If

[Patrick S]

Hi Rosella!

Here are the same questions I always ask in this situation:

Why did he use the name Cross on this occasion only, when using Lechmere otherwise when in contact with authoritites?

Thomas Cross had been dead for nineteen years - who was supposed to remember him?

Even if Lechmere DID decide that the men in the cop shop needed to be informed about his long dead stepfather, why would Lechmere NOT use his real name too?
Why would he step in there and say "Hi, my name is Cross, and that is because nineteen years ago, I had a stepfather named T<homas cross who actually was a police constable, just like you men!"

Why would he NOT say : Hi, my name is Charles Lechmere! Itīs nice to see you men. It reminds me of my old stepfather, who was a PC just like you. He was named Thomas Cross - anybody here who remembers him? No?"

Giving JUST the name Cross would potentially be a dangerous thing to do. He was the witness who had found the boy all alone. The police could get ideas if he kept his real name back.

And he did, apparently.

We must think a step longer when looking at all of this. Loftily saying "Ah, he probably thought of his dear old stepdad" carries a lot of problems with itself. He could easily get all the advantages of having had a police stepfather WITHOUT masquerading - so why would he go to those lenghts? What would he gain?

Hi, Rosella. As always, Christer's "case" against Lechmere continues to evolve. Recently added is this bit:

Thomas Cross had been dead for nineteen years - who was supposed to remember him?

As I pay close attention to the drivel that pours, continually, from Christer's keyboard I can tell you that this "nuance" was added because Trevor Marriott suggested that Lechmere used the name Cross since his step-father (the Thomas Cross mentioned here) was a policeman, therefore it may mean something to the police. Trevor, of course, makes a valid point. We have no idea what Mr. Lechmere's relationship with the police was. We do not know if he was taken to the station as a lad and got to know some of the officers. Perhaps some of Thomas' peers had ascended to the higher ranks, and Lechmere gave the name Cross as it may have some meaning to them, in that they knew him by that name in his youth. Who knows? In the end, it's ALL that Christer and his merry band have to raise any question about Lechmere. Everything else has been completely invented.

Christer does not tell you here that Lechmere gave his actual home address and his employer. He was clearly not trying to hide his identity. Bear in mind also that the case files no longer exist. All we have to rely upon are contemporary newspaper accounts of the inquest and those, as you likely know, have proven - again and again - quite inaccurate at times. Thus, we have no idea if Lechmere gave the name Cross to the exclusion of the name Lechmere or not. We simply don't know. Thus, I think - as most do to Christer's growing frustration - this inconsistency likely has one of a thousand explanations...short of Charles Lechmere being Jack the Ripper (and the Torso Killer and a few other murderers around town...he left that part out too).

[Pierre]

I would like to add one more thing to this, Barnaby.

It is reasoned by some of those who do not favour Lechmere as the killer, that PC Mizen was the liar. Some will even say it is a thing beyond discussion.

These posters say that the reason Mizen told the jury that he had been informed that another PC was already in place in Bucks Row, was that he was tardy himself in going down to Browns stable yard. And so, it is said, he invented that other PC, so that he could point to how he would not have had any real need to rush - the other PC would already have had the matter in hand!

However, notice how Mizen also says that he was only informed that there was a woman lying flat on her back in Bucks Row. From what Mizen tells us, he was NOT informed about how grave the errand - potentially - was.
This too is picked up on by the so called naysayers - they say that not only did Mizen invent that other PC, he also played down that he had been told that it was a serious errand. The scoundrel!

But consider this:

Why did not Mizen ONLY say that he was told that there was a drunken woman lying in the street? Going by what Lechmere said, PC Mizen was told that the woman was either drunk or dead. How easy it would have been, then, to ONLY acknowledge that he had heard the drunken part!

It would corroborate what the carman said (and what Mizen would have known he was going to say), and it would not have him entangled in an elaborate lie that he KNEW the carmen would both deny. And it would be quite enough to explain why he did not rush - if we are to believe that he didnīt.

If he DID invent the "other PC" lie, he stood to BOTH be faced with both of the carmens denials, blowing him out of the water, plus having a PC in place that had specifically requested his help without defining why,and that would be a very compelling reason to make haste. It could potentially be very pressing.

No matter how we turn these matters inside out, the lies do not fit with Mizen trying to make an excuse - but they DO fit eminently with the carman lying his way past Mizen.

All it takes is some afterhought.

