Lechmere Continuation Thread

[David Orsam]

Very true but there is such a thing as deductive reasoning. We may never know, but we can infer by the evidence.

That's absolutely right. One can infer away to one's heart's content. And one can put forward arguments that Lechmere was entirely innocent.

All I've ever been saying is that there is some evidence on the surface, at a superficial level if you like, that Lechmere told a lie. That doesn't mean he definitely, or even probably, did tell a lie nor that if he did tell a lie he was the murderer. There are all kinds of arguments for and against and I've been trying to ignore those in this thread because that debate doesn't relate to the simple (and undeniable) point I've been making about one element of suspicion.

[Columbo]

In which case (as I have suspected from the start) you are arguing against a suggestion that I haven't made.

I'm not saying that anyone should be believed or disbelieved. In fact, it seems that you are the only one putting forward such an argument, if you are suggesting that Mizen should be disbelieved.

I'm only saying that if Mizen's evidence is correct - and I repeat, if it is correct, then Lechmere lied. In other words, if the police evidence is correct then Lechmere lied. On the face of it, in other words, Lechmere lied. But the face of it might not be correct. Suspicion is not proof. Nor does suspicion involve believing one person over another. We can't possibly know in 2016 whether Mizen or Lechmere was correct and/or truthful so the suspicion against Lechmere must remain.

Very true but there is such a thing as deductive reasoning. We may never know, but we can infer by the evidence.

Columbo

[David Orsam]

my argument is against a suggestion that because Mizen was a policeman,and on that particular alone,Mizen should be believed.

In which case (as I have suspected from the start) you are arguing against a suggestion that I haven't made.

I'm not saying that anyone should be believed or disbelieved. In fact, it seems that you are the only one putting forward such an argument, if you are suggesting that Mizen should be disbelieved.

I'm only saying that if Mizen's evidence is correct - and I repeat, if it is correct, then Lechmere lied. In other words, if the police evidence is correct then Lechmere lied. On the face of it, in other words, Lechmere lied. But the face of it might not be correct. Suspicion is not proof. Nor does suspicion involve believing one person over another. We can't possibly know in 2016 whether Mizen or Lechmere was correct and/or truthful so the suspicion against Lechmere must remain.

[Columbo]

Hi, John G.

"There is no newspaper article which states that Paul, at the inquest, informed PC Mizen that he thought Nichols was dead."
In an absolute and literal sense, that is correct. However, I have previously provided, within this thread, three articles; one of which is an interview with Paul and was conducted within a day or so of the murder and two of which report upon his testimony at the inquest proceedings. In each of these reportings, Paul makes it plainly understood that he believed the woman was deceased and that he then went on to inform the policeman about "what they had seen" or "and I told him what I had seen", on Bucks Row.
A sober and impartial reading of his testimony indicates distinctly that he is informing Mizen of the dead body.
Those sitting at the inquest, including the Coroner, clearly seemed to have no difficulty grasping the import of his words, or they should surely have enquired further of the witness for clarification.

"And why would PC Mizen lie in such an obvious way if he thought a witness, Paul, could back up Cross' version of events?"
Such a question carries within it a mischaractersation of several things at once. Mizen gave his testimony ahead of both Cross and Paul. He frankly could not know as to whether his own recollection of events would differ, in some vital area, from the testimonies to be offered later by either of those witnesses. To indicate that he might be concerned with what Paul may speak to, in corroboration of Cross, appears to imply that, in some manner, Mizen was appraised of the likely direction that Cross's testimony would progress. I should be interested if you have any evidence for this. It further seems to suggest that somewhere, nestled within the newspaper articles and as yet undetected by others, there might be some implication that one or other person was willfully deceitful in their given testimony.

"Cross' testimony is also inconsistent, if not contradictory, which might, but not necessarily, suggest that he was trying to dig himself out of a very big hole."
This would be his testimony that was reported in the newspapers, the same of which, in the preceding paragraph, you characterised in this manner: "the newspaper articles are inconsistent"?

