Lechmere Continuation Thread

[Fisherman]

MrBarnett:

But there's no suggestion that Lech., or Mizen, were 'badgered' about the discrepancy, is there?

No, there is not. Nor did I say there was, did I?

So presumably the jury, and the picky coroner, were given an answer that satisfied them.

Satisfied? I would say that they were given an answer that may have been true or false. It was not as if they were justified to speculate that Mizen must be wrong and the carman must be correct. The problem lies elsewhere - they failed to see the potential explosive power in what was said, just like Ripperolgy has done so for 120 years plus.
The thing about saying that they were satisfied, is that it leads to the suggestion that the inquest was able to satisfy themselves that Lechmere was innocent. There is no indication that this ever happened. On the contrary, the name issue tells us that there was seemingly no investigation into Lechmere at all. They missed out, end of.

Possibly there was more to the exchange than the press reported?

That cannot be ruled out. But if it is true, then a juror asked whether it was true that Lechmere had spoken of the extra PC, and had THAT reported in the papers, and then a full and satisfying account was given for the discrepancy and not a single paper wanted to tell their readers about it.
Does that sound plausible to you? To me it sounds like a suggestion that more or less borders on the impossible.
It is a variation on the theme suggested by Gut, working from the assumption that the police already had it cleared up when Mizen took the stand. I donīt buy into it at all. I seldom do, when there is absolutely no evidence at all pointing in the direction. It is a pretty parallel to the name issue, where lofty speculations about how Lechmere used the name Cross on an everyday basis are passed around with no substantiation whatsoever. In essence, it is saying "Nah, itīs probably nothing" and leaving the case like that.

Reading press reports of inquest testimony, you get the impression they are verbatim, but comparing the different versions of the exchange between Baxter and Tomkins, for instance, shows that some at least were not.

I know that quite well, but I am hoping that the master of quotation marks, Dusty, is reading what you are saying!


From The Morning Advertiser:

"When did you go out before four o'clock? - I and Brittan left the slaughter house at twelve o'clock, and returned about one o'clock or a little later. We did not leave the place after till we were told of the murder.

Did you go far? - No, only as far as the court.

The latter part of the night were you at the door at all? - No.

Was it quiet in the slaughter house, say from two o'clock? - Yes, sir; very quiet.

Are your gates and doors open, and could you hear what passed in the street? - All our gates were open, but I heard no noise or cry.

Did anyone come to the slaughter house that night? - No, sir; no one but the policeman.

I suppose some people do come and look you up? - Well, yes, now and then.

Some of them women? - I never take notice of them. I don't like them.

Never mind that. Did you see any that night. - Not about there; but there were some in the Whitechapel road; plenty, of all sorts."


From the Daily Telegraph:

"He (witness) and Britten left the
slaughterhouse for one hour between midnight and one o'clock in the morning, but not afterwards till they went to see the body. The distance from Winthrop-street to Buck's-row was not great.

The Coroner: Is your work noisy?
Witness: No, sir, very quiet.

The Coroner: Was it quiet on Friday
morning, say after two o'clock?
Witness: Yes, sir, quite quiet. The gates were open and we heard no cry.

The Coroner: Did anybody come to the slaughterhouse that night?
Witness: Nobody passed except the policeman.

The Coroner: Are there any women about there?
Witness: Oh! I know nothing about them, I don't like 'em.

The Coroner: I did not ask you whether you like them; I ask you whether there were any about that night.
Witness: I did not see any.

The Coroner: Not in Whitechapel-road?
Witness: Oh, yes, there, of all sorts and sizes; its a rough neighbourhood, I can tell you."

According to the Telegraph, the jury pressed Tomkins on where he and Britten had spent their break and his reply was: " I and my mate went to the front of the road."


Although the two accounts have the appearance of being verbatim, one of them, at least, clearly wasn't.

"Are there any women about there?" is quite different from " I suppose some people do come and look you up? (Yes) Some of them women?" The first could be construed as a question about women in the general area, the second is the specific question of whether 'women', presumably prostitutes in that area and at that time of the night, were in the habit of calling at the Winthrop Street yard. Which one of those questions did Tomkins dodge?

Did Tomkins and Britten go to the front (elsewhere 'top') of the road, or only to the court (Woods Buildings), and how in either case would he have seen 'all sorts and sizes' of women in the Whitechapel Road?

