Lechmere Continuation Thread

[harry]

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.

[Columbo]

Newspapers do sometimes make mistakes when reporting court proceedings but on the whole they are correct, especially when there are a number of different reporters all reporting the same thing.

To dispute a newspaper report of an inquest simply because it is a newspaper report is absurd. Unless there is some kind of reason to believe part of a report is wrong, it is perfectly acceptable to rely on it as true. The authorities themselves relied on newspaper reporting of inquests in 1888. Reports from the Times and Telegraph were pretty much accepted as official inquest reports.

You really are way on the wrong lines here.

I actually dispute news reports when there are fundamental differences. 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. I can't prove it but it's possible.

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 would consider them lazy if they were relying on the press for their information on a highly publicized murder

Columbo

[Columbo]

The fact that the possibility that Lechmere lied exists is reason for suspicion to be cast against Lechmere.

In other words, because we can't discount the possibility that he did lie, we have to regard Lechmere with suspicion. Any other attitude in a criminal investigation would be perverse.

True but you really can't prove which, if either one, was lying. You could also argue that the police were incompetent because they apparently didn't regard this whole lie situation as anything important.

Unless there's files missing (which of course there are!) showing otherwise, the police didn't show any indication they were even concerned about it. That can only mean one thing, that Mizen lied and they wanted it to quietly go away. It also indicates Lechmere said no such thing to Mizen. All theoretical of course.

Columbo

[Errata]

I don't think you mean to say "meaningless lie". I think you mean "pointless lie". You are trying to say that the lie could not reasonably have had any benefit to Lechmere and there was only a downside in him being caught out.

Where I think you are going wrong is that you are not sufficiently factoring in the fact that if he was the murderer he must have carrying a knife and he might have had blood on his hands and his clothes. He had to act normally with Paul but his clear motive would have been to get as far away as possible from Bucks Row and from any police officers.

His very life was at stake.

So if you put yourself into the mind of Lechmere as the murderer, the lie did have a possible benefit for him and I would say the outcome (i.e. being allowed on his way) was one he could reasonably have anticipated.

Fair enough. Pointless lie.

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? Wouldn't the assumption be that Mizen was going to drag them back to the scene because they were still presumably necessary to the investigation other cop or no, and then ask where this other cop was?

And if the argument was that he was not acting rationally, then doesn't that rather strengthen my point that he did not tell some cunning lie, but in fact got ridiculously lucky in the dumb lie he did tell? A lie that had no reason to benefit him, yet through freak chance it did.

[Bridewell]

If, on the other hand, Cross's evidence is correct (and Mizen's is not) then Cross never said there was a policeman in Bucks Row. So Mizen either lied about what Cross said or he misheard him or he misunderstood him or he heard him correctly at the time but later recalled it wrong.

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.

[David Orsam]

Oh, dear. So we should "believe" the newspapers because "authorities" in 1888 did so? That is really a naive and incorrect statement, David. Do you understand the differences between their society and ours? They hardly had any relevant education at all.

Oh dear. That is an extraordinary thing to say Pierre. And yet with all your education all you've done is tell us that GOGMAGOG predicted the name and address of MJK as the next murder victim and the date of her murder before it occurred. That turned out to be complete rubbish didn't it?

In any case, I'm not saying we should believe the newspapers simply because the authorities in 1888 did so but because when it comes to reporting of judicial proceedings the court reporters were pretty good at their jobs and reported to a relatively high standard of accuracy. And, for the Nichols inquest, the newspaper reports are the evidence in the case and that's it.

The odd thing is that for certain facts you are very happy to rely on the newspaper reports of the inquests but then reject other facts you don't like simply because they are derived from the newspaper reports of the inquests!

[David Orsam]

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.

Do you have any evidence of reporters copying each other when reporting on the Nichols inquest? Given that the reports are largely different there is no reason to believe they all copied each other. Given the number of different reporters involved we can have high confidence that Mizen's evidence was accurately reported.

In fact, we know it must be otherwise there would have been no reason for Cross to have been asked if he did tell Mizen he was wanted by a policeman (and I note that you have relied upon Cross's answer, that he did not see a policeman, yourself).