"But to have blithely ignored the possibility that a victim was lying down in the street, possibly close to death, would have been a serious dereliction of duty."
I agree; such unurgent behaviour would surely have demonstrated a grave negligence of his lawly obligations. If, indeed, events had occurred that way. But you are the one using the phrase 'blithely ignored'. I have offered nothing which might suggest Mizen was tardy in his response. You seem here to be arguing against an edifice that you yourself have constructed.

Yours, Caligo

Good Post.

Columbo

[drstrange169]

I see poster Caligo U. has already highlighted the inconsistencies in John's comments so I need say no more.

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi, John G.

"There is no newspaper article which states that Paul, at the inquest, informed PC Mizen that he thought Nichols was dead."
In an absolute and literal sense, that is correct. However, I have previously provided, within this thread, three articles; one of which is an interview with Paul and was conducted within a day or so of the murder and two of which report upon his testimony at the inquest proceedings. In each of these reportings, Paul makes it plainly understood that he believed the woman was deceased and that he then went on to inform the policeman about "what they had seen" or "and I told him what I had seen", on Bucks Row.
A sober and impartial reading of his testimony indicates distinctly that he is informing Mizen of the dead body.
Those sitting at the inquest, including the Coroner, clearly seemed to have no difficulty grasping the import of his words, or they should surely have enquired further of the witness for clarification.

"And why would PC Mizen lie in such an obvious way if he thought a witness, Paul, could back up Cross' version of events?"
Such a question carries within it a mischaractersation of several things at once. Mizen gave his testimony ahead of both Cross and Paul. He frankly could not know as to whether his own recollection of events would differ, in some vital area, from the testimonies to be offered later by either of those witnesses. To indicate that he might be concerned with what Paul may speak to, in corroboration of Cross, appears to imply that, in some manner, Mizen was appraised of the likely direction that Cross's testimony would progress. I should be interested if you have any evidence for this. It further seems to suggest that somewhere, nestled within the newspaper articles and as yet undetected by others, there might be some implication that one or other person was willfully deceitful in their given testimony.

"Cross' testimony is also inconsistent, if not contradictory, which might, but not necessarily, suggest that he was trying to dig himself out of a very big hole."
This would be his testimony that was reported in the newspapers, the same of which, in the preceding paragraph, you characterised in this manner: "the newspaper articles are inconsistent"?

"But to have blithely ignored the possibility that a victim was lying down in the street, possibly close to death, would have been a serious dereliction of duty."
I agree; such unurgent behaviour would surely have demonstrated a grave negligence of his lawly obligations. If, indeed, events had occurred that way. But you are the one using the phrase 'blithely ignored'. I have offered nothing which might suggest Mizen was tardy in his response. You seem here to be arguing against an edifice that you yourself have constructed.

Yours, Caligo

[harry]

David Orsan,
There was no question in 1888 that Cross lied.There was no claim that he lied.His testimony differed from Mizen in one respect,and my argument is against a suggestion that because Mizen was a policeman,and on that particular alone,Mizen should be believed.It is not a question that could/can be decided by proof.The same situation could result for instance between a baker and a butcher,and which one of those would take precedence by reason of status?Mizen and Cross were both witnesses of equal status.Each was a person of impeccable character in their respective ways of life.To say Cross must be suspect on the word of Mizen is incorrect.

[John G]

A dead or dying woman (as Nichols was) would constitute an emergency. Mizen knew only that she was drunk or dead. She turns out to have been dead, but Mizen prioritised knocking up over checking the matter out. He was wrong to do so.


They might well have complained, but that doesn't mean they had anything to complain about. Knocking up would be subject to the exigencies of duty. He would not have been disciplined in the circumstances, because he would have been acting in accordance with his duty.

Cross (if truthful) told the officer he thought it more likely that the woman was dead than drunk. Given that the Number 1 Duty is protection of life, that would constitute an emergency. (if it doesn't it is hard to think of anything that would, frankly). Having been told 'drunk' or 'dead' Mizen should have assumed the latter until he knew otherwise. He would not have been disciplined for leaving his beat under such circumstances. If the woman had turned out to be drunk, he could have handed her over to Neill and returned to his own area.


