Lechmere Continuation Thread

[David Orsam]

I see a huge difference between a potential to be suspicious and being suspicious.

if a policeman sled me the day of the week and I said Tuesday, (when it's Wednesday now) would that be suspicious or merely something that needed to be clarified (perhaps with potential to be suspicious) now that's a differential you may not make, but to me a major difference.

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?

[GUT]

But why did it need to be resolved or clarified if it didn't create suspicion against Cross?

Why should the police investigating a murder waste their time clearing up or clarifying every discrepancy not relevant to the investigation into that murder?

You seem to want to have it both ways, i.e. saying that it's not suspicious but also the police should have investigated it anyway. I'm sorry GUT but that doesn't work.

I see a huge difference between a potential to be suspicious and being suspicious.

if a policeman sled me the day of the week and I said Tuesday, (when it's Wednesday now) would that be suspicious or merely something that needed to be clarified (perhaps with potential to be suspicious) now that's a differential you may not make, but to me a major difference.

[David Orsam]

No I don't accept that it created reason for suspicion against Cross, as it stands, I accept it had the potential to do so, I accept that it was an issue that needed to be cleared up, but I see that as being different to creating suspicion against Cross.

Of course they should have resolved it, but again that's not suspicion against Cross. It is merely an issue that needed clarification.

But why did it need to be resolved or clarified if it didn't create suspicion against Cross?

Why should the police investigating a murder waste their time clearing up or clarifying every discrepancy not relevant to the investigation into that murder?

You seem to want to have it both ways, i.e. saying that it's not suspicious but also the police should have investigated it anyway. I'm sorry GUT but that doesn't work.

[GUT]

Well that's all fine GUT. In which case you clearly do accept that Mizen's evidence creates, or created, a reason for suspicion against Cross which requires, or required, investigation and/or resolution.

That's all I've been saying.

I have no idea what the police thought about it at the time. I don't want to assume anything about what they thought or did. They might have investigated or resolved it or they might not. But it seems that we both agree that they should have investigated it and/or resolved it.

No I don't accept that it created reason for suspicion against Cross, as it stands, I accept it had the potential to do so, I accept that it was an issue that needed to be cleared up, but I see that as being different to creating suspicion against Cross.

Of course they should have resolved it, but again that's not suspicion against Cross. It is merely an issue that needed clarification.

[David Orsam]

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.

Well that's all fine GUT. In which case you clearly do accept that Mizen's evidence creates, or created, a reason for suspicion against Cross which requires, or required, investigation and/or resolution.

That's all I've been saying.

I have no idea what the police thought about it at the time. I don't want to assume anything about what they thought or did. They might have investigated or resolved it or they might not. But it seems that we both agree that they should have investigated it and/or resolved it.

[GUT]

Oh and I'm no fan if the police, but they do the basics pretty darn thoroughly, a bit like the military, they stuff things up, they get things wrong, they make make major mistakes, but they do the basics well.

They don't always think laterally, they don't always think "outside the box" but the "tick all the boxes" sort of stuff they do very well.

[GUT]

I would like to ask you a question GUT.

Are you saying that the police investigating the murder of Nichols should have found the discrepancy of evidence suspicious at the time so that they should have investigated it in order to clear Cross from suspicion or are you saying that there is nothing suspicious about Mizen's evidence as to what Cross said to him so that any investigation would obviously have been a waste of time and they would have been right to ignore it?

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.

[Fisherman]

I would like to ask you a question GUT.

Are you saying that the police investigating the murder of Nichols should have found the discrepancy of evidence suspicious at the time so that they should have investigated it in order to clear Cross from suspicion or are you saying that there is nothing suspicious about Mizen's evidence as to what Cross said to him so that any investigation would obviously have been a waste of time and they would have been right to ignore it?

Iīd be interested in listening in on the response to that one if I may... As I said, it seems very obvious that Ripperology on the whole has not detected the potential loading of the discrepancy for a 120 year plus, so to treat it as an obvious matter that the police or inquest back then must have seen through it will be a very hard stance to defend.

[Fisherman]

Fish,

As far as we know, the inquest jury at the time didn't have an issue with the discrepancy. And bear in mind, this was the same jury that 'badgered' Henry Tomkins about where he and Britten had taken their break.

Gary

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.

[Fisherman]

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.


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.

[David Orsam]

Perhaps even more to the point, they didn't think it suspicious at the time, but oh I keep forgetting the police were too stupid/biased/unexperienced (whatever you may choose) to find their backside with a mirror on a stick.

I would like to ask you a question GUT.

Are you saying that the police investigating the murder of Nichols should have found the discrepancy of evidence suspicious at the time so that they should have investigated it in order to clear Cross from suspicion or are you saying that there is nothing suspicious about Mizen's evidence as to what Cross said to him so that any investigation would obviously have been a waste of time and they would have been right to ignore it?

[David Orsam]

It's not too subtle at all.Mizen makes a claim that Cross denies.The onus is on Mizen to substanciate that claim with evidence.He does not.Cross is entitled under law to be considered innocent unless proven guilty.It appears he was so considered.A hundred and some years later people claim the authorities of that time got it wrong,and allowed a serial killer to go free. With them is the arrogance.

