Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Jon Guy]

Hi Christer

Do we know if Cross initially went to the police on his own accord ?

[curious4]

You are completely correct, Caz - people rehashing things are not engaging in circular reasoning!

Bravo!

However, I never meant that they did. That is why I say that a paraphrase would be to let the discussion go round and round and round in circles, the way you do. And I, when I answer the same old questions over and over and over again.

From the net, defining "paraphrase:

To adapt or alter (a text or quotation) to serve a different purpose from that of the original.

Check things first next time. Please?

(This was supposed to answer Caz, not Fish, pressed the wrong button)


Circular reasoning is providing evidence for the validity of an assertion, which assumes the validity of the assertion.

General forms include "A is true because A is true" or "A is true because B is true, and B is true because A is true".

Often used as a mechanism to prevent an assertion from being challenged or questioned, or to "win" a debate by sending it round and round in circles.

I think Fisherman was quite correct in his usage in the context. This thread is rapidly deteriorating into "Fisherman-bashing", whether one agrees with him or not. And since when has it been ok to pick on someone's usage of a language not their mother tongue (even if Fisherman's English is a good deal better than your Swedish, Caz - and even your English at times).

Best wishes
C4

[Patrick S]

Caz: No, Fish, you have no obligation to keep chewing. But I do question what was in it for Lechmere to be 'proactive' when he was just 'another man', who only 'looked like a carman', and Paul's newspaper story indicated pretty clearly that neither he nor Mizen suspected this 'other man' of any wrongdoing.

There is something very strange going on here. Why don´t you underrstand my argument? it is very clear and simple, and should offer no chewing resistance at all.

I will try once more, and you must tell me what it is you cannot accept. I will take it step by step.

1. Lechmere and Paul approach Mizen, and Lechmere speaks to him about the woman in Bucks Row. This ensures that all three men will be able to identify each other.

2. None of the carmen approach either police or press initially, leaving Neil to think that he was the sole finder of Nichols.

3. Mizen does not go to his superiors and tell them that two carmen had spoken to him.

4. Then, on the 2:nd of September, an article surfaces in Lloyds Weekly, where Robert Paul claims to have come upon the victim before the police did so, and that another man was found standing where the body was as this happened. In the article, there are passages that will have told the police that the carman was not telling the truth - for example, he says that the body was stone cold, and the police will have known that it was instead warm, apart from the hands and lower arms.

5. On the evening of the 2:nd, in the aftermath of the article in Lloyds Weekly, the police give an "interview". At this occasion, inspector Helson spoke to the press, and it appears that John Neil participated also. This is what is said of Neils contribution:
"Police constable Neil, 79 J, who found the body, reports the time as 3.45. Buck's row is a comparatively secluded place, having tenements on one side only. There is little doubt that the constable was watched out of the street on his previous round. He has been severely questioned as to his "working" of his "beat" on that night, and states that he was last on the spot where he found the body not more than half an hour previously - that is to say, at 3.15. The "beat" is a very short one, and, quickly walked over, would not occupy more than twelve minutes. He neither heard a cry not saw a soul. Moreover, there are three watchmen on duty at night close to the spot and neither one heard a cry to cause alarm. It is not true, says Constable Neil, who is a man of nearly 20 years' service, that he was called to the body by two men. He came upon it as he walked, and, flashing his lanthern to examine it he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the street. These officers had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention, and the mystery is most complete. "

We must assume that this interview followed upon the publication in Lloyds Weekly, and that some time had passed after the publishing before the interview was given. This means that there was a window of time where it had not yet surfaced that the police did not trust what Paul said in the interview.

If Lechmere took his decision to go to the police in this interval, it makes perfect sense for him to be proactive. He knew that Paul was essentially telling the truth, and he knew that Paul would be able to describe a number of things that you needed to have been in place to know about - like for example how the dress was pulled down to the knees but no further. He would therefore probably have assumed that the police would believe Robert Paul.
It follows that he would realize that he was at great risk to become the prime suspect, and that he stood to gain from being proactive: If he could persuade the police that he had not had the time to do the murder on account of Paul being on his heels, he would stand a chance to get out of the dilemma. Paul, having arrived in nigh on total darkness, would not have been able to corroborate or deny the distance Lechmere suggested was there between them.

