Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Non-Fiction: The Mysterious Fred - by Simon Wood 40 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: The Mysterious Fred - by rjpalmer 52 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: The Mysterious Fred - by Simon Wood 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.
Non-Fiction: The Mysterious Fred - by Simon Wood 2 hours ago.
Non-Fiction: The Mysterious Fred - by rjpalmer 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (19 posts)
Non-Fiction: The Mysterious Fred - (9 posts)
Casebook Announcements: Katherine Bradshaw Amin (1980-2018) - (3 posts)
Visual Media: "Mysteries at the Museum" features JtR Museum - (1 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Dennis Nilsen - (1 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Kansas Physician Confirms Howard Report - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Lechmere/Cross, Charles

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-01-2016, 01:09 PM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 981
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainbow View Post
yes, simple as it is
I see. And how so?

You understand that the only reason this exchange is the topic of conversation at all is that one of the key aspects of "Fisherman's" Lechmere the Ripper theory is the "Mizen Scam". One of the lynchpins of the "Mizen Scam" is that Mizen was duped by Lechmere, who told him that a policeman had sent them from Buck's Row and that he (Mizen) was wanted there, where a woman was lying (Mizen contends he wasn't told anything beyond that). This makes explains why Mizen did not ask Paul or Cross/Lechmere their names, why he didn't (so far as we know) inspect their clothing, why didn't ask the men to accompany him back to Buck's Row. He simply said, "Alright" and continued calling people up, tricked into believing that the two men had been "cleared" by the (non-existent) PC in Buck's Row and not having been told (as both Paul and Lechmere contended) that she was dead/likely dead.

I contend that Mizen (with the endorsement of his superiors at the Met who had allowed Neil to testify that he'd found the body without mentioning Mizen, Cross, Paul) testified as he did after reading Paul's comments published in Lloyd's Weekly the previous day. "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. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head."

Last edited by Patrick S : 11-01-2016 at 01:13 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-01-2016, 06:55 PM
Columbo Columbo is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 646
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick S View Post
I see. And how so?

You understand that the only reason this exchange is the topic of conversation at all is that one of the key aspects of "Fisherman's" Lechmere the Ripper theory is the "Mizen Scam". One of the lynchpins of the "Mizen Scam" is that Mizen was duped by Lechmere, who told him that a policeman had sent them from Buck's Row and that he (Mizen) was wanted there, where a woman was lying (Mizen contends he wasn't told anything beyond that). This makes explains why Mizen did not ask Paul or Cross/Lechmere their names, why he didn't (so far as we know) inspect their clothing, why didn't ask the men to accompany him back to Buck's Row. He simply said, "Alright" and continued calling people up, tricked into believing that the two men had been "cleared" by the (non-existent) PC in Buck's Row and not having been told (as both Paul and Lechmere contended) that she was dead/likely dead.

I contend that Mizen (with the endorsement of his superiors at the Met who had allowed Neil to testify that he'd found the body without mentioning Mizen, Cross, Paul) testified as he did after reading Paul's comments published in Lloyd's Weekly the previous day. "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. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head."
I must've read that a dozen times when it just dawned on me why Mizen would lie.

Columbo
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-01-2016, 10:46 PM
Pcdunn Pcdunn is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,651
Default Now you see the copper, now you don't...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Columbo View Post
I must've read that a dozen times when it just dawned on me why Mizen would lie.

Columbo
Of course! If Neil's testimony has already been heard (in which he discovered the body), then Mizen can't admit he was told by a pair of citizens about the corpse, yet delayed going to see to it. If he frames his testimony as that they told him "a policeman" wanted him, then he mitigates the lapse a little bit, maybe enough to keep his job. Of course, his assumption that the car-men had seen PC Neil is proven wrong when Lechmere says, "No, I didn't see a policeman."
__________________
Pat D.
---------------
Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
---------------
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-02-2016, 12:27 AM
Darryl Kenyon Darryl Kenyon is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 177
Default

Perhaps Pc Mizen didn't totally believe them and was wary of going into a dark thoroughfare with two men he did not know, nervous for his own safety, a crime occurred while he was distracted etc
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-02-2016, 02:00 AM
MysterySinger MysterySinger is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 422
Default

Well Mizen was knocking people up for a reason. Why risk everybody being late for work if he broke off to investigate? Whether the woman was dead or drunk she'd likely still be there when he finished what he was doing. Maybe he earned a bit of extra cash knocking up. In his place, what would you do?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-02-2016, 05:18 AM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 981
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysterySinger View Post
Well Mizen was knocking people up for a reason. Why risk everybody being late for work if he broke off to investigate? Whether the woman was dead or drunk she'd likely still be there when he finished what he was doing. Maybe he earned a bit of extra cash knocking up. In his place, what would you do?
Hard to say what I'd do as I think that life was so much different then and there. But your comment is an important one, I think. I don't believe that we should view PC Mizen in a negative light, even if he was less than honest in his Nichols' inquest testimony. Based upon what we know of his service record and his life after leaving the Met, it's reasonable to assume that Mizen was a good man. I think he did what many if not most would have done had they been in his shoes: he told what amounted to an insignificant lie, which had no real impact on the Nichols' investigation or the Whitechapel murders as a whole. He did so in order to protect his career, his income, his reputation. That's understandable. Further, I suspect that his superiors at the Met may well have understood that his testimony was less than truthful and allowed him to offer that testimony with at least their tacit approval.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the Nichols' murder came on the heels of several attacks/murders of women around Whitechapel. The Met had been under attack in the press for their lack of success in producing even plausible suspects. Clearly, Robert Paul's comments in Lloyd's did little to cast the Met in a better light.

"I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see."

So our chronology of events looks like this:

Friday, August 31: Nichols' is murdered.

Saturday, September 1: PC Neil testifies at the Nichols' inquest that he discovered the Nichols' body. He does not mention Mizen having spoken to two Carmen. His testimony was reported in the Telegraph:

"Yesterday morning I was proceeding down Buck's-row, Whitechapel, going towards Brady-street. There was not a soul about. I had been round there half an hour previously, and I saw no one then. I was on the right-hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street. It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row. I went across and found deceased lying outside a gateway, her head towards the east. The gateway was closed. It was about nine or ten feet high, and led to some stables. There were houses from the gateway eastward, and the School Board school occupies the westward. On the opposite side of the road is Essex Wharf. Deceased was lying lengthways along the street, her left hand touching the gate. I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat. She was lying on her back, with her clothes disarranged. I felt her arm, which was quite warm from the joints upwards. Her eyes were wide open. Her bonnet was off and lying at her side close to the left hand. I heard a constable passing Brady-street, so I called him. I did not whistle. I said to him, "Run at once for Dr. Llewellyn," and, seeing another constable in Baker's Row, I sent him for the ambulance. The doctor arrived in a very short time. "

Sunday, September 2: No inquest testimony. Robert Paul's comments appear in Lloyd's.

Monday, September 3: Mizen testifies at the inquest. Mizen stated that ďat a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when 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. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body.Ē

Also testifying that day was Charles Cross/Lechmere. Remember that Lechmere had not been asked his name by Mizen. He had not been described in any way by Paul in his comments in Lloyd's. Paul called him simply "a man". In fact, Paul diminished Lechmere's involvement in both Buck's Row and Baker's Row. He has himself as the prime actor and speaker. And this is what Christer calls a 'bombshell' that forced Lechmere to appear at the inquest 24 hours after it appeared in print?

I think not. I think it's clear that Lechmere came forward of his own accord because he felt that was the right thing to do. These actions fit with what we know of the man, as well. He maintained solid, steady employment throughout his life. At the time of the murder