Hi Fisherman,

How come "the lie" is your only option? You write:

"If he DID invent the "other PC" lie..."

"... it would not have him entangled in an elaborate lie..."

"No matter how we turn these matters inside out, the lies do not fit with Mizen trying to make an excuse..."

But HOW do you exclude a misremebering?

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

Double posted.

[Pierre]

Hi, Rosella. As always, Christer's "case" against Lechmere continues to evolve. Recently added is this bit:

Thomas Cross had been dead for nineteen years - who was supposed to remember him?

As I pay close attention to the drivel that pours, continually, from Christer's keyboard I can tell you that this "nuance" was added because Trevor Marriott suggested that Lechmere used the name Cross since his step-father (the Thomas Cross mentioned here) was a policeman, therefore it may mean something to the police. Trevor, of course, makes a valid point. We have no idea what Mr. Lechmere's relationship with the police was. We do not know if he was taken to the station as a lad and got to know some of the officers. Perhaps some of Thomas' peers had ascended to the higher ranks, and Lechmere gave the name Cross as it may have some meaning to them, in that they knew him by that name in his youth. Who knows? In the end, it's ALL that Christer and his merry band have to raise any question about Lechmere. Everything else has been completely invented.

Christer does not tell you here that Lechmere gave his actual home address and his employer. He was clearly not trying to hide his identity. Bear in mind also that the case files no longer exist. All we have to rely upon are contemporary newspaper accounts of the inquest and those, as you likely know, have proven - again and again - quite inaccurate at times. Thus, we have no idea if Lechmere gave the name Cross to the exclusion of the name Lechmere or not. We simply don't know. Thus, I think - as most do to Christer's growing frustration - this inconsistency likely has one of a thousand explanations...short of Charles Lechmere being Jack the Ripper (and the Torso Killer and a few other murderers around town...he left that part out too).

Yes Patrick,

and when you have so scanty data, you need to construct it as beeing more significant by attaching very many ad hocs to them and on these you build a theory. Afterwards you can travel up and down from theory to data and get it all confirmed with the help of your beloved ad hocs.

And itīs like magic. It captures you and takes hostage of your brain. You never see beyond your theoretical horizon and you seem to forget what the ad hocs are.

Regards Pierre

[Fisherman]

Double posted.

Thatīs two posts too many.

[Patrick S]

Yes Patrick,

and when you have so scanty data, you need to construct it as beeing more significant by attaching very many ad hocs to them and on these you build a theory. Afterwards you can travel up and down from theory to data and get it all confirmed with the help of your beloved ad hocs.

And itīs like magic. It captures you and takes hostage of your brain. You never see beyond your theoretical horizon and you seem to forget what the ad hocs are.

Regards Pierre

Pierre, you are speaking my language. My background is in analysis. Thus, Christer's method is - to me - completely backward. It is maddening, absurd, incomprehensible. Add that to his insufferable boorishness combined with a complete inability to "take it" as he "dishes" it out, and...well...the results are here on these boards.

[Patrick S]

Thatīs two posts too many.

Must have been a good question. You didn't even get a really silly answer.

[caz]

If he DID invent the "other PC" lie, he stood to BOTH be faced with both of the carmens denials, blowing him out of the water, plus having a PC in place that had specifically requested his help without defining why,and that would be a very compelling reason to make haste. It could potentially be very pressing.

No matter how we turn these matters inside out, the lies do not fit with Mizen trying to make an excuse - but they DO fit eminently with the carman lying his way past Mizen.

All it takes is some afterhought.

Just catching up with some old Cross threads and saw the above.

Hi Christer,

If I follow your reasoning here, Mizen wouldn't have invented the "other PC", specifically requesting his help without defining why, because that would have given him a very compelling reason to have made haste, in case the matter was 'very pressing'. And as we know, he didn't make haste, so that would have reflected badly on him.

Yet when it comes to Lechmere inventing the other PC, haven't you tried to argue the exact opposite: that Mizen could be forgiven for not responding immediately, because a) he understood a PC was already on hand and b) he wasn't told it was anything serious?

Why was Mizen's response too slow for him to have invented the other PC without it looking bad, but perfectly excusable if Lechmere did so?

Isn't this in itself a compelling reason to favour the misunderstanding scenario, whereby Mizen was not sure what he would find in Buck's Row, so when he found PC Neil tending to the woman, who had been murdered, and was sent by him to fetch an ambulance, he naturally put two and two together and made five, and assumed Neil had sent Lechmere for help?