True - but only if Mizen himself was not lying about what was said (which I believe to have been the case, for reasons already stated).

Of course, as you've intimidated, the main issue is whether Mizen was actually told that Nichols was either dead or drunk? As I've noted before, doesn't this argument rely almost entirely on Cross' version of their conversation? A version that was clearly disputed by PC Mizen in his evidence at the inquest.

Not that I'm really sure what Cross' version of events actually was. I mean, at the inquest he stated that Nichols might have been drunk, dead, in a swoon, not seriously injured!

[David Orsam]

They might well have complained, but that doesn't mean they had anything to complain about. Knocking up would be subject to the exigencies of duty. He would not have been disciplined in the circumstances, because he would have been acting in accordance with his duty.

His duty was to engage in knocking up and not leave his beat.

Police Orders 9 February 1853, still in force in 1888, regarding "calling people up in the morning":

"The Police are bound to render this or any other service in their power to the inhabitants and any neglect is to be reported, and will be punished".

According to the Police Code, a constable was: "Not to leave the beat, except in cases of fire, accident, or other emergency, returning as soon as possible". It was also stated in the same Police Code that misconduct would involve: "Leaving a fixed point or beat improperly".

A drunken woman would not, I think, have been considered an emergency so, if Nichols had simply been drunk, Mizen could well have been punished for misconduct.

But I don't think this has anything to do with issue of Mizen's evidence being that Lechmere lied.

[David Orsam]

A dead or dying woman (as Nichols was) would constitute an emergency. Mizen knew only that she was drunk or dead. She turns out to have been dead, but Mizen prioritised knocking up over checking the matter out. He was wrong to do so.

Well a drunk woman would not constitute an emergency. A dead woman would. So it depends on what he had been toldm and what he was told - according to his evidence - was that he had been summoned by another constable.

It's not quite true to say that Mizen prioritised knocking up over checking the matter out because he said he completed the knocking up task in which he was engaged and then went to Bucks Row. But it's very easy for you to speak with hindsight in 2016 that his actions were 'wrong'. There was no clear answer.

But anyway, what's this all got to do with Mizen's evidence that Lechmere lied to him?

[Bridewell]

It's not beyond argument at all. Knocking up was part of Mizen's official duties. And he was not supposed to leave his beat except in emergency. A drunk woman would not constitute an emergency.

A dead or dying woman (as Nichols was) would constitute an emergency. Mizen knew only that she was drunk or dead. She turns out to have been dead, but Mizen prioritised knocking up over checking the matter out. He was wrong to do so.

People who did not get woken up at the correct time may well have complained and Mizen would undoubtedly have been disciplined if he left his beat improperly.

They might well have complained, but that doesn't mean they had anything to complain about. Knocking up would be subject to the exigencies of duty. He would not have been disciplined in the circumstances, because he would have been acting in accordance with his duty.

Cross (if truthful) told the officer he thought it more likely that the woman was dead than drunk. Given that the Number 1 Duty is protection of life, that would constitute an emergency. (if it doesn't it is hard to think of anything that would, frankly). Having been told 'drunk' or 'dead' Mizen should have assumed the latter until he knew otherwise. He would not have been disciplined for leaving his beat under such circumstances. If the woman had turned out to be drunk, he could have handed her over to Neill and returned to his own area.

However, this really all goes off at a tangent from the very simple point about there being some suspicion attached to Lechmere due to Mizen's evidence that he lied.

True - but only if Mizen himself was not lying about what was said (which I believe to have been the case, for reasons already stated).

[Columbo]

I'm afraid that this is where your lack of knowledge is revealed Columbo.

The authorities could not simply "check the official record" by which I assume you mean the depositions. The depositions never went to the Home Office or to the Metropolitan Police. They never saw them. Police officers would have attended the inquest but they were not trained in court reporting so the best and fullest reports of the proceedings available would have been in the newspapers.

You're right about my knowledge on this. Very newbie.

Columbo

[John G]

Hi, John G.

