Lechmere Continuation Thread

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[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"

[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

[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?

[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

[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.

[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.