The key with analysing any evidence Pierre is to consider how it fits in with all the other known evidence and to use one's judgment about whether it is accurate. If it does not fit with all the other evidence then one has to consider the possibility of error (as with the Telegraph report about Cross and Paul hearing a policeman coming towards them). To reject all newspaper evidence simply because of the theoretical possibility that reporters might have copied each other is absolutely ridiculous but no more than I would expect from you.

[David Orsam]

And I would say that a lie would just make things complicated and increase the risk of a non suspect becoming a suspect.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, you need to consider that if Lechmere was the murderer he must have been carrying the murder weapon, a bloody knife, and probably had blood on his hands and clothes so he might well have felt it was essential to get away from Bucks Row as fast as possible and not speak to any police officers for longer than he needed to. If he was stopped and searched he was a dead man. So his life would have depended on getting away, an escape which would have been facilitated by the lie.

[David Orsam]

So what is the evidence that this "evidence", i.e. the statement by Mizen that he was told he was wanted by a policeman in Buck“s Row, is corresponding to such a statement made by Lechmere?

As a matter of historical fact, we do not have that statement. It is nowhere in any source.

The report from the Times gives Mizen's evidence as being: "Cross simply said he was wanted by a policeman".

So that statement was attributed to Lechmere and corresponded to a statement made by Lechmere (to use your words).

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;388456]

Newspapers do sometimes make mistakes when reporting court proceedings but on the whole they are correct, especially when there are a number of different reporters all reporting the same thing.

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.

To dispute a newspaper report of an inquest simply because it is a newspaper report is absurd. Unless there is some kind of reason to believe part of a report is wrong, it is perfectly acceptable to rely on it as true. The authorities themselves relied on newspaper reporting of inquests in 1888. Reports from the Times and Telegraph were pretty much accepted as official inquest reports.

Oh, dear. So we should "believe" the newspapers because "authorities" in 1888 did so? That is really a naive and incorrect statement, David. Do you understand the differences between their society and ours? They hardly had any relevant education at all.

[Pierre]

I don't think you mean to say "meaningless lie". I think you mean "pointless lie". You are trying to say that the lie could not reasonably have had any benefit to Lechmere and there was only a downside in him being caught out.

Where I think you are going wrong is that you are not sufficiently factoring in the fact that if he was the murderer he must have carrying a knife and he might have had blood on his hands and his clothes. He had to act normally with Paul but his clear motive would have been to get as far away as possible from Bucks Row and from any police officers.

His very life was at stake.

So if you put yourself into the mind of Lechmere as the murderer, the lie did have a possible benefit for him and I would say the outcome (i.e. being allowed on his way) was one he could reasonably have anticipated.

And I would say that a lie would just make things complicated and increase the risk of a non suspect becoming a suspect.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;388395]

Yes, Pierre, that is what a lie means by definition. The evidence is the evidence of PC Mizen at the Nichols inquest that Cross said to him that "he was wanted by a policeman".

If that evidence is correct, then Lechmere was lying (end of story) because Mizen was not wanted by a policeman.

So what is the evidence that this "evidence", i.e. the statement by Mizen that he was told he was wanted by a policeman in Buck“s Row, is corresponding to such a statement made by Lechmere?

As a matter of historical fact, we do not have that statement. It is nowhere in any source.

[David Orsam]

It was a meaningless lie. Maybe it turned out well for him beyond reasonable expectation, but it was beyond reasonable expectation. He couldn't possibly have foreseen that outcome based on what he said.

I don't think you mean to say "meaningless lie". I think you mean "pointless lie". You are trying to say that the lie could not reasonably have had any benefit to Lechmere and there was only a downside in him being caught out.

Where I think you are going wrong is that you are not sufficiently factoring in the fact that if he was the murderer he must have carrying a knife and he might have had blood on his hands and his clothes. He had to act normally with Paul but his clear motive would have been to get as far away as possible from Bucks Row and from any police officers.

His very life was at stake.

So if you put yourself into the mind of Lechmere as the murderer, the lie did have a possible benefit for him and I would say the outcome (i.e. being allowed on his way) was one he could reasonably have anticipated.

