What happened to Lechmere......

[caz]

I got that wrong, I´m afraid - it was Lechmere who claimed that Mizen said "Alright".

The relevant passage, from the Daily Telegraph:

Chas. Andrew Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for over twenty years. About half-past three on Friday he left his home to go to work, and he passed through Buck's-row. He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement." They both crossed over to the body, and witness took hold of the woman's hands, which were cold and limp. Witness said, "I believe she is dead." He touched her face, which felt warm. The other man, placing his hand on her heart, said "I think she is breathing, but very little if she is." 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, and in Baker's-row they met the last witness, whom they informed that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row. Witness said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on. The other man left witness soon after. Witness had never seen him before.

So many more lies here from Cross for Mizen to expose?

'They' met Mizen; 'they' informed him...; Cross said he thought she was likelier dead than drunk; Paul left Cross 'soon after' Mizen had 'walked on'.

Maybe Mizen was stone deaf, or just backward.

Love,

Caz
X

[Jon Guy]

You learn something new every day! You would not happen to have the name of the inventor at hand? If not, I would be grateful to receive it when or if you stumble over it.

Many thanks, Jon!

Will do !!

[Fisherman]

So many more lies here from Cross for Mizen to expose?

'They' met Mizen; 'they' informed him...; Cross said he thought she was likelier dead than drunk; Paul left Cross 'soon after' Mizen had 'walked on'.

Maybe Mizen was stone deaf, or just backward.

Love,

Caz
X

This has already been discussed in extenso, Caz. It is older than Metusalem.

By the way, it is interesting to see how you castigate me for being unethical, but have no problems to tarnish a serving PC who may well have acted in accordance with the rules throughout.

PS. Mizen DID expose the lie that both men spoke to him. You may have forgotten that, or you may regard it as an intricate lie on behalf of Mizen.
So what was he, devious or stupid?

[Fisherman]

Will do !!

Great, Jon. Again thanks!

[caz]

caz: You have really lost it now, old chap. If your only witness to the possibility of Lechmere lying to him could have been stone deaf for all you care, how the devil do you propose to turn that there 'if' into anything that requires 'an explanation'?

It was an extreme example, aiming to point out that Mizens level of understanding what Lechmere said would not per se have any influence on the words Lechmere uttered in retrospect. Thats your take on things, apparently.
I only go to such lenghts when the recipient of the message is not very perceptible.

The words Lechmere uttered are the words he uttered. But if Mizen can't be sure he heard those words correctly, or that they contained any lies, and you don't want Paul to have heard them either, what are you left with but Lechmere's version of the conversation and your own murky suspicions that he would have lied if he was the killer?

Love,

Caz
X

[Patrick S]

For Caz:

Since you ask me if I don´t feel sorry for Lechmere, when pointing to him as the probable killer of the women in the victorian East End, asking me if I do it just because I know it cannot be disproven, I would like to know whether this is the first time you show these kinds of concerns regarding a Ripper suspect.

Do you have a former record of asking those who have pointed out any of the 300+ other suspects if they do not feel bad about accusing people who can be innocent, or is it just me you are questioning in this respect?

Are you aware that the Lechmere family was approached before the research into the carman was made public?

Can you grasp how the documentary presents a number of experts who agree with the deduction that Lechmere quite possibly was the Ripper?

I would like you to outline your stance in all of this and explain to me why I am being targetted and tarnished here.

This was not addressed to me. Respectfully, if I might, I'll speak for myself on this, even though I've let my emotions get the better of me in the past on this subject.

I will say that I don't feel 'sorry' for Lechmere/Cross. However, I do feel somewhat indignant when he's referred to - absurdly in my view - as something like "the probable killer of the women in the victorian East End".

In that I have invested considerable time reviewing any records of this man's life available to me (as well his children's lives, etc). What I've found is evidence of an admirable man, especially when he's viewed in the context of his particular time and place. I don't think that it can be argued otherwise: He was a hard working man who maintained steady employment and improved his families station throughout his life. That does not happen without purpose and drive. He is a man with no criminal record, a 50 year marriage, and many children. His children proved to be much like their father, in fact. The only headlines associated with him or descendants beyond his appearing as a witness in the Nichols' case come when members of the family are killed in the Bethnal Green Tube disaster.

A wife married to monster for fifty years. They remain together, moving up the socioeconomic ladder together. He has enough to open a business later in life and does well enough with it that, upon his death, he is able to leave his wife a substantial sum.

I see the now well known picture of this man and I see this: An old man proud of a life well lived. You see an 'intimidating man'. I see nothing of the kind because I learned something about him. I'll go by what we KNOW about him. And I'll keep THOSE things in mind when I see his image.

