What happened to Lechmere......

[harry]

All the better Cross did not go as far as the body,it still leaves a 30-40 second time gap before Paul reached the spot,and no opportunity for Cross to be involved in the murder.
Unless he can be placed in Bucks row much earlier,in a time frame which allows for him to accost or be accosted by Nichols,and carry out the assault,and that would need evidence. There is none,circumstancial or otherwise.
And that is the question you have been avoiding.Where is your evidence?
Cross does not necessarily require corroboration,as he gave evidence under oath.As such,unless he was guilty of perjury,or other factors negated his testimony,his evidence stands.
One important thing to understand in English law.When an accusation is made against a person,evidence must be produced to prove that accusation.

[Pcdunn]

Perspective

The actual inquest documents are not available, no - not in any of the Ripper cases.
However, when it omes to a matter such as the one you are speaking about, I find it useful to look at the papers reporting ad verbatim, like The Morning Advertiser:

Charles Allen Cross, a carman, in the employ of Messrs. Pickford, said - On Friday morning I left home at half past three. I went down Parson street, crossed Brady street, and through Buck's row. I was alone. As I got up Buck's row I saw something lying on the north side, in the gateway to a tool warehouse. It looked to me like a man's tarpaulin, but on going into the centre of the road I saw it was the figure of a woman. At the same time I heard a man coming up the street in the same direction as I had come, so I waited for him to come up. When he came up, I said, "Come and look over here; there is a woman." We then both went over to the body. I bent over her head and touched her hand, which was cold. I said, "She is dead." The other man, after he had felt her heart, said, "Yes, she is." He then suggested that we should shift her, but I said, "No, let us go and tell a policeman." When I found her clothes were up above her knees we tried to pull them over her, but they did not seem as if they would come down. I did not notice any blood.

It appears that my point is anything but "disproven" - it is called into question, but it is easy enough to see which version applies.

Yes, it is easy to see which version applies to your theory, Fisherman.

I think the contradictory reports merely underline the difficulty in using non-official documents to establish the facts of a historical mystery. A historian, as much as a scientist, must be careful of his source material's accuracy. Why should the use of quotation marks make The Morning Advertiser's article more accurate than that of The Telegraph? As a journalist, you must know both the verbatim and summary methods of reporting are valid.

[Clark]

By the way, that beautiful brainchild you are speaking of - is that your idea that Lechmere was a loving and caring family father...?

When did I ever say that? I have no opinion of Cross's family habits. Perhaps you're confusing me with another member of the board here?

No, that would look disastrous - so Iīm glad he did not. He instead finished the business he was doing, and then headed down to Bucks Row pronto.
Now, if he had been told that there was a woman perhaps dead or dying in Bucks Row with noone tending to her, THEN he would have been reckless not to set off double quick
But if he was only told that there was a woman lying in the street, and that there was already a PC in place, helping out, I can sympathize with him being a bit less concerned.

You see, itīs all a matter of perspective and how our separate minds look at it.

Looks rather negligent either way, IMO. Guess we'll just have to differ here.

Yes, Paul should have seen the two-inch wide gash in the neck, I agree. But use your wits - the abdominal wounds had been hidden. Would a killer who took care to do that leave the neck wound exposed?
My belief is that he covered that too, using the collar of the dress. And then, as Paul pulled the dress down, the collar followed suit (excuse the pun), making the wound visible to Neil as he arrived.

Though not to Paul?

That depends who you choose to believe - A PC with a spotless service record or a carman who was found alone with the freshly killed body of Polly Nichols, and who went on to give the inquest another name then the one he was registered by. That is entirely your own choice.

Well, two carmen, if we count Paul's comments in Lloyd's.

In fact, I will do so little to impress any of my ideas on you, so as to finish our discussion here and now, for the time being. (The real reason is that I think you are getting as silly as you are getting scornful with no grounds for it. Donīt tell anyone.)

Well, if you say so. I feel no scorn, so I doubt that I'm scornful. As to the silly bit, It's my 58th birthday today, so perhaps my early start at celebratory libations last night has something to do with it.

Or maybe I just have a weird sense of humor.

[Fisherman]

Clark: I've never been a father, but I've noticed that new parents always think their baby is the most beautiful. To the outside observer, they all look like Winston Churchill.

I am a father, three times over. Not four.

By the way, that beautiful brainchild you are speaking of - is that your idea that Lechmere was a loving and caring family father...?

And yet, Mizen never refuted Cross's testimony at the inquest.

