Lechmere Continuation Thread

[David Orsam]

But what on earth would have made him think that saying there was another cop summoning Mizen to the scene of a murder was going to make Mizen let him go unexamined?

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.

[John G]

"Against that if a man who also had an unblemished record".

Ah, but PC Mizen wasn't discovered next to a brutally murdered victim-and a victim who may still have been alive at the time, and therefore very recently attacked.

Moreover, as a serving police officer his career and lifestyle would no doubt have been more carefully scrutinized than, say, that of Cross.

[John G]

Hi, John G.

"Was he told that there was a woman "lying either dead or drunk?""
According to testimony offered by Cross at the inquest, he was so informed: Witness[Cross] said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman[Mizen] said, "All right," and then walked on. The other man[Paul] left witness soon after.(The Daily Telegraph, 1888,September 3)
"Witness[Cross] also said he believed she was dead or drunk, while the other man[Paul] stated he believed her to be dead. The constable[Mizen] replied "All right." (The Times, 1888,September 4)
"And the fact that he wasn't disciplined implies his superiors didn't disbelieve him."
The fact that there was contradictory evidence given in testimony didn't escape the notice of at least one juryman at the inquest so we might reasonably conclude that such disagreement didn't elude the keen minds of Mizen's superiors either. From what records we have access to, it does seem that Mizen wasn't formally disciplined. If, as you suggest, this indicates that they believed Mizen's testimony to be entirely truthful, then how might one explain the seeming failure of the police to enquire further into the reasons for what they should, logically, have believed to be false testimony, offered under oath, by Cross?

"In fact, it would be my guess that Paul was out of earshot for at least part of the conversation, otherwise it would have been a dangerous lie for either Lechmere or PC Mizen to have told."
There is nothing in the testimony that suggests that Paul would have been ' out of earshot '. Indeed the testimony greatly suggests that the pair approached Mizen together and then, having given their information regarding the body, left together.

Yours, Caligo

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, which makes me think Cross took the lead. And there certainly does seem to be a major difference of opinion between Cross and Paul's assessment of the situation. For instance, Paul seemed convinced Nichols was either dead or at least close to death, whereas Cross was of the opinion that she was not seriously injured, and may simply have been drunk or in a "swoon."

The fact that PC Mizen wasn't formally disciplined indicates, at the very least, that his superiors were prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. Moreover, his otherwise unblemished record is strong evidence that he was a reliable and diligent officer, i.e. not the sort of officer who would be neglectful in his duties-in fact, not responding enthusiastically to evidence from a witness who's just reported coming across a dead body would surely amount to gross negligence.

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. In fact, his evidence was so outrageous that Coroner Baxter resorted to sarcasm. Nonetheless, he wasn't prosecuted for lying under oath, either, or as far as I know, subjected to a police investigation.

My own gut feeling is that the authorities didn't regard Cross' actions as typical of a stereotypical murderer, i.e. calling over another witness when discovered with the body rather than, say, fleeing the scene of the crime. Additionally, even if they had serious doubts about the veracity of his account, they might have assumed that he lied, or possibly lied, because he was anxious not be detained on account of the fact that he was already late for work.

Of course, today we realise there's nothing stereotypical about serial killers, some of whom can be extremely sagacious in the way they carry out and cover up their crimes.

[David Orsam]

If he (Cross)lied. Nothing speaks of certainty.Cannot see where that helps in determining whether Cross cut Nichols throat sometime earlier.Cross did testify under oath,and nothing I have read indicates he was disbelieved by the coroner.Both he and Mizen were witnesses,rank or status meant nothing.

But I mentioned ages ago that suspicion is totally different to proof. Of course suspicion against Cross does not mean that he cut Nichols throat. Mizen's evidence is just a reason why suspicion attaches to Cross but that's a million miles away from saying he committed the murder. There may be many suspects in a murder investigation. It doesn't mean they all did it!

[David Orsam]

I can't really agree with the authorities part of your post. Why would they depend on the newspaper when they could check the official record in the course of their job?

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.

[David Orsam]

As I've pointed out I still believe several newspapers used a news agency, which of course means only one reporter had to get it wrong.

But there were a number of different news agencies in existence at the time.

Given the significant differences between the reports in the different newspapers you surely can't be saying that one agency reporter filed multiple different reports to different newspapers (with different spellings of witness names) can you?

[David Orsam]

Number One Priority - Protect Life. 'Knocking Up' is nowhere.

Having been told that there was a woman lying either dead or drunk in Bucks Row, Mizen's over-riding priority should have been to go to Bucks Row and check the exact situation. This is beyond argument.

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. 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.

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.

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi, John G.

"Was he told that there was a woman "lying either dead or drunk?""
According to testimony offered by Cross at the inquest, he was so informed: Witness[Cross] said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman[Mizen] said, "All right," and then walked on. The other man[Paul] left witness soon after.(The Daily Telegraph, 1888,September 3)
"Witness[Cross] also said he believed she was dead or drunk, while the other man[Paul] stated he believed her to be dead. The constable[Mizen] replied "All right." (The Times, 1888,September 4)
"And the fact that he wasn't disciplined implies his superiors didn't disbelieve him."
The fact that there was contradictory evidence given in testimony didn't escape the notice of at least one juryman at the inquest so we might reasonably conclude that such disagreement didn't elude the keen minds of Mizen's superiors either. From what records we have access to, it does seem that Mizen wasn't formally disciplined. If, as you suggest, this indicates that they believed Mizen's testimony to be entirely truthful, then how might one explain the seeming failure of the police to enquire further into the reasons for what they should, logically, have believed to be false testimony, offered under oath, by Cross?

