If

[Fisherman]

Itīs not that I donīt think that there is a dearth of threads about Lechmere - there really is not.
But I would nevertheless want to open a new thread.

I want to have your view on this question:

Make the assumption that there was a CCTV camera in Bucks Row in 1888, combined with a microphone that picked up what was said by the people in the street.

Now imagine that we have a camera recording showing how Charles Lechmere walked up to Jonas Mizen and said:
-Officer, you are needed in Bucks Row. A woman has been found there. She is lying in the street, flat on her back. Another PC sent me, he wants your help.

Letīs assume that we had all this on tape, and that we knew that it was the truth.

What conclusions would you draw from it?

Would you think that it was pointing to guilt or not?

[Pierre]

Great, but you have to understand that this is a theoretical model only since there were no camera at that time in that place.

So my conclusion is that whatever the conclusion youīll draw from the model, it will be theoretical and not grounded in data from 1888.

But on the other hand I do like the knew picture you give us here, instead of your old biased one: showing a camera, a symbol for objectivating a scene. This camera can be your alter ego and it can be used to compare conclusions.

Regards Pierre

[Fisherman]

Great, but you have to understand that this is a theoretical model only since there were no camera at that time in that place.

So my conclusion is that whatever the conclusion youīll draw from the model, it will be theoretical and not grounded in data from 1888.

But on the other hand I do like the knew picture you give us here, instead of your old biased one: showing a camera, a symbol for objectivating a scene. This camera can be your alter ego.

Regards Pierre

Eh - I do know that CCTV was not around in 1888. I am familiar with that fact.

I would much prefer if you answered the question that formed the basis for the thread. Could you do that for me?

[Pierre]

Well, I will try but as I have said this is the case I know the least about. But I guess what youīre aiming at is that there was no other policeman at the site when Lechmere-Cross and Paul left it. And I think Mizen said Lechmere-Cross told him there was and Lechmere-Cross said he had never said that because there wasnīt. (?)

Well, I just think Mizen perhaps continued knocking up people and therefore wanted the others at the inquest to think he thought there were someone (a PC) already at the crimescene (which he probably didnīt know was a crimescene then). He was afriad of doing the wrong thing perhaps. Donīt know. But how does that make Lechmere-Cross gulity of murder? No, I canīt see anything pointing to that.

But you know much more than me in this particular case.

Regards Pierre

[Fisherman]

Well, I will try but as I have said this is the case I know the least about. But I guess what youīre aiming at is that there was no other policeman at the site when Lechmere-Cross and Paul left it. And I think Mizen said Lechmere-Cross told him there was and Lechmere-Cross said he had never said that because there wasnīt. (?)

Well, I just think Mizen perhaps continued knocking up people and therefore wanted the others at the inquest to think he thought there were someone (a PC) already at the crimescene (which he probably didnīt know was a crimescene then). He was afriad of doing the wrong thing perhaps. Donīt know. But how does that make Lechmere-Cross gulity of murder? No, I canīt see anything pointing to that.

But you know much more than me in this particular case.

Regards Pierre

Pierre, my friend!

You are not supposed to reason that Mizen lied. You are supposed to accept that he told the truth. It is a theoretical construction only, predisoposing that Lechmere lied to Mizen.

If he did, in the way Mizen said he did, then what would your conclusion about it be? That is what I want to know.

[Pierre]

OK, weīll try that then.

"-Officer, you are needed in Bucks Row. A woman has been found there. She is lying in the street, flat on her back. Another PC sent me, he wants your help."

Possible interpretations:
1. Lechmere-Cross lied because he wanted Mizen to hurry up since he thought maybe the woman was alive. It seemed more important if he was sent by a policeman as a messenger. Not guilty.
2. Lechmere-Cross had a big ego and liked policework. Actually, he wanted to be a policeman himself. So he made himself important by making himself cooperative with the police. His stepfather was a policeman. Not guilty.
3. He thought Paul had sent for another policeman and would like Mizen to think he himself had done it. He wanted people to think the best of him. Not guilty.
4. He was a notorius liar and lied all the time about everything. Not guilty.
5. He thought Mizen didnīt listen to him and so he had to say something to get the man going to the crimescene. Not guilty.
6. He was in a state of shock and didnīt know what to say. He was also scared. What if they would suspect him? So he lied and said a policeman sent him. In that way noone would suspect him (except for Fisherman). Not guilty.

Regards Pierre

[Fisherman]

OK, weīll try that then.

"-Officer, you are needed in Bucks Row. A woman has been found there. She is lying in the street, flat on her back. Another PC sent me, he wants your help."