I find it revolting that someone would come along and construct a narrative such as the one you've created.

I'll say no more. Best regards.

[Fisherman]

The words Lechmere uttered are the words he uttered. But if Mizen can't be sure he heard those words correctly, or that they contained any lies, and you don't want Paul to have heard them either, what are you left with but Lechmere's version of the conversation and your own murky suspicions that he would have lied if he was the killer?

Love,

Caz
X

I am left with what a PC with an excellent service record said, and the knowledge that the carman chose not to use the name he was registered by when approaching the police, implicating him as a person who seems likely to have lied. Plus, of course, the insight of the geography and timings etcetera, etcetera. All of which makes for a very good case.

Unless you have realized it by now, one of the main ingredients in the so called Mizen scam was to spirit Paul away out of earshot when Lechmere spoke to Mizen.
If there had been an audience of twelve jurymen, The Whitechapel quire of Homeless Vagrants and assorted members of the Knifegrinders Guild present, I am anything but sure that Lechmere would have tried the bluff. You see, it actually PREDISPOSED that nobody heard what he told Mizen.

[Fisherman]

I am still awaiting your answer to my post 449, Caz. Take your time, I´m off for now.

[caz]

This has already been discussed in extenso, Caz. It is older than Metusalem.

By the way, it is interesting to see how you castigate me for being unethical, but have no problems to tarnish a serving PC who may well have acted in accordance with the rules throughout.

PS. Mizen DID expose the lie that both men spoke to him. You may have forgotten that, or you may regard it as an intricate lie on behalf of Mizen.
So what was he, devious or stupid?

Just the one lie? If Mizen knew that Cross had lied over and over again, not only to him shortly after leaving the crime scene, but also at the inquest, then yes, I'm afraid that would have made him devious or stupid. Stupid if he still didn't suspect him, or devious if he did suspect him but was afraid that drawing any more attention to it would reflect badly on himself.

You really think his superiors would have carried on giving Cross the benefit of the doubt, if Mizen had insisted the witness had repeatedly lied?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I find it revolting that someone would come along and construct a narrative such as the one you've created.

I do too, Patrick.

And I would find it revolting if I read a similar narrative being created against anyone with no record of violence and no evidence that they were anything but a witness who went to alert a policeman after finding a woman alone and vulnerable in the street.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

caz: Just the one lie? If Mizen knew that Cross had lied over and over again, not only to him shortly after leaving the crime scene, but also at the inquest, then yes, I'm afraid that would have made him devious or stupid.

The world are full of devious and/or stupid people, nobody knows that better than I do. Mizen, however, seems not to have belonged to them.

Two of the lies were rather subtle ones, and there is nothing odd in them slipping past the police (Mizen included) if there were no suspicions against him.
The third lie, about the extra PC, aroused interest, but was skipped over anyway.

Simple, easy to understand.

To realize the implications took 125 years.

Stupid if he still didn't suspect him, or devious if he did suspect him but was afraid that drawing any more attention to it would reflect badly on himself.

And those are the only options that suit you.

You really think his superiors would have carried on giving Cross the benefit of the doubt, if Mizen had insisted the witness had repeatedly lied?

Yes, I do. A million ripperologists gave Lechmere the benefit of a doubt for 125 years. You, as I recall things, were amongst them.

They failed to see the possible implications. It is no stranger than that.

Whether Mizen DID make much noise about it is - guess what? - as impenetrable to you in this post as it was when you wrote your former one. And it will be just as undisclosed next time over too.

[Fisherman]

I am still awaiting your answer to my post 449, Caz.

[Patrick S]

caz: Just the one lie? If Mizen knew that Cross had lied over and over again, not only to him shortly after leaving the crime scene, but also at the inquest, then yes, I'm afraid that would have made him devious or stupid.

The world are full of devious and/or stupid people, nobody knows that better than I do. Mizen, however, seems not to have belonged to them.

Two of the lies were rather subtle ones, and there is nothing odd in them slipping past the police (Mizen included) if there were no suspicions against him.
The third lie, about the extra PC, aroused interest, but was skipped over anyway.

Simple, easy to understand.

To realize the implications took 125 years.

Stupid if he still didn't suspect him, or devious if he did suspect him but was afraid that drawing any more attention to it would reflect badly on himself.

And those are the only options that suit you.

You really think his superiors would have carried on giving Cross the benefit of the doubt, if Mizen had insisted the witness had repeatedly lied?

Yes, I do. A million ripperologists gave Lechmere the benefit of a doubt for 125 years. You, as I recall things, were amongst them.