"In fact, it would be my guess that Paul was out of earshot for at least part of the conversation, otherwise it would have been a dangerous lie for either Lechmere or PC Mizen to have told."
There is nothing in the testimony that suggests that Paul would have been ' out of earshot '. Indeed the testimony greatly suggests that the pair approached Mizen together and then, having given their information regarding the body, left together.

Yours, Caligo

[drstrange169]

Ker-ching! Gut.

[drstrange169]

>>... if he was the killer became every read on to downplay the incident, as implied by PC Mizen's account.<<

And, of course, if he was the killer he had every reason not to wait for Paul and even more reason not to accompany him on the mission to find a policeman. The latter being a course of action any innocent person might undertake.


>> ... there's no proof at all that Paul corroborated Lechmere's version of the conversation.<<

You keep repeating this as if repetition will make it less inaccurate.

"... He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead."
Robert Paul

"... the other man stated he believed her to be dead."
Xmere

Two men, one story.


>>We are therefore left with the same issue: the word of a police officer with an unblemished record as against that of a man found with a dead body.<<

And the man who found the dead body was believed by the people, who had access to more information than us, over the supposed spot free policeman.

[GUT]

Was he told that there was a woman "lying either dead or drunk?"I thought in his evidence he stated in his evidence that he was only told that he was wanted by another constable in Bucks Row, "where a woman was lying". Now he probably interpreted this as the woman was simply drunk, a common enough occurrence I would have thought, and not an incident that would have merited his immediate attention. And the fact that he wasn't disciplined implies his superiors didn't disbelieve him.

Of course, Lechmere gives a different account, however, as I have pointed out, if he was the killer became every read on to downplay the incident, as implied by PC Mizen's account. And there's no proof at all that Paul corroborated Lechmere's version of the conversation.

We are therefore left with the same issue: the word of a police officer with an unblemished record as against that of a man found with a dead body.

"Against that if a man who also had an unblemished record".

[John G]

If he (Cross)lied. Nothing speaks of certainty.Cannot see where that helps in determining whether Cross cut Nichols throat sometime earlier.Cross did testify under oath,and nothing I have read indicates he was disbelieved by the coroner.Both he and Mizen were witnesses,rank or status meant nothing.

I wouldn't accept that they were witnesses of equal rank. PC Mizen was a police officer with an unblemished record, whereas Lechmere is someone we know very little about, apart from the fact he was discovered with a dead body.

However, I accept that none of this means Lechmere was a murderer, and the case against him is, in my opinion, far from conclusive. But, then again, the same could be said of Kosminski, Druitt, Tumblety, Sickert...

[John G]

This is the nub of it. Those who think Cross/Lechmere was the killer will conclude that he was lying. Those who think he wasn't will conclude otherwise.
What we do know is that Mizen continued knocking up after his encounter with Cross & Paul (although we don't know for how long exactly). The duties of a police officer then (as now) were, in order of importance:-

The Protection of Life and Property
The Maintenance of Order
The Prevention and Detection of Crime
The Prosecution of Offenders Against the Peace.

Number One Priority - Protect Life. 'Knocking Up' is nowhere.

Having been told that there was a woman lying either dead or drunk in Bucks Row, Mizen's over-riding priority should have been to go to Bucks Row and check the exact situation. This is beyond argument. I'd be interested to get Trevor Marriott's view on the matter (also SPE's if he was still posting) but to my mind by far the more likely scenario is that Mizen invented the presence of an officer already at the scene in an attempt to justify what was clearly neglect of duty on his part (potentially, in these circumstances, a sacking offence). Whoever lied did so for reasons of self-preservation. I think it more likely than not that this was Mizen. He dragged his feet to ensure that a 'J' Division officer got there before he did. It happens today; it would be naive to suppose that it didn't happen then too.

Was he told that there was a woman "lying either dead or drunk?"I thought in his evidence he stated in his evidence that he was only told that he was wanted by another constable in Bucks Row, "where a woman was lying". Now he probably interpreted this as the woman was simply drunk, a common enough occurrence I would have thought, and not an incident that would have merited his immediate attention. And the fact that he wasn't disciplined implies his superiors didn't disbelieve him.

Of course, Lechmere gives a different account, however, as I have pointed out, if he was the killer became every read on to downplay the incident, as implied by PC Mizen's account. And there's no proof at all that Paul corroborated Lechmere's version of the conversation. In fact, it would be my guess that Paul was out of earshot for at least part of the conversation, otherwise it would have been a dangerous lie for either Lechmere or PC Mizen to have told.

We are therefore left with the same issue: the word of a police officer with an unblemished record as against that of a man found with a dead body.

[Columbo]

If he (Cross)lied. Nothing speaks of certainty.Cannot see where that helps in determining whether Cross cut Nichols throat sometime earlier.Cross did testify under oath,and nothing I have read indicates he was disbelieved by the coroner.Both he and Mizen were witnesses,rank or status meant nothing.

you're absolutely right. But Pro-Lechmere people use that as a big + for their suspicions. I'm not sure they realize they don't need it with the other bits of evidence against him.

Columbo

[curious]

[QUOTE=Pierre;388485]

That is not correct. A lot of reporters reporting the same thing does not mean they are correct. It is just a phenomenon of copying each other. One paper may be correct when all else are wrong. You have to analyse the articles and look for the provenience of statements.

No, Pierre, they were not copying each other. They attended the same event -- a court trial, then each reporter raced back to his newspaper office and wrote his story as quickly as possible for the next edition.

Therefore, when numerous newspapers report the same thing, it means that is what happened. Or as someone stated earlier, some of the stories, especially in outlying areas, could have been supplied by a news agency such as America's Associated Press today. The local paper and the agency would have sent their own reporters who produced stories for their own papers.

Sometimes, they may choose to include different tidbits, depending upon what each reporter considered the most telling and important information, so you may see some variation from one story to the next.