You suggest that Mizen would have thought "so this was the man who spoke to me - Robert Paul", and that is not a bad suggestion per se. But the article in Lloyds has one man only arriving up at Bakers Row, and that should have Mizen wondering.
Regardless if it did or not, it neverthess remains that Lechmere would have known:

A/ That TWO men arrived in Bakers Row, not one

B/ How Lechmere looked and how Paul looked

In the article, the other carman is named, and it is stated where he worked. It is obvious that Robert Paul has no intention of keeping quiet about the find. And if he spoke to the press, giving his name, then it must to Lechmere have seemed very likely that the police would talk to Paul. And if they did, there was every chance that

A/ Paul would tell the real story

B/ Mizen would be called upon to ID the carman - which would let the cat out of the box.

It would have been a question of guessing the development on Lechmere´s behalf. If he sensed that he would be outed, he needed to be proactive.

That is how I see it. You may see it differently, but surely you can follow my reasoning?

In fact the only finger being pointed was at Mizen for continuing to knock up after being told that a woman was lying in the street, asleep, unconscious or worse, and at the mercy of the elements, if not the local gangs or the man who had murdered a street woman in the area, in similar conditions, not a month since.

What Lechmere told him, if Mizen was not lying, was that a woman "had been found" on the broad of her back in Bucks Row, and that another PC was in place, requesting his presence.
If Mizen was not lying, then the gravity of the case was played down, and the help at hand was played up.

Mizen would have wanted Paul or the 'other man' to become suspects like he wanted a hole in the head, given how that would have reflected on his own performance.

That is pure conjecture. Mizen did nothing wrong. He could be sure that his colleague had taken the names, and it was never hinted at that it could be a case of murder or suicide.
What Mizen needed to do in such a case was to go to Bucks Row and that was exactly what he did.

Lechmere was home free, and would have remained so, even in the highly unlikely event that Paul and Mizen were to join forces, turn over every stone in Whitechapel and find him again. They can't hang you for not attending an inquest after raising the alarm with a less than proactive policeman who suspected nothing until it was too late.

Once Lechmere had passed Mizen, he was "in the clear" in this respect. So he got there quicker.

In your scenario, he would equally be in the clear - but he would not have been able to serve the inquest his "Paul was just 30 yards behind-story", leaving the inquest and police to conclude that he could have been aloine with the body for an unknown amount of time. And that would in all probabulity have him suspected. By going to the inquest, HE AVOIDED THAT.

By the time they found Lechmere again and were able to positively identify him as the same man, what possible evidence could they have conjured up to connect him with the crime itself?

None - but he could well be the prime suspect, and he would reasonably end up under very close surveillance, which would have been exactly what he tried to avoid.

When you add to all that the trouble you insist Lechmere felt obliged to go to, to use a different surname at the inquest and try to keep his home address out of it too, so he could kill again without raising certain people's suspicions, the question becomes not what was in it for him, but what could have possessed him to put himself through any of it, once safely away from Mizen?

He never was "safely away", Caz. That is your conjecture only. He would have had the full interest of the whole Met if he stayed away.
As it was, he bluffed the inquest and was cleared in the eyes if the police.

If he was the killer and could choose between these two things, which would be the better choice to make? To stay away and arguably become the most sought-after man in Britain, or to roll the dice and try and bluf everybody?

Basically, we are down to the same old "he wouldn´t" - "oh yes, he would", and nobody is going to be able to establish any percentage value about how good or bad the different bids are.
But I hope, at any rate, that you can accept that there is a logical explanation involving Lechmere as the killer.

Let's see here......It was dark. ALL of the involved parties agree that Mizen was somewhat unconcerned – to say the least – when told that a woman was lying in Buck’s Row (we’ll omit the fact that both Lechmere and Paul assert that Mizen WAS told that she was LIKELY DEAD since that leads – inevitably – to your new and improved “Paul The Liar” version of the heretofore implausible and absurd “Mizen Scam”). No names were taken. Seeing as you treat the press reports as gospel, recounting ALL relevant details, we are ASSURED that neither man was put under the slightest scrutiny by good Mizen and his trusty lantern.