That would be the kindest scenario as far as Mizen's less than immediate response goes, but unfortunately it would be kinder on Lechmere than you could stomach.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz: Just catching up with some old Cross threads and saw the above.

Why am I suspecting to get to see some of the old objections...? Nah, just kiddinī, Caz - ask away.

If I follow your reasoning here, Mizen wouldn't have invented the "other PC", specifically requesting his help without defining why, because that would have given him a very compelling reason to have made haste, in case the matter was 'very pressing'. And as we know, he didn't make haste, so that would have reflected badly on him.

Many words for a simple matter - if Mizen WAS told that there was another PC in place, then he would potentially have good reason to make haste. So much more so if he was told that the woman could be dead/dying. End of story.

Yet when it comes to Lechmere inventing the other PC, haven't you tried to argue the exact opposite: that Mizen could be forgiven for not responding immediately, because a) he understood a PC was already on hand and b) he wasn't told it was anything serious?

I think you are missing out on the two levels in this errand:

1/ If Lechmere was not a liar, then he told Mizen that there was a potentially very grave errand to tend to in Bucks Row. Basically, the carmans story would have been along the lines "Officer, we just came from Bucks Row. Thereīs a woman lying in the street there, and she is either dead or drunk". The possibility that she was not dead but instead dying would have been very realistic.
Processing this, Mizen would have had very good reason to make haste. And we know that he did not scamper off immediately, which makes him look bad - but only if the carman was truthful.

2. If Lechmere was a lying son of a bitch and an adept killer who told Mizen the story I am suggesting, then it will have gone something along these lines: "Evening, officer! Me and my pal over there just bumped into a colleague of yours in Bucks Row. It seems he stumbled over a wretch who was unable to stand on her own two feet, and for some reason he told us to try and find a colleage who could help him. Could you tend to that, please - me and my mate need to press on now, since we are late for work, if thatīs fine with you?"
Processing THAT, Mizen will have had a lot less reason to rush off - it was probably just another ginsoaked woman who needed escorting to the police station, and at any rate, that colleague of his had the matter in hand, so letīs give Mr Jones that knock-up before we set off, shall we?

It is the message that governs the ensuing action, Caz. And we can see on many levels that Lechmere aparently DID lie to Mizen, so we should not be surprised to see the PC acting accordingly.

Why was Mizen's response too slow for him to have invented the other PC without it looking bad, but perfectly excusable if Lechmere did so?

See the above.

Isn't this in itself a compelling reason to favour the misunderstanding scenario, whereby Mizen was not sure what he would find in Buck's Row, so when he found PC Neil tending to the woman, who had been murdered, and was sent by him to fetch an ambulance, he naturally put two and two together and made five, and assumed Neil had sent Lechmere for help?

No. It never was and it never will be. Your misunderstanding thingy only surfaces when Mizen reaches the murder spot. It is THEN you think he thought to himself: "Look there - a colleague! Well, if thereīs a colleague here, then the carman will have told me so. I must have missed that before, but hereīs making amends!"


The problem with that suggestion is that it would nevertheless predispose that Lechmere had told Mizen what he told the inquest he had told the PC: That he and Paul had found a woman lying in Bucks Row who was either dead or drunk.

In such a scenario, Mizen would not have been free to send the carmen on their way, no questions asked, no names taken - instead he should have secured the names and asked the men to stay with him until he had knowledge about what the errand was all about.
Equally, if Lechmereīs version of events was true, then why did not Mizens superiors realize that Robert Paul was correct in his paper interview - they would have Mizens report from the murder night in their hands, stating that two carmen had found the body.
This, however, was something the police actively denied on the 2:nd of September, just as they allowed Neil to take the stand and claim that he was the finder of Nichols body. Why - if Mizens report told the real story?
Are you suggesting that he never wrote one? Or that he forgot to mention that the carmen were the finders? And why did Mizen not correct Neil?
You see, these matters work only with one solution: Jonas Mizen was lied to by Charles Lechmere on the murder night. This in itīs turn clearly suggests an evasive act on Lechmereīs behalf, suggesting that he was the killer.

That would be the kindest scenario as far as Mizen's less than immediate response goes, but unfortunately it would be kinder on Lechmere than you could stomach.

I have stomached a more than most people out here, Caz, so donīt underestimate my belly. I just dislike it when people cannot put two and two together without making it three. I am all for being generous and forgiving, but not when ignorance is the underlying driving force. And Iīm afraid that is what you are exhibiting here.