"Yes, but you're relying once again on Cross' testimony. PC Mizen certainly didn't testify to the effect that he was informed the victim might be dead. And Paul doesn't refer to the conversation at all,"

Here is Paul, from a Sunday newspaper article:
"I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not." (Lloyd's Weekly, 1888,September 2)
Here is his reported testimony from the inquest:
"Witness[Paul] felt her hands and face, and they were cold. He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not, and he thought she was dead. It was very dark, and he did not notice any blood. They[Paul and Cross] agreed that the best thing they could do would be to tell the first policeman they met." "By the CORONER. - The morning was rather a chilly one. Witness [Paul]and the other man[Cross] walked on together until they met a policeman[Mizen] at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen. Up to that time not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he saw the body." (The Times, 1888,September 18)

And "Her hands and face were cold. He[Paul] knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but he could not. They[Paul and Cross] agreed that the best course to pursue was to tell the first policeman they met." (St. James Gazette, 1888,September 18)
Paul seems here to be of the opinion that the woman is deceased, goes in search of a policeman and when describing the encounter with Mizen, says that he informed him about "what they had seen". Paul here is saying, in fewer words than we might like, that he told Mizen there was a dead woman in Bucks Row.

"Cross was of the opinion that she was not seriously injured, and may simply have been drunk or in a "swoon.""

"Witness[Cross] said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead."" (The Daily Telegraph, 1888,September 3)
"Witness[Cross] also said he believed she was dead or drunk," (The Times, 1888,September 4)

"As for Cross not comming under greater scrutiny following his evidence, well may I refer you to the latter Ripper-Style murder of Mary Austin, where the overseer, Daniel Sullivan, William Crossingham's brother in law, clearly lied under oath at the inquest and may well, at the very least, have covered up a murder. / Nonetheless, he wasn't prosecuted for lying under oath, either, or as far as I know, subjected to a police investigation."
Yes, it is an interesting case and as you are familiar with it, you will be aware that Sullivan was not the only person being unhelpful and obfuscatory. The police and the Coroner were conscious of his attempted deception before he took the stand and it seems to have been hoped that some positive headway in the case might be made and new information revealed by him finding himself in an unfavourable situation, while on the stand. He certainly tried the Coroners patience.
I suspect that one reason as to why, despite his behaviour, he was not prosecuted for perjury might be that the police believed some useful fact might still be yielded from him. Also, much of the knowledge they had regarding his misdirection had come from persons who at one time or another had offered similarly misleading information and had then later changed their initial statements.
As fascinating as it is, the case has little similarity to the Cross/Mizen problem. In one we are dealing with a willful conspiracy and obvious attempt to deceive the police and thwart their investigation. In the other, we are looking at three persons presenting contradictory testimony about one minor aspect of the same event.

Yours, Caligo

There is no newspaper article which states that Paul, at the inquest, informed PC Mizen that he thought Nichols was dead. And, as I'm sure you're aware, the newspaper articles are inconsistent-most of them imply that Cross took the lead in speaking to Mizen and Paul played little, if any, part. And why would PC Mizen lie in such an obvious way if he thought a witness, Paul, could back up Cross' version of events? And why wasn't he disciplined, if in fact, Paul did support Cross' version?

Cross' testimony is also inconsistent, if not contradictory, which might, but not necessarily, suggest that he was trying to dig himself out of a very big hole. Thus, on one hand he says that he thinks Nichols might have been dead, but then he states that he believed she wasn't even seriously injured and might have merely been drunk or in a swoon!

Moreover, PC Mizen was a police officer with an exemplary record, as David has illustrated, with no disciplinary actions against him. But to have blithely ignored the possibility that a victim was lying down in the street, possibly close to death, would have been a serious dereliction of duty.

At the end of the day, as I've noted several times now, it's the word of a police officer with an unblemished record against that of a man discovered looming over a dead body. It really is as simple as that.

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi, John G.

