreement in the testimonies of Henry Tompkins and PC John Thain. Both testify that Thain arrived at Harrison, Barber & Co to retrieve his cloak. Thain tells us he did this as he left Buck’s Row on his way to retrieve Dr. Llewellyn. PC Thain testified at the Nichols inquest that did not tell Tomkins, Mumford, and Britten that a woman had been murdered. Yet, Tomkins testified that he was told of the murder by Thain. He specifically stated that Thain had told him of the murder at the slaughterhouse when he stopped there to retrieve his cloak.

We know for certain that the three men did learn of the murder as they reported to Buck’s Row and remained there until the body was taken to the mortuary. It seems likely that they were given the information by Thain. It seems likely also that Thain denied telling the men of the murder to avoid embarrassment, not wishing to appear unprofessional or indiscreet.

Police are under scrutiny. They are expected to behave and react in a certain manner, especially during an emergency or crisis. PCs Mizen and Thain were not the last policemen to tell what amounted to inconsequential "white lies" that did no harm to the victim or the investigation as a whole in order to protect their reputations and careers. It is likely also that both these men's superiors were aware of these issues and allowed them to manage them in order to save the Metropolitan Police, as a whole, bad publicity and needless embarrassment.

[harry]

We know that Cross contacted the police very shortly after finding the body.He contacted Mizen.So it is incorrect to imply he never contacted the police at any time.That he didn''t give,or wasn't asked for a name at that time is immaterial.It certainly isn't suggestive of guilt.
We do not know what transpired that weekend,or what Cross's thoughts were on the matter of reporting further,but certainly on the Monday he appeared at the inquest.Why that is,we can't be sure,but the probability is that he felt he had to do something,talked it over with someone,and the authorities were informed.No guilt there whatsoever.
Oh! but the working clothes.Great clue that.He must have been the killer otherwise he would have worn a suit.