There are a number of discrepancies in Tomkins' testimony, and the differing press versions make it near impossible to untangle them.

Yes, you are perfectly correct, and we have the exact same thing in the Nichols case. All accounts differ in some way, and therefore they cannot all be correct.

I'm with Trevor on this one - press reports, even of inquest testimony, have to be treated with caution.

Then there are three of us. But I suspect there are equally three of us who realize that we must use what we have, and when paper reports are all we have, then they are also what we use. And overall, they will give a very useful picture of the developments at the inquest. The absolute bulk of the material will be correct. the problem lies in the smaller details, where we may well get lost if not careful.

And as for Ripperologists not picking up on stuff, when was it discovered that Henry Tomkins had a brother of roughly the same age who was also a horse slaughterer, or that the pair of them were in the East End between April, 88 and Feb, 91?

Why, that was when you dug it out, Gary! But what does that prove when it comes to the Mizen scam...?

[GUT]

Scobie can only evaluate what is put before him and that evidence in a brief nutshell was simply that Cross lied about his name

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"The evidence never lies, but it doesn't always tell the truth"

No, it was not. If that was all there was, then why do you think Scobie commented on the geography of the crimes as a crucial factor? If he had only been informed that Lechmere gave another name at the inquest?

Reality check, Trevor!

That's right Trevor, seems likely he was also told that Cross was found crouched over the body.

[Fisherman]

Scobie can only evaluate what is put before him and that evidence in a brief nutshell was simply that Cross lied about his name

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"The evidence never lies, but it doesn't always tell the truth"

No, it was not. If that was all there was, then why do you think Scobie commented on the geography of the crimes as a crucial factor? If he had only been informed that Lechmere gave another name at the inquest?

Reality check, Trevor!

[Fisherman]

If there's so much proof of guilt, why wasn't he taken in.

After all dozens of others were.

There is absolutely no proof of guilt, there is only evidence that can form suspicion. I find it strange that I need to tell you about this, given your background.

As has been pointed out to you, there are many cases where the police in retrospect must admit that they should have acted against a person, but failed to do so. It is not rocket science.

What you seem to suggest is that there are never any mistakes made, there is never any important material overlooked, etcetera, and yet we know that this happens all the time.

As I have stated repeatedly, much of the material we are aquainted with when it comes to Lechmere, is material that would perhaps never have been dug out if there was no suspicion against the man. Once there IS suspicion, the digging begins. This will have applied in 1888 too; apparently the carman did not evoke suspicion, and therefore nobody took a look at the correlation between hos routes and the murder sites, nobody searched out where his family lived, nobody took an interest in his comfort zone, nobody dug deeper into the discrepancies between what he said and what Mizen said, and so on.

Add to this that the carman chose to use another name than the one he mormally used in official circumstances, meaning that he became impossible to search the registers for, and you begin to get an idea about how he has been shielded over the years.

Historians and authors have helped out by not taking a deeper look into his testimony, instead opting for reinforcing the picture he gave of himself as innocent. I have for example quoted how it was said that he and Paul "gingerly" approached the body on the pavement, something that may or may not have been true, depending on whether he was the killer or not. At any rate, it is not history, and it should not have been allowed to be passed on as such.

I have learnt a lot about the effect of retrospective protection like this by studying this case. Today, we are stating it as a fact that Lechmere originally thought that he was looking at a tarpaulin, and once we have swalowed such pills and begun to treat them as truths, we are at the mercy of uncorroborated information given by a person who we know was found alone with one of the Ripper victims.

We neede to tear all the rotten flesh from the skeleton and start looking at the case from that angle. It makes for a very refreshing change.

[GUT]

If there's so much proof of guilt, why wasn't he taken in.

After all dozens of others were.

[Fisherman]

What I would suggest is that the police and coroner were on the ball enough to say, oh there's a discrepancy there and then ask some questions probably starting with Mizen, maybe progressing onto Cross, and then coming to the conclusion that there was either nothing too it, or some innocent explanation. Just we have no record of it. Just as I believe they made inquiries at Pickford's and about any other witness or person seen around the area not just of this crime but the others as well.

In my opinion any theory that relies on the police being to stupid, inexperienced, incompetent, whatever, to do the very basics of an investigation is clutching at straws.

If there was a lengthy discussion in which it was clarified what lay behind the statement on Mizens part that he had been told that another PC awaited him in bucks Row, and Lechmeres denial that this had happened, then why did the juror have to ask about it?