There are more than one level involved. Keep that in mind. And keep track of the consequences, Caz! If - so. For example: If the carman said that he and his mate were the finders, then why was it not in Mizens report? If instead the carman lied, THEN we can see how the report can have stated "Was summoned to Bucks Row by colleague". And in that case - and in that case ONLY - it would be possible for Mizens report to pass his superiors, seemingly corroborating what Neil had said in HIS report.

[Pierre]

Just catching up with some old Cross threads and saw the above.

Hi Christer,

If I follow your reasoning here, Mizen wouldn't have invented the "other PC", specifically requesting his help without defining why, because that would have given him a very compelling reason to have made haste, in case the matter was 'very pressing'. And as we know, he didn't make haste, so that would have reflected badly on him.

Yet when it comes to Lechmere inventing the other PC, haven't you tried to argue the exact opposite: that Mizen could be forgiven for not responding immediately, because a) he understood a PC was already on hand and b) he wasn't told it was anything serious?

Why was Mizen's response too slow for him to have invented the other PC without it looking bad, but perfectly excusable if Lechmere did so?

Isn't this in itself a compelling reason to favour the misunderstanding scenario, whereby Mizen was not sure what he would find in Buck's Row, so when he found PC Neil tending to the woman, who had been murdered, and was sent by him to fetch an ambulance, he naturally put two and two together and made five, and assumed Neil had sent Lechmere for help?

That would be the kindest scenario as far as Mizen's less than immediate response goes, but unfortunately it would be kinder on Lechmere than you could stomach.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi,

Well, I think there are other aspects of this historical problem that could be discussed to develop some thinking and questions about it.

Firstly, just a small detail:

Mizen said that Cross had informed him that Mizen was wanted by “a policeman” in Buckīs row – not “a constable”.

The juryman, on the other hand, asked Cross if he told Mizen about a “constable”.

But Cross refers to what Mizen said instead, and does not use the word “constable” to answer the question of the juryman. Instead he says that he did not see “a policeman” there.

“Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body.
…
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.”

http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...t_nichols.html

I donīt say that this is important. I just want to mention it and hear if some of you have some thoughts about that.

From my point of view, looking at the case from the perspective of the theory about a police official being the killer, I find it hard to explain why Lechmere (Cross) would have lied to Mizen, since there is no evidence for Lechmere being the killer.

And since there is evidence for the police official being the killer, I find it easier to hypothesize that Lechmere did see a policeman in Buckīs Row.

And one good reason for lying in court would then be the risk of the killer finding Lechmere (Cross) and his family, since, If Lechmere saw the killer, he would have been able to identify him.

Supportive of the hypothesis that Lechmere became a witness to the killer would then also be the fact that the killer changed his MO after Nichols and stopped killing and mutilating his victims out on the street. After that he started using courtyards and a "square".

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

And since there is evidence for the police official being the killer, I find it easier to hypothesize that Lechmere did see a policeman in Buckīs Row.

Before anyone foolishly decides to challenge the above statement, I would ask you all to bear in mind Pierre's warning in another thread:

"please donīt misuse the word evidence".

As Pierre has clearly told us:

"Research evidence is something that can be establish after tests, analyse and interpretation."

So please bear in mind the Holy Trinity of research evidence:

1. Facts
2. Analyse
3. Interpretation

Once we understand this, we can begin to see the evidence for the police official being the killer. I would list it all here for you but I've forgotten what it is, although I know there is a lot of it, probably far too much to fit into one post.

[Pierre]

This, however, was something the police actively denied on the 2:nd of September, just as they allowed Neil to take the stand and claim that he was the finder of Nichols body. Why - if Mizens report told the real story?

Hi Fisherman

I may be very stupid but I donīt understand what you are writing here.

What did the police deny on the 2:nd of September?

Neil did not even testify on the 2nd - or did he?

Who claimed - and where - that Neil was the finder?

Sorry. I am confused.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

I am also confused? If the killer changed his MO after Bucks Row, as suggested by Pierre, why would he pick locations that were, in essence, just as risky, if not more so, i.e. Hanbury Street, Mitre Square?

[David Orsam]

For anyone also confused about how the killer could possibly be said to have had an MO from a single murder, I am sure Pierre will explain everything to your entire satisfaction.

[John G]

For anyone also confused about how the killer could possibly be said to have had an MO from a single murder, I am sure Pierre will explain everything to your entire satisfaction.

Thank you David. I shall eagerly await his response.