Further, no discussion of the idiotically named ‘Mizen Scam’ is complete without discussing how Lechmere found himself in this position in the first place! We must recount the decisions this KILLER made that placed him in Baker’s Row with Mizen and Paul:

First he heard Paul approaching from 40 yards off. In the dark. He doesn’t run, jog, tiptoe, or simply WALK away (for the folks at home….act this out…..walk 40 yards off tonight, in the dark. Note the distance…..ask yourself if escape is impossible, difficult, easy?). Nope. He administers the coup de gras to Nichols. Takes a few steps TOWARD the man walking down Buck’s Row. Even though the man is trying to avoid him...he approaches the man. TOUCHES the man. Asks him to come have a look. Skipping the rest of the nonsense proposed about refusing to prop and why. That foolishness is effective – again – only if Lechmere has access to Christer and Ed’s Magic Crystal Ball! Anyway, Chuck the Ripper knows – at this point – something Paul does not. Lechmere knows which direction Paul is headed. Paul has no idea which direction Lechmere is headed. Alas, rather than say he’s headed in the direction Paul just came from and that he’d look for a policeman in THAT direction, he goes off WITH Paul to find a cop. BRILLIANT!

AH! But he hilarity continues……Lechmere doesn’t ditch Paul the end of Buck’s Row. He sticks it out until they DO find a cop. Again, there were plenty of ways out of this. Paul doesn’t know Lechmere. Doesn’t know where he’s coming from or where his place of employment is. So, they find Mizen…..the brilliant plan is proceeding, uh, perfectly…..yeah….our killer does Nichols, asks a guy who is trying to avoid him to come have a look….then goes off with him to find a policeman to tell about it….. Anyway, there’s that crystal ball again. Lechmere KNOWS that Mizen will under-react to the news. That he won’t ask them to accompany him back to the scene (Mizen Scam or no). Nope. Just as you’d expect…..Mizen says, “Alright….” And that’s that.

THEN! After he makes his escape......he's free and clear......HE SHOWS UP AT THE INQUEST! So....let's run it down. I'm Lechmere:

1. I attack Nichols.
2. I hear Paul 40 yards off.
3. I cut her throat, almost decapitating her
4. I immediately take a few steps toward the man coming my way.
5. I turn and approach him.
6. He tries to avoid me. But I don't let him....
7. I touch him
8. I ask him to come see the woman I just killed
9. I spend a few minutes with him, pretending to see if she's alive
10. I decide not walk the other way
11. I decide to tell my new pal that I - like him - am headed to work
12. I tell my new friend I'm going in the same direction he is going
13. Me and my new buddy resolve to go find a policeman together
14. I decide not ditch my new best friend by saying my work is this way
15. I stick with my new amigo.....thinking I may put him in my will
16. We find a cop
17. We tell him all about the woman I just killed
18. Just as I knew he would, he lets me go
19. I'm free and clear!
20. I escaped the police!
21. I voluntarily show up and the inquest 72 hours after I killed Nichols.

Brilliant theory!!!!!!!!!

[Patrick S]

Backtrack on the boards, Sally. The answer is there.

It's there Sally, if unsaid: It may jeopardize his ability to extract the full measure of available profit from this clunker. He knows he can't defend it.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer

Do we know if Cross initially went to the police on his own accord ?

No, we don´t. It seems the more logical guess to me, since he was not known by name and since it is obvious that the police did not put trust in Paul as late as on the evening of the 2:nd. If they did not believe Paul, why would they go in search of Lechmere?

[Jon Guy]

No, we don´t. It seems the more logical guess to me, since he was not known by name and since it is obvious that the police did not put trust in Paul as late as on the evening of the 2:nd. If they did not believe Paul, why would they go in search of Lechmere?

Another possibility was that the police were questioning all men passing through Bucks Row between 3-5am on the Monday morning. This would explain his appearance later on Monday dressed for work.

[caz]

It's worse than that, Harry. Fish uses Cross's own stated time of leaving home to try and hang him. Cross apparently incriminates himself by telling the truth - more than once, if you count where he also admits he heard and saw nobody who could have left the crime scene before he got there.

So now you actually know that he told the truth?