Possible interpretations:
1. Lechmere-Cross lied because he wanted Mizen to hurry up since he thought maybe the woman was alive. It seemed more important if he was sent by a policeman as a messenger. Not guilty.
2. Lechmere-Cross had a big ego and liked policework. Actually, he wanted to be a policeman himself. So he made himself important by making himself cooperative with the police. His stepfather was a policeman. Not guilty.
3. He thought Paul had sent for another policeman and would like Mizen to think he himself had done it. He wanted people to think the best of him. Not guilty.
4. He was a notorius liar and lied all the time about everything. Not guilty.
5. He thought Mizen didnīt listen to him and so he had to say something to get the man going to the crimescene. Not guilty.
6. He was in a state of shock and didnīt know what to say. He was also scared. What if they would suspect him? So he lied and said a policeman sent him. In that way noone would suspect him (except for Fisherman). Not guilty.

Regards Pierre

I know that there can be different interpretations, Pierre. What I am asking for is what YOU would have thought, where YOU would place your bet. If Lechmere lied like this, what do you think it most likely implicated?

Letīs see if we get there this time!

[Pierre]

OK.

I think Lechmere-Cross thought Mizen didnīt listen to him and so he had to say something to get the man going to the crimescene. Not guilty.

Regards Pierre

[Fisherman]

OK, thanks for that Pierre!

Next.

[Wickerman]

Now imagine that we have a camera recording showing how Charles Lechmere walked up to Jonas Mizen and said:
-Officer, you are needed in Bucks Row. A woman has been found there. She is lying in the street, flat on her back. Another PC sent me, he wants your help.

Letīs assume that we had all this on tape, and that we knew that it was the truth.

What conclusions would you draw from it?

Hi Christer.

I seem to recall the main issue for me was, did Lechmere say to Mizen, "another policeman needs you in Bucks Row", or was that Mizen's assumption.
Lechmere was specifically asked if he had said that, and he denied doing so.

All Lechmere may have said was, "you are needed in Bucks row". Which can be interpreted in two ways.
Either, there's a situation that needs your attention or, someone in Bucks Row needs to see you.
I think Lechmere meant the former, and Mizen assumed the latter.
Thats my two cents.

[John Wheat]

Not guilty.

[drstrange169]

If such a thing existed, Xmere would have a lot of explaining to do.
It's easy to think of other reasons for telling fibs to Mizen. It wouldn't make him guilty of murder by a long shot, but it would put him under pressure to explain why he lied.

Of course the question would be moot because there would also have been a camera in Buck's Row that showed the real murderer running around the corner as Xmere arrived at Browne and Eagle's gateway.

[Henry Flower]

Fisherman, to me one of the remarkable things about this case is that there are a number of witnesses and officers who are either mistaken, lying, or acting inexplicably weirdly in almost every incident.

Do Cross/Lechmere's words and actions warrant further investigation? I think so, and it's therefore a shame that we can't do that more productively now.

Re Pierre's responses, it's amusing that he carefully and willfully avoids one rather obvious inference that could be drawn from Cross' reported statement. The other inferences he lists are all, in their own way, plausible; but the idea that he was resorting to dishonesty because he had something to hide is no less plausible. After all, someone killed her, very shortly before Lechmere is seen in the vicinity of her corpse, and it's not unusual for killers under pressure to invent (and be undone by) some very trivial unnecessary lies. The explanation Pierre eventually settles on hinges on a supposition no less unsupported than the assumption of his guilt.

One thing that always puzzles me when I read Lechmere threads is the repeated and unsupported assertion that his use of 'Cross' must have been investigated and cleared up to the satisfaction of the police. Oh, that's all fine then! We must assume his innocence because we must also assume he was investigated by and satisfied the police - the same police <i>who failed to solve that murder</i>.

[Rosella]

I wouldn't necessarily assume guilt of murder on the basis of one statement given to a police officer on finding a body, either. A relative once had to give evidence of a fatal industrial accident when the police arrived, and believe me, there were muddled and contradictory statements from several of the witnesses. We all don't have instant recall, minds like steel traps and the ability to clearly explain what we saw when a dead body is found.

So no, I wouldn't impute guilt to Lechmere, not unless there was supporting evidence. Also, as drstrange has said, if there were CCT cameras about there would probably have been one in Bucks Row, which would be a great help.

[Abby Normal]

Itīs not that I donīt think that there is a dearth of threads about Lechmere - there really is not.
But I would nevertheless want to open a new thread.

I want to have your view on this question:

Make the assumption that there was a CCTV camera in Bucks Row in 1888, combined with a microphone that picked up what was said by the people in the street.

Now imagine that we have a camera recording showing how Charles Lechmere walked up to Jonas Mizen and said:
-Officer, you are needed in Bucks Row. A woman has been found there. She is lying in the street, flat on her back. Another PC sent me, he wants your help.

Letīs assume that we had all this on tape, and that we knew that it was the truth.

What conclusions would you draw from it?

Would you think that it was pointing to guilt or not?

Hi fish
Don't know why everyone's beating around the bush. if he said that he would not be telling the truth.
As to pointing to guilt? Yes it would to some extant or he could have lied just because he was late and didn't want to be detained.