If it had all been cleared up, then why was the discrepancy allowed to be reiterated at the inquest?

And why is it that not a single Ripperologist have seen the possible implications before I did? Why has not a single researcher pointed to how obviously stupid the police seems to have been in this errand?

Could it be because people (and policemen) sometimes miss out? Is that even remotely possible? Has it happened before in murder cases?

You are not the first one to suggest that it was probably all cleared up in 1888. Not are you the first one to lack any sort of evidence that this ever happened. As long as you realize that you are offering a conjured up innocent explanation where there is an existing evidence-based guilty explanation, I donīt mind.

[Fisherman]

Please explain the rule that states,or infers that suspicion exists without evidence.

I am not sure that you even understand what you are asking here. To begin with, do you realize that evidence and proof are two different things?

As such, any suspicion entertained on a basis where no evidence is involved is an impossibility. A suspicion must be grounded on evidence, and in Lechmereīs case, it is grounded on many parts of evidence. When it comes to the part about the extra PC, the evidence is Mizens testimony.

So the suspicions against Lechmere is grounded on a very solid evidence basis. Which in itīs turn means that your post is a very odd one.

If you are saying that a suspicion must be grounded on proof it becomes even weirder since proven cases need not entertain any suspicions at all.

We really need to elevate the quality of the discussion in some instances.

[harry]

It is a generaly accepted principle that the onus is on the accuser.In this case Mizen.
In a trial the onus is on the prosecution to prove, with evidence.
Cross also gave evidence in a court,under oath.He is entitled to be considered innocent.That is the law.He cannot be suspect unless evidence proves otherwise.None did. I am not wrong on any count.

Please explain the rule that states,or infers that suspicion exists without evidence.Show examples. To protect innocent persons there are the laws of libel and slander.

Law enforcement officers,from my experience,do not accept that suspicion is w arranted,unless some evidence of an offence exists.

Numerous posters here have at times been accused of lying.Does that mean suspicion should persist simply because they have been accused.

[Abby Normal]

Seriously with the colors? Caps aren't annoying enough?

Lol! Classic

[GUT]

Maybe Cross told Mizen a policeman was needed in bucks row, and Mizen misheard him and subconsciously added the rest? That happens all the time if you're not paying attention.

Columbo

Seems the most likely explanation to me.

[MrBarnett]

Seriously with the colors? Caps aren't annoying enough?

Obviously not part of his police training.

I'm surprised we weren't all murdrerd in our beds.

[Columbo]

But police officers have to make important decisions about how they spend their time and resources. Here we have a situation where Mizen said he was told by Cross that there was a policeman wanting him and Cross said that he couldn't possibly have said this because he never saw a policeman. It's a discrepancy but does that discrepancy have any meaning? Is it significant? Is it worth investigating?

I suggest it can only possibly be worth investigating if you have in mind that a guilty Cross would have had a bloody knife on him and wanted to get away from the scene of the crime. Equally he might have wanted to get to work. But you have to go through this thought process first.

In any event, the only reason for the police taking it any further in 1888 would have been if Cross was under suspicion (even fractionally) of being the murderer. The fact that they didn't take it further in 1888 (if they didn't) does not mean the police were stupid. But no police investigation is perfect. Were the Yorkshire police who interviewed Peter Sutcliffe a number of times too stupid, biased and inexperienced to find their backside with a mirror on a stick? Or is it simply the case that human error is always a possibility in any murder investigation whereby the significance of a particular piece of evidence is not always recognised at the time?

Maybe Cross told Mizen a policeman was needed in bucks row, and Mizen misheard him and subconsciously added the rest? That happens all the time if you're not paying attention.

Columbo

[Errata]

Scobie can only evaluate what is put before him and that evidence in a brief nutshell was simply that Cross lied about his name

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"The evidence never lies, but it doesn't always tell the truth"

Seriously with the colors? Caps aren't annoying enough?

[MrBarnett]

Well, thatīs not entirely true - one juror was obviously perplexed by one of the discrepancies, and asked Lechmere whether it was really true that he had informed Mizen that another PC was in place, whereupon Lechmere answered in the negative.

Plus, as I have repeatedly pointed out, not a single Ripperologist has seen the explosive power built into these discrepancies before and commented on it. And if 120 years plus of pondering the information given (by die-hard Ripperologists) did not identify this issue, then I donīt think we can raise the claim that an inquest over a few days should detect it.