Not me, Fish. Read my words again, this time with a little more care. I said that you have used Cross's own stated time of leaving home to incriminate him, by claiming there were several 'missing' minutes in which he could have encountered Nichols, gone with her to Buck's Row (on his route to work) and done the horrible deed before he heard someone approaching. You are relying on the ripper being accurate and therefore honest about the time he left home, otherwise you would have no idea if your suspect could have done all that before being joined by Robert Paul.

You have also tried to incriminate your suspect, by using his own admission that he saw and heard nobody, to claim there was therefore nobody there to kill Nichols before he arrived.

You are therefore the one with the problem, because the ripper would have had more reason to lie in both cases, to give himself too little time to do the deed, and to point the finger at some fictitious man who left the scene before him, than to tell the truth and thus incriminate himself in the manner you desperately imagine he did.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Caz: That's the whole point, Fish. He wouldn't. That was what Lechmere in this scenario was trying to achieve - covering all the bases. By saying he saw and heard nothing (whether he did or not), that might keep himself safe, but if the killer wasn't satisfied, at least he wouldn't know the name of Cross's wife and children.

It makes absolutely no sense. None whatsoever. If he said "I saw and heard absolutely nothing", then whhy on Gods green earth would he lie about his name so that the killer would not come after him? Don`t you see that the killer would not do that? There would be no reason whatsoever!

Sigh, do you deliberately misunderstand, or are you genuinely incapable of grasping what 'covering all the bases' implies? If the killer believes this witness when he says he didn't see or hear anyone, fine. The killer can breathe a sigh of relief that he hasn't risked identification. But what about the witness? It would have been a close thing, and for all Lechmere knew, the killer could now be seething somewhere about being disturbed in his work and hell bent on teaching the intruder - or the intruder's family - a lesson nobody would forget. Why would Lechmere have taken the slightest risk of his wife or children becoming targets for a highly dangerous madman's revenge, if he could help to avoid it by using a surname that was not theirs? It's a simple enough concept, surely?

But if Lechmere swopped names, he would be at risk to be found out by the police. And if he was, he would be in an extremely awkward position. If the police further to this looked deeply on his testimony and found the Mizen scam, the bleeding issues and so on, he could end up in the gallows - and THAT should make his Mrs pissed off!

Circular. You are presuming his guilt again, while my scenario does not. Lechmere can call himself Charles Allen Cross, Charles Allen Terrified, Charles Allen Gay or Charles Allen Bleeding-Miserable if he likes, while trying to protect his family from an unhinged killer's revenge. He can't hang for it. Your Mizen scam, the bleeding issues and so on - he can't hang for any of it because for each 'issue' you have with him, there is at least one innocent alternative explanation, providing him with more reasonable doubt than you can shake a very sticky stick at. With no blood on his hands, literally or figuratively, the man has nothing to fear from the bleeding issues, from Mizen's testimony, nor from using the name Cross.

Conversely, as you rather eloquently put it yourself, Lechmere would indeed have been at risk of the police finding out about the name change if Pickfords only knew him as Lechmere, and finding himself in an extremely awkward position, if he was the killer and not just a witness. So remind me once more why he would have taken this totally unnecessary risk of ending up on the gallows, when he could have walked away as Mr. Anonymous, with no suspicion attaching to him, and no evidence to attach any?

Besides, the whole suggestion with another killer putting thumbscrews on Lechmere is very, very odd.

Only to someone already so blinkered that he can't see past Lechmere as a killer with nothing and nobody to fear. But if it's the basic concept of witness intimidation that you find so very odd, tell that to whoever wrote the ripper letter of October 6th, threatening to 'finish' a witness and send his ears to his wife.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Another possibility was that the police were questioning all men passing through Bucks Row between 3-5am on the Monday morning. This would explain his appearance later on Monday dressed for work.

Indeed it would - but why would the police go looking for Lechmere in Bucks Row at all, when they had so clearly dissed Pauls story?

If the police gave an interview on Sunday evening, saying that Neil was the finder and denying that there had been two other men involved, then what were they doing in Bucks Row on Monday morning?

[Jon Guy]

Indeed it would - but why would the police go looking for Lechmere in Bucks Row at all, when they had so clearly dissed Pauls story?