"Yes, but you're relying once again on Cross' testimony. PC Mizen certainly didn't testify to the effect that he was informed the victim might be dead. And Paul doesn't refer to the conversation at all,"

Here is Paul, from a Sunday newspaper article:
"I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not." (Lloyd's Weekly, 1888,September 2)
Here is his reported testimony from the inquest:
"Witness[Paul] felt her hands and face, and they were cold. He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not, and he thought she was dead. It was very dark, and he did not notice any blood. They[Paul and Cross] agreed that the best thing they could do would be to tell the first policeman they met." "By the CORONER. - The morning was rather a chilly one. Witness [Paul]and the other man[Cross] walked on together until they met a policeman[Mizen] at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen. Up to that time not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he saw the body." (The Times, 1888,September 18)

And "Her hands and face were cold. He[Paul] knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but he could not. They[Paul and Cross] agreed that the best course to pursue was to tell the first policeman they met." (St. James Gazette, 1888,September 18)
Paul seems here to be of the opinion that the woman is deceased, goes in search of a policeman and when describing the encounter with Mizen, says that he informed him about "what they had seen". Paul here is saying, in fewer words than we might like, that he told Mizen there was a dead woman in Bucks Row.

"Cross was of the opinion that she was not seriously injured, and may simply have been drunk or in a "swoon.""

"Witness[Cross] said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead."" (The Daily Telegraph, 1888,September 3)
"Witness[Cross] also said he believed she was dead or drunk," (The Times, 1888,September 4)

"As for Cross not comming under greater scrutiny following his evidence, well may I refer you to the latter Ripper-Style murder of Mary Austin, where the overseer, Daniel Sullivan, William Crossingham's brother in law, clearly lied under oath at the inquest and may well, at the very least, have covered up a murder. / Nonetheless, he wasn't prosecuted for lying under oath, either, or as far as I know, subjected to a police investigation."
Yes, it is an interesting case and as you are familiar with it, you will be aware that Sullivan was not the only person being unhelpful and obfuscatory. The police and the Coroner were conscious of his attempted deception before he took the stand and it seems to have been hoped that some positive headway in the case might be made and new information revealed by him finding himself in an unfavourable situation, while on the stand. He certainly tried the Coroners patience.
I suspect that one reason as to why, despite his behaviour, he was not prosecuted for perjury might be that the police believed some useful fact might still be yielded from him. Also, much of the knowledge they had regarding his misdirection had come from persons who at one time or another had offered similarly misleading information and had then later changed their initial statements.
As fascinating as it is, the case has little similarity to the Cross/Mizen problem. In one we are dealing with a willful conspiracy and obvious attempt to deceive the police and thwart their investigation. In the other, we are looking at three persons presenting contradictory testimony about one minor aspect of the same event.

Yours, Caligo

[John G]

Well hold on, that's what happened in reality isn't it? So it's reasonable to suppose that someone familiar with police behaviour in 1888 would know it was the likely outcome.

And, as I've already noted, if he had murdered Nichols he probably didn't have a lot of options at this point so a calculated gamble might have seemed like a reasonable alternative.

I'm also frankly amazed at how many posters seem to think that murderers/serial killers always act in rational, predictable ways. Well, I'm sorry to shatter this illusion but they often don't (although, no doubt, the police would be delighted to see some of this thread's contributors sitting on a jury-or, on second thoughts, perhaps not!)

I mean, "what on earth would have made" William Bury think that, by walking into a police station and claiming that his wife had committed suicide-and in a fairly unusual way, by hanging herself-the authorities would believe him? And "what on earth would have made" him believe that, as a consequence, he was seized by a mad impulse, resulting in him plunging his knife into her abdomen several times?

Of course, they didn't, although a jury almost did! Perhaps they were compromised of similar-minded people to some of this thread's contributors!

And note, his first instinct was also not to flee the scene of the crime-even though he could easily have headed back to London-but to try and talk his way out of the serious predicament he found himself in.

I'm sorry, but murders and serial killers come in all shapes and sizes, to coin a phrase, and they certainly don't all wander around with the words "I'm a serial killer, catch me if you can", tattooed to their forehead!