And yet, he never did, no. So he must have felt that there was no NEED to refute it. Meaning that he believed that Neil WAS the finder of Nichols. And not that the carmen were.

And now that you mention it, your attempts to exonerate PC Mizen's reputation by the so-called Mizen scam never actually explains why Mizen wouldn't have responded at once to a report that another PC wanted him. You think it makes him look good to be told that another PC has asked for help, but he just says to himself f*ck that, I've got knocking up to do?

No, that would look disastrous - so Iīm glad he did not. He instead finished the business he was doing, and then headed down to Bucks Row pronto.
Now, if he had been told that there was a woman perhaps dead or dying in Bucks Row with noone tending to her, THEN he would have been reckless not to set off double quick
But if he was only told that there was a woman lying in the street, and that there was already a PC in place, helping out, I can sympathize with him being a bit less concerned.

You see, itīs all a matter of perspective and how our separate minds look at it.


And yet, Paul didn't see an ugly gash across Nichols' white throat. Cross says it was too dark to see blood. Paul's testimony came later, and he didn't contradict him. PC Neil's testimony supports his story.

Yes, Paul should have seen the two-inch wide gash in the neck, I agree. But use your wits - the abdominal wounds had been hidden. Would a killer who took care to do that leave the neck wound exposed?
My belief is that he covered that too, using the collar of the dress. And then, as Paul pulled the dress down, the collar followed suit (excuse the pun), making the wound visible to Neil as he arrived.

Thanks for that. It certainly lends credence to Paul's statement to Lloyd's that he had talked to Mizen, doesn't it?

Yes, it does - and if my theory is correct, then that was the exact goal Lechmere was striving for.

I'm afraid that I may have misjudged Paul a tad bit. Looks like it was Mizen who was being untruthful here.

That depends who you choose to believe - A PC with a spotless service record or a carman who was found alone with the freshly killed body of Polly Nichols, and who went on to give the inquest another name then the one he was registered by. That is entirely your own choice. In fact, I will do so little to impress any of my ideas on you, so as to finish our discussion here and now, for the time being. (The real reason is that I think you are getting as silly as you are getting scornful with no grounds for it. Donīt tell anyone.)

Also, since neither Paul nor Mizen tried to refute any portion of Cross's testimony, it makes it extremely unlikely that Paul could have been out of earshot when the two carmen approached Mizen.

I could have commented on that too - but then again, I just stopped doing that.

[Clark]

Clark: Best of a dubious list? That's your point? I'm not conceding it, I'm just asking.

Thatīs just fine: The only really good one on an otherwise dreadful list.

I've never been a father, but I've noticed that new parents always think their baby is the most beautiful. To the outside observer, they all look like Winston Churchill.

Number 20: Charles Lechmere was stated to have told PC Mizen that another policeman awaited Mizen in Bucks Row, whereas he himself denied having said this at the inquest.
It is apparent from Mizens actions that he was under the belief that another PC did wait for him in Bucks Row. If he had not been told about the waiting PC in Bucks Row, he would have accepted that the carmen had found the body. It would therefore have sounded odd to him when Neil stated that he had found the body himself.
When did Neil tell him that he had found the body? I think I missed that.

Neil stated it at the inquest and on the 2:nd of September. I never said Neil said it directly to Mizen, as Iīm sure you will appreciate.

And yet, Mizen never refuted Cross's testimony at the inquest. And now that you mention it, your attempts to exonerate PC Mizen's reputation by the so-called Mizen scam never actually explains why Mizen wouldn't have responded at once to a report that another PC wanted him. You think it makes him look good to be told that another PC has asked for help, but he just says to himself f*ck that, I've got knocking up to do?

Of course Neil turned on his lamp. He was not very likely to examine Nichols in the dark. But the more pertinent question is how Paul could have missed the blood, if it was there to see - he could see the dark hat against the same type of background, so he should have been able to see a pool of blood even better, since it reflects light.

And yet, Paul didn't see an ugly gash across Nichols' white throat. Cross says it was too dark to see blood. Paul's testimony came later, and he didn't contradict him. PC Neil's testimony supports his story.

When did Cross say that? According to his inquest testimony, Cross did all of the talking. Paul doesn't contradict him at the inquest. The only time he contradicts Cross on this is when he claimed Cross's role in the affair when he made his statements to Lloyd's.


The Times, 4/9: Witness also said he believed she was dead or drunk, while the other man stated he believed her to be dead.

Daily News, 4/9: The witness added, "She looks to me either dead or drunk," and the other man remarked, "I think she's dead."

