What happened to Lechmere......

[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/

[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."

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[drstrange169]

>>In my post 230, I wrote that there were tight skirts, but "they were worn by the upper classes", and the murder site was not indoors, ergo the dwellers of Bucks Row were not at it.<<

Difficult to see that reply as anything other than rather gutlessness and hypocritical on you part, still nevermind continuing on …


>>...explain to me who is a better suspect or as good a suspect - and why<<

No need most suspect theories, Xmere, Gull, Maybrick, Kos. etc. pick out one or two sound facts and concoct a whole case of carefully crafted “coincidences” that prove their suspect is the real one. It's almost a template.


>>Innuendo and a priori fallacy. It only has meaning if we assume Cross was the killer.<<

Bingo! Clark. Good to hear some analytical thinking in the debate.


Back to Fisherman's circles,
>> … feel free to argue that the film team lied to or mislead Scobie.<<

I can’t say whether they lied or not but, it is a fact they tried to misled their audience, so their rep. is not great. Do you want me to repeat the list?


>>What I am after here is what it was that made an alternative name legitimate ... These are questions that have remained unanswered, for some reason.<<


I’ve already answered the above too, elsewhere but, hey ho ..

A false name was one used to intentionally deceive a court/inquest. A legitimate name is one that the person would be reasonably be recognized by.

In this case, if Xmere were known as Cross at his work place, Cross was a legitimate name for inquest purposes, but none of this has changed since I last explained it. I believe I cited the source back then, do you want it again?

Time to move on.

[Abby Normal]

Without wishing to get sucked into the Lechmere/Cross debate, the plain fact, as has been discussed on here many times, is that some people in the 19th century, and beyond, legitimately had more than one name.

Sorry David
You have been officially sucked into the lech cross debate.! Lol.

[Fisherman]

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?



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



Though not to Paul?



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



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.

Three answers turned to questions:

Looks rather negligent either way, IMO.

Do you agree that an errand with a probably drunk woman in the care of a fellow PC would have looked less pressing that an errand with a woman who was likely dead or dying, and with nobody to help her? If you were to administrate help to these two scenarios, and only had one PC to spare, where would you send him? I would choose the dead or dying woman with nobody helping her a hundred times out of a hundred, but how would YOU go about it?

Though not to Paul?

Do you agree that a killer - any killer - who had taken the trouble to hide the wounds to the abdomen would also take an interest in hiding the wound to the neck too? Do you agree that it seems that the last thing Paul did before they left the body was to pull the dress down? Do you agree that he could therefore afterwards have left the body without checking it any further?

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

Do you agree that we cannot believe BOTH Pauls Lloyds interview and what was said at the inquest - that these sources are mutually excluding each other to an extent?

It would be nice if people took some little time for afterthought before they posted, and looked at the alternatives. Once they do, it would be equally nice if they asked themselves if ALL of the pointers to Lechmere really must be a trick of fate.

Have the best of birthdays, Clark!