They failed to see the possible implications. It is no stranger than that.

Whether Mizen DID make much noise about it is - guess what? - as impenetrable to you in this post as it was when you wrote your former one. And it will be just as undisclosed next time over too.

I know that 'Fisherman' will not respond to me. Alas, that cannot prevent me from respectfully voicing an opinion or two when the mood strikes. So....

Mizen does not strike 'Fisherman' as being stupid or devious. This is based on, to the best of my knowledge, his research which shows that Mizen was, among other things, a long time PC with citations, etc. Fair enough. However, in order to view this suspect (Cross/Lechmere) as the 'probable murderer of women in the East End', we must ignore HIS (Cross/Lechmere's) history. We must disregard as an aberration HIS life story. This is simple picking and choosing. One individual's personal history helps to advance a theory, so you present it as such. The other does not, so you dismiss it.

To many, including myself, it's plainly obvious where these inconsistencies came from. Mizen was embarrassed by his actions upon being told - by Paul and Cross - that a woman was lying dead in Buck's Row. Cross and Paul both tell us about his reaction. "A great shame". "Continued calling up where he was". Mizen - in my view - assumed that the woman was drunk. I'm sure he saw that often. Upon his discovery that the woman was - in fact - DEAD, he likely tried a lie of omission. The records do not rule that out in any way. But then, that failed when Paul's interview appeared in Lloyd's. So, he was forced to be dishonest. He misrepresented what happened. I would not be least bit surprised if he did so with the tacit approval of the Met. In the end, this was a small matter with no bearing on the case and could only result in embarrassment for himself and the Police as a whole. The press was already quite down on the police, after all. As well, Mizen is not the only PC who was - in all likelihood - less than truthful about their actions that night. Thain testified that he didn't tell the slaughterman about the murder (as he retrieved his cape before fetching Llewllyn). Yet, the slaughterman say that he did. And the slaughterman WERE on the scene very early on. So, someone told them. So, if Thain didn't tell them, who did? And if Thain didn't tell them, why did they say he did? Conversely, why would Thain lie? Obviously for the same reason Mizen would have: He was embarrassed by his actions that night and those actions would serve to embarrass the Met as well.

Both Thain and Mizen reacted as many people would have. Mizen likely found many a drunk on the street. Even in the summer/fall of 1888 he was much more likely to find a drunk woman on the pavement than a murdered one. He reacted accordingly, likely as he'd reacted a hundred times before. Thain, caught up in the excitement, told the men about the murder. I'd venture to say most men may do the same.

Mizen does not have to be a pathological or even a FREQUENT liar to have been less than truthful about that night. He needn't have been stupid OR devious. Misrepresenting facts in order to protect one's career does not make one an awful human being any more than giving one's stepfathers surname to the police makes one Jack the Ripper.

[Pcdunn]

There is also a mention, earlier in this thread, that Dew wrote many years later that the carman had been looked at, but nothing was found to connect him to Nichols' murder-- if that does not seem to support Patrick and caz in their opinion of Lechmere, aka Cross, as a decent working-class family man, then I don't know what does.

We are simply missing too many documents related to Polly's death investigation to know what the police did or did not do with regard to Cross, but I think they must have looked at him-- just as I pointed out in an earlier post that Paul's interview would certainly have led to him being investigated, when it was thought HE had found the dead woman.

[Fisherman]

There is also a mention, earlier in this thread, that Dew wrote many years later that the carman had been looked at, but nothing was found to connect him to Nichols' murder-- if that does not seem to support Patrick and caz in their opinion of Lechmere, aka Cross, as a decent working-class family man, then I don't know what does.

We are simply missing too many documents related to Polly's death investigation to know what the police did or did not do with regard to Cross, but I think they must have looked at him-- just as I pointed out in an earlier post that Paul's interview would certainly have led to him being investigated, when it was thought HE had found the dead woman.

How does Dew memoirs NOT support the take that the police never took a really good look at the carman...? It is blatantly obvious that Dew had nothing at all to say about him as anything but a coarse, rough, unsubtle Eastender, and it therefore seems very unlikely that Dew had any knowledge at all about the police entertaining suspicion about him. He could not even remember his name!
Paul, however, he targets as possibly not having been kosher - so he makes an active choice, more or less, opting for Paul potentially being the bad guy.

You write that Dew would have said that the carman was looked into, but that is not so - Dew says nothing of the sort. Where did you get that from??

In the end, everybody who suggests that the police MUST have looked at him, the way you do, need to explain how they managed to miss out on his true name.

Or, if somebody feels that the police DID get his real name, then I would dearly like to know why they kept it out of their reports.

Can you explain that?[