[John G]

All of which I totally get. The act of lying is suspicious. But he had no way of knowing that saying another cop wanted Mizen at the scene was going to result in him being left to go on his way. In fact he had every chance that Mizen was still going to want to talk to him about what he saw. The fact that Mizen let them go is fortuitous, but not in the realm of expectation. There are other lies that had better chance of getting him out of there unexamined, and the one he told was not one of those lies.

It was a meaningless lie. Maybe it turned out well for him beyond reasonable expectation, but it was beyond reasonable expectation. He couldn't possibly have foreseen that outcome based on what he said.

I don't accept it was a meaningless lie, especially when you consider his options were limited. Moreover, he may not have acted to completely rationally. Thus, Sutcliffe left some incriminating evidence, a £5 note from a wages delivery, following the murder of Jean Jordan.he returned to the body but couldn't find the note. He then proceeded to attempt a decapitation-contrary to his previous MO. He subsequently explained his reasoning: his intention was to hide the head somewhere to "make a big mystery out of it". In other words, he was trying to make it look as though she hadn't been killed by the Yorkshire Ripper. However, this was a crazy idea. The police weren't going to fail to investing the murder, or the incriminating evidence, simply because of his attempts to confuse them. And, of course, they didn't, and Sutcliffe was extremely lucky that he escaped the dragnet.

Returning to Lechmere. Firstly, if he was the killer he couldn't very well refuse to look for a police officer, as that would have seemed extremely suspicious to Paul. Once they came across PC Mizen his options were very limited, particularly as Paul was also in attendance and could have given Mizen a very different account (and Paul believed the victim to be dead, or at least close to death.) Therefore, attempting to downplay the incident, by suggesting the victim may merely have been drunk, and referring to another officer already in attendance-in the hope that PC Mizen wouldn't subject him to close scrutiny or require him to accompany him to the crime scene, on the assumption that the other officer had already questioned him and was satisfied with his account-was probably the best he could do, or the best strategy he could come with, in the limited time frame available to him. Assuming he was the perpetrator, of course.

[Errata]

I strongly disagree. Firstly, you cannot assume that a killer/serial killer will act rationally in these circumstances:consider, for example, Sutcliffe and the Jean Jordan murder. Moreover, he might have been feeling paranoid, concerned that Paul might suspect him. Also consider that fact that, if had murdered Nichols, he wouldn't have had the opportunity to dispose of the murder weapon, which would, presumably, be still on his person. And then there's the fact that, at the inquest, he seemed to downplay the extent of Nichols' injuries, stating that he didn't believe that Nichols had any serious injuries, and was possibly in a "swoon." In contrast, Paul told the inquest that he believed she may have been dead, although he also said he thought he'd dedicated shallow breathing.

In these circumstances if Lechmere had murdered Nichols he had every reason to lie in the way that he did. Thus, he wouldn't have wanted to return, with PC Mizen, to the body-because once Mizen became aware of the seriousness of the injuries he may have had to answer some uncomfortable questions and, worse, could have been asked to consent to a search.

By downplaying the seriousness of the incident, and informing the officer that another policeman was already attendance, PC Mizen may have been under the impression that this wasn't the type of incident that merited his immediate attention and, just as importantly, he would have assumed that the other officer had already questioned Lechmere and was satisfied with his responses, i.e. to the extent that he was prepared to let him leave the scene of the crime.

Does this prove that Lechmere murdered Nichols? No. However, it demonstrates that he had every reason to lie to PC Mizen if he had something to hide

All of which I totally get. The act of lying is suspicious. But he had no way of knowing that saying another cop wanted Mizen at the scene was going to result in him being left to go on his way. In fact he had every chance that Mizen was still going to want to talk to him about what he saw. The fact that Mizen let them go is fortuitous, but not in the realm of expectation. There are other lies that had better chance of getting him out of there unexamined, and the one he told was not one of those lies.

It was a meaningless lie. Maybe it turned out well for him beyond reasonable expectation, but it was beyond reasonable expectation. He couldn't possibly have foreseen that outcome based on what he said.