It's not correct to say "The onus is no Mizen to substantiate that claim with evidence". There is no onus on him at all but, in any event, he DID give his evidence under oath about what Cross said to him. That was the only duty Mizen had to fulfil and he did it.

While Cross, like anyone else, is entitled to be considered innocent until proven guilty that does not mean that he is entitled to be considered free of suspicion. There is nothing in English law which says that people who have not been proven guilty of a crime cannot be suspected of having committed it. So your post is wrong in a number of material respects.

[MrBarnett]

Fish,

As far as we know, the inquest jury at the time didn't have an issue with the discrepancy. And bear in mind, this was the same jury that 'badgered' Henry Tomkins about where he and Britten had taken their break.

Gary

[Trevor Marriott]

Letīs look at what Mizen said when it comes to the information he stated to have been given about who had found the body in Bucks Row.

a carman passing by in company with another man said, "You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there."
Daily News

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.
Daily Telegraph

a carman, passing by in company with another man, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row by a policeman; a woman is lying there."
East London Observer

a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman. Witness asked him what was the matter, and Cross replied, "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there.
The Echo

A man who had the appearance of a carman passed him and said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row.
The Evening News

a carman passing by, in company with another man, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row by a policeman. A woman is lying there.
Illustrated Police News

I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row).
Morning Advertiser

man passing said to him, "You're wanted round in Buck's-row." That man was Carman Cross (who came into the Court-room in a coarse sacking apron), and he had come from Buck's-row. He said a woman had been found there.
The Star

a man passing said "You are wanted in Baker's-row." The man, named Cross, stated that a woman had been found there.
The Times

Question number one:
Does any of the paper reports support the suggestion that Lechmere kept the information that he himself had found the body from Mizen?

Answer:
Yes, each and every one of them seems to support that notion. It is spoken of a PC who had summoned Mizen, it is said that Mizen was wanted in Buckīs row, presumably by that policeman, and it is stated that Lechmere claimed that a woman "had been found" in Bucks Row.

Question number two:
Does any of the paper reports support the suggestion that Lechmere told Mizen that he himself had been the finder of the body of Polly Nichols?

Answer:
No, not a single paper supprts that notion. They instead point to how the carman, according to Mizen, had stated that a woman had been found in Bucks Row, and that a policeman had requested Mizens (or any other PC:s) support, leaving the reader to conclude that this PC was the finder of the body.

Now, if Lechmere had told Mizen that he himself was the finder, and if Mizen was reporting matters correctly, I would have wanted the wording to be "You are needed in Bucks Row. I found a woman lying there, who may weel be dead."

But none of the papers have any wording like that at all when reporting the testimony of Jonas Mizen.

PS. Trevor, can you see now how I do the maths here? Can you understand why I am suspicious of the carman and his behaviour? Can you see why James Scobie said that a jury would not like him?

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

Because for example even if the Times reporter was sitting in court taking notes, who is to say he didn't make a mistake etc. That is why I have little faith in the use of newspaper articles in this Ripper mystery.

The problem is that with these newspaper articles just two words misquoted can change the whole interpretation of that article which is what has happened is it not?

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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

[Fisherman]

Letīs look at what Mizen said when it comes to the information he stated to have been given about who had found the body in Bucks Row.

a carman passing by in company with another man said, "You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there."
Daily News

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.
Daily Telegraph

a carman, passing by in company with another man, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row by a policeman; a woman is lying there."
East London Observer

a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman. Witness asked him what was the matter, and Cross replied, "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there.
The Echo

A man who had the appearance of a carman passed him and said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row.
The Evening News

a carman passing by, in company with another man, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row by a policeman. A woman is lying there.
Illustrated Police News

I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row).
Morning Advertiser

man passing said to him, "You're wanted round in Buck's-row." That man was Carman Cross (who came into the Court-room in a coarse sacking apron), and he had come from Buck's-row. He said a woman had been found there.
The Star

a man passing said "You are wanted in Baker's-row." The man, named Cross, stated that a woman had been found there.
The Times

Question number one:
Does any of the paper reports support the suggestion that Lechmere kept the information that he himself had found the body from Mizen?

Answer:
Yes, each and every one of them seems to support that notion. It is spoken of a PC who had summoned Mizen, it is said that Mizen was wanted in Buckīs row, presumably by that policeman, and it is stated that Lechmere claimed that a woman "had been found" in Bucks Row.

Question number two:
Does any of the paper reports support the suggestion that Lechmere told Mizen that he himself had been the finder of the body of Polly Nichols?

Answer:
No, not a single paper supprts that notion. They instead point to how the carman, according to Mizen, had stated that a woman had been found in Bucks Row, and that a policeman had requested Mizens (or any other PC:s) support, leaving the reader to conclude that this PC was the finder of the body.

Now, if Lechmere had told Mizen that he himself was the finder, and if Mizen was reporting matters correctly, I would have wanted the wording to be "You are needed in Bucks Row. I found a woman lying there, who may weel be dead."

But none of the papers have any wording like that at all when reporting the testimony of Jonas Mizen.

PS. Trevor, can you see now how I do the maths here? Can you understand why I am suspicious of the carman and his behaviour? Can you see why James Scobie said that a jury would not like him?