If the police gave an interview on Sunday evening, saying that Neil was the finder and denying that there had been two other men involved, then what were they doing in Bucks Row on Monday morning?

Well, obviously they`d be wrong in denying that two other men were involved. When did the police speak to Paul ?


It`s usual police practise when looking for witnesses to put police on the scene at the appropriate time to ask the passing public if they had seen something (they will do re-enactments too)

[Fisherman]

caz: Not me, Fish. Read my words again, this time with a little more care. I said that you have used Cross's own stated time of leaving home to incriminate him, by claiming there were several 'missing' minutes in which he could have encountered Nichols, gone with her to Buck's Row (on his route to work) and done the horrible deed before he heard someone approaching. You are relying on the ripper being accurate and therefore honest about the time he left home, otherwise you would have no idea if your suspect could have done all that before being joined by Robert Paul.

Here´s what you wrote, Caz:

"Fish uses Cross's own stated time of leaving home to try and hang him. Cross apparently incriminates himself by telling the truth - more than once, if you count where he also admits he heard and saw nobody who could have left the crime scene before he got there."

Clearly you claim that Lechmere told the truth about when he left. It is hard to read this in any other fashion.

But it now seems that you are asking WHY he would say 3.30 if it incriminated him. Well, I cannot know why. I can suggest that his Mrs was awake and knowing that he left at 3.30, and that Lechmere realized that he could be investigated.

The gist of the matter remains, though - if he left at 3.30, he should not have been in Bucks Row at 3.45! He should not have been in Bucks Row at 3.40 either. The times do not work together, and when they do not, we ask for an explanation.

Claiming that he told the truth and that I should really not question him is disingenous.

You have also tried to incriminate your suspect, by using his own admission that he saw and heard nobody, to claim there was therefore nobody there to kill Nichols before he arrived.

The blood was still running from the neck of Nichols some six or seven minutes - at least! - after Lechmere left her. I am told by Jason Payne-James that seven minutes is a bit of a stretch. That means that the killer should have left the body as Lechmere arrived at it, if there WAS another killer and if Payne-James is correct.
Of course, the time cannot be fixed with any real certainty. But it remains that we reasonably have a small window only - if any - to offer for another killer. Therefore, if Lechmere heard no steps as he arrived at the body and saw nobody leaving, it applies that we must add ANOTHER minute to the time, somethbing that is not very viable.

You are therefore the one with the problem, because the ripper would have had more reason to lie in both cases, to give himself too little time to do the deed, and to point the finger at some fictitious man who left the scene before him, than to tell the truth and thus incriminate himself in the manner you desperately imagine he did.

Desperately? Am I the desperate one and you the cool, calm one? Really?

The times given by Lechmere are not what they should be, and the bleeding time seemingly nearly closes the window for another killer. That is of interest and needs to be kept in mind.

As for Lechmer suggesting "there was a man running down Bucks Row", what was he supposed to do if it surfaced that Mizen was at the junction and said "No, that is a lie. There was absolutely nobody"?
That would be game up, Caz. He may not have desired that. he may therefore have been the more clever of the two of you in this department.

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy: Well, obviously they`d be wrong in denying that two other men were involved. When did the police speak to Paul ?

Between day two and three of the inquest.

It`s usual police practise when looking for witnesses to put police on the scene at the appropriate time to ask the passing public if they had seen something (they will do re-enactments too)

But why would they be looking for Lechmere, having dissed Paul?

[Jon Guy]

But why would they be looking for Lechmere, having dissed Paul?

Okay, I`ll go back and have a look at the newspapers again -I didn`t realise they had dissed the idea of two carmen.

.

[GUT]

Okay, I`ll go back and have a look at the newspapers again -I didn`t realise they had dissed the idea of two carmen.

.

They dissed Paul so much that they dragged him down the station and along to the inquest, leaving him to complain about missing work.

[Jon Guy]

Okay, I`ll go back and have a look at the newspapers again -I didn`t realise they had dissed the idea of two carmen.

Christer, which newspaper was it that interviewed Paul and his bemoaning the late night visitation by the police?

I`ve seen the article where the Lloyds reporter speaks to Paul in Bucks Row on Friday evening.