Fish,

But there's no suggestion that Lech., or Mizen, were 'badgered' about the discrepancy, is there? So presumably the jury, and the picky coroner, were given an answer that satisfied them. Possibly there was more to the exchange than the press reported?

Reading press reports of inquest testimony, you get the impression they are verbatim, but comparing the different versions of the exchange between Baxter and Tomkins, for instance, shows that some at least were not.


From The Morning Advertiser:

"When did you go out before four o'clock? - I and Brittan left the slaughter house at twelve o'clock, and returned about one o'clock or a little later. We did not leave the place after till we were told of the murder.

Did you go far? - No, only as far as the court.

The latter part of the night were you at the door at all? - No.

Was it quiet in the slaughter house, say from two o'clock? - Yes, sir; very quiet.

Are your gates and doors open, and could you hear what passed in the street? - All our gates were open, but I heard no noise or cry.

Did anyone come to the slaughter house that night? - No, sir; no one but the policeman.

I suppose some people do come and look you up? - Well, yes, now and then.

Some of them women? - I never take notice of them. I don't like them.

Never mind that. Did you see any that night. - Not about there; but there were some in the Whitechapel road; plenty, of all sorts."


From the Daily Telegraph:

"He (witness) and Britten left the
slaughterhouse for one hour between midnight and one o'clock in the morning, but not afterwards till they went to see the body. The distance from Winthrop-street to Buck's-row was not great.

The Coroner: Is your work noisy?
Witness: No, sir, very quiet.

The Coroner: Was it quiet on Friday
morning, say after two o'clock?
Witness: Yes, sir, quite quiet. The gates were open and we heard no cry.

The Coroner: Did anybody come to the slaughterhouse that night?
Witness: Nobody passed except the policeman.

The Coroner: Are there any women about there?
Witness: Oh! I know nothing about them, I don't like 'em.

The Coroner: I did not ask you whether you like them; I ask you whether there were any about that night.
Witness: I did not see any.

The Coroner: Not in Whitechapel-road?
Witness: Oh, yes, there, of all sorts and sizes; its a rough neighbourhood, I can tell you."

According to the Telegraph, the jury pressed Tomkins on where he and Britten had spent their break and his reply was: " I and my mate went to the front of the road."



Although the two accounts have the appearance of being verbatim, one of them, at least, clearly wasn't.

"Are there any women about there?" is quite different from " I suppose some people do come and look you up? (Yes) Some of them women?" The first could be construed as a question about women in the general area, the second is the specific question of whether 'women', presumably prostitutes in that area and at that time of the night, were in the habit of calling at the Winthrop Street yard. Which one of those questions did Tomkins dodge?

Did Tomkins and Britten go to the front (elsewhere 'top') of the road, or only to the court (Woods Buildings), and how in either case would he have seen 'all sorts and sizes' of women in the Whitechapel Road?

There are a number of discrepancies in Tomkins' testimony, and the differing press versions make it near impossible to untangle them.

I'm with Trevor on this one - press reports, even of inquest testimony, have to be treated with caution.

And as for Ripperologists not picking up on stuff, when was it discovered that Henry Tomkins had a brother of roughly the same age who was also a horse slaughterer, or that the pair of them were in the East End between April, 88 and Feb, 91?


Gary

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: Ok
So out of that list of newspaper reports which do you think is correct, and how can you prove it to be correct.

You should be well aware by now that none of the paper reports can be "proven correct", Trevor. We must look for consistency of reporting - the same sort of report in many papers, unrelated to each other - and consistency with the other known facts, surrounding the case.


I would have to disagree on that point. A newspaper article can only be proven to be correct if the author of the article was present when the event or spoken word took place, and then the caveat as i said before is whether the author if present took down the spoken words exactly as they were spoken.

In 1888 we know that there were agency reporters who sold the stories to newspapers far and wide, and as a result as you say there should be consistency. But there is not is there your previous press reports lay claim to that. None of them say the same.

If Scobie was given a mish mash of newspaper reports showing the errors I can see why he would have said that, because they all show errors which may not have been attributable to Cross, and so in reality Cross may have not lied.

Iīm sure Scobie knows how to evaluate evidence - it is his job.

Scobie can only evaluate what is put before him and that evidence in a brief nutshell was simply that Cross lied about his name

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"The evidence never lies, but it doesn't always tell the truth"