The Echo, 3/9: I then left her, went up Baker's-row, turned to the right, and saw a constable. I said to a constable - the last witness - "There's a woman lying in Buck's-row. She looks to me as though she was dead, or drunk." The other man then said, "I believe she is dead."

Thanks for that. It certainly lends credence to Paul's statement to Lloyd's that he had talked to Mizen, doesn't it? I'm afraid that I may have misjudged Paul a tad bit. Looks like it was Mizen who was being untruthful here. Also, since neither Paul nor Mizen tried to refute any portion of Cross's testimony, it makes it extremely unlikely that Paul could have been out of earshot when the two carmen approached Mizen.

[Fisherman]

Thank you Fisherman. Your interpretation isn't right though because I would never have used the expression "legal to use the name" which has no meaning for me.

Then I will get no further tangled up in semantics.

[David Orsam]

No, excuse ME - I got it wrong. Clearly you said your answer would not satisfy me - and I take THAT to be a roundabout way of telling me that it was legal to use the name Cross for the carman.

My apologies for misrepresenting you.

Thank you Fisherman. Your interpretation isn't right though because I would never have used the expression "legal to use the name" which has no meaning for me.

[Fisherman]

Excuse me Fisherman, no I did not say that, you are seriously misquoting me. I said that my answer to your question would not satisfy you.

No, excuse ME - I got it wrong. Clearly you said your answer would not satisfy me - and I take THAT to be a roundabout way of telling me that it was legal to use the name Cross for the carman.

My apologies for misrepresenting you.

[David Orsam]

David Orsam says that I will not accept the truth if the matter

Excuse me Fisherman, no I did not say that, you are seriously misquoting me. I said that my answer to your question would not satisfy you.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

According to the Crown Prosecution Service, the current position under English Law is that if you provide false details of identity to the police or courts with a view to avoiding the consequences of a police investigation or prosecution, then that might result in a charge of perverting the course of justice, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. See:http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/p...ging_standard/

David Orsam says that I will not accept the truth if the matter, which I take it is a roundabout way of saying that the name Cross was legal to use for the carman.

What I want to know is whether it was legal to use EVEN IF IT COULD BE SHOWN THAT HE NEVER USED IT OTHERWISE. Or would that be regarded as obstructing the law?

As such, it matters not if the name Cross was legal or not. As long as we know that he did not use it otherwise when speaking to the authorities, it remains a big, fat anomaly that he should do so on this one occasion.

[Fisherman]

Clark: Best of a dubious list? That's your point? I'm not conceding it, I'm just asking.

Thatīs just fine: The only really good one on an otherwise dreadful list.

Well drat, I had some pretty good zingers in there. I was on a bit of a tear last night. Let me repeat the more serious ones:

Do!

Number 20: Charles Lechmere was stated to have told PC Mizen that another policeman awaited Mizen in Bucks Row, whereas he himself denied having said this at the inquest.
It is apparent from Mizens actions that he was under the belief that another PC did wait for him in Bucks Row. If he had not been told about the waiting PC in Bucks Row, he would have accepted that the carmen had found the body. It would therefore have sounded odd to him when Neil stated that he had found the body himself.
When did Neil tell him that he had found the body? I think I missed that.

Neil stated it at the inquest and on the 2:nd of September. I never said Neil said it directly to Mizen, as Iīm sure you will appreciate.

Number 23: Paul saw no blood under Nicholsī neck in spite of kneeling by her side and checking for breath. He saw her clothes and her hat, though.
Could it be that the cuts were so fresh that the stream of blood towards the gutter had not yet formed?

Neil didn't see the blood until he turned on his lamp. Maybe it was dark?Let me add, that neither Cross, Paul, nor Neil noticed a gash in Nichols' throat without the aid of a lamp, so perhaps not seeing a trickle of blood in the dark isn't all that suggestive.

Of course Neil turned on his lamp. He was not very likely to examine Nichols in the dark. But the more pertinent question is how Paul could have missed the blood, if it was there to see - he could see the dark hat against the same type of background, so he should have been able to see a pool of blood even better, since it reflects light.


Number 31: Lechmere said that he and Paul both spoke to Mizen, but Mizen is clear in saying that ”a carman”, not ”two carmen”, contacted him on the murder morning.

When did Cross say that? According to his inquest testimony, Cross did all of the talking. Paul doesn't contradict him at the inquest. The only time he contradicts Cross on this is when he claimed Cross's role in the affair when he made his statements to Lloyd's.


The Times, 4/9: Witness also said he believed she was dead or drunk, while the other man stated he believed her to be dead.

Daily News, 4/9: The witness added, "She looks to me either dead or drunk," and the other man remarked, "I think she's dead."

The Echo, 3/9: I then left her, went up Baker's-row, turned to the right, and saw a constable. I said to a constable - the last witness - "There's a woman lying in Buck's-row. She looks to me as though she was dead, or drunk." The other man then said, "I believe she is dead."

[John G]

On notes the sentence "at the very least, the senior officers who are sending these undercover PCs into court to give evidence in this way are putting them at serious risk of straying into perjury."

Truly fake names will at any rate probably not be accepted when given by people not involved in undercover police work, as I understand it.

Hi Fisherman,

According to the Crown Prosecution Service, the current position under English Law is that if you provide false details of identity to the police or courts with a view to avoiding the consequences of a police investigation or prosecution, then that might result in a charge of perverting the course of justice, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. See:http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/p...ging_standard/

[Clark]

And what other suspect compares?

Best of a dubious list? That's your point? I'm not conceding it, I'm just asking.

Let me just say that I have not taken the time to read the respective answers you give - I know full well that none of the points per se is decisive. What one should ask oneself is instead: Can all of these things point to somebody without that somebody being a very viable suspect?

Well drat, I had some pretty good zingers in there. I was on a bit of a tear last night. Let me repeat the more serious ones:

Number 20: Charles Lechmere was stated to have told PC Mizen that another policeman awaited Mizen in Bucks Row, whereas he himself denied having said this at the inquest.
It is apparent from Mizens actions that he was under the belief that another PC did wait for him in Bucks Row. If he had not been told about the waiting PC in Bucks Row, he would have accepted that the carmen had found the body. It would therefore have sounded odd to him when Neil stated that he had found the body himself.

When did Neil tell him that he had found the body? I think I missed that.

Number 23: Paul saw no blood under Nicholsī neck in spite of kneeling by her side and checking for breath. He saw her clothes and her hat, though.
Could it be that the cuts were so fresh that the stream of blood towards the gutter had not yet formed?

Neil didn't see the blood until he turned on his lamp. Maybe it was dark?

Let me add, that neither Cross, Paul, nor Neil noticed a gash in Nichols' throat without the aid of a lamp, so perhaps not seeing a trickle of blood in the dark isn't all that suggestive.

So you're arguing that Smith & Tabram belong with the canonical cases? Even so, I'm not seeing the point here. Maybe Cross avoided the Old Montague route because two people had recently been killed along that way? Sounds pretty sensible to me.

I was in Washington DC once back in the late 1990s or early 2000s (I've been there twice, and I don't remember which visit it was when this incident occurred) and was staying in a hotel in Crystal City (across the Potomac from DC). I had stayed at a bar in DC until late at night, and when I got off the subway in Crystal City, I walked the few blocks back to the hotel. The next morning, I learned that I had missed a murder along that same exact route by about 15 minutes (just after I had passed by). You can bet that I took a different route back to the hotel the next few days that I was staying there. Sorry for the digression.

That last one wasn't all that serious, I just enjoy telling that story.

The same newspaper article (we don't have the inquest report), failed to list an address for Monk. Identifying the witnesses is standard procedure at an inquest, including address or place of employment. Either the coroner was slipshod, or more likely, the paper simply failed to report the address of two witnesses.

Number 31: Lechmere said that he and Paul both spoke to Mizen, but Mizen is clear in saying that ”a carman”, not ”two carmen”, contacted him on the murder morning.

When did Cross say that? According to his inquest testimony, Cross did all of the talking. Paul doesn't contradict him at the inquest. The only time he contradicts Cross on this is when he claimed Cross's role in the affair when he made his statements to Lloyd's.

[Clark]

Because she was cut much later. And it was thirty minutes, not "less than 20".
Nichols could of course not still be bleeding thirtyfive minutes after Neil passed. And for that matter, she would not have been bleeding twentyfive minutes after that stage either.

The "thirty minutes" is Neil's story. If he was the killer, he'd have lied about it, don't you think? The murder occurred on his beat, and he admitted going through Buck's Row prior to Cross's arrival.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

I don't know what the position would have been in the 19th century, but it does appear that, under current English Law, the use of fake identities in court is not illegal. Or at least that's what the Metropolitan Police Commissioner seems to think! See:http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/o...ake-identities

On notes the sentence "at the very least, the senior officers who are sending these undercover PCs into court to give evidence in this way are putting them at serious risk of straying into perjury."

Truly fake names will at any rate probably not be accepted when given by people not involved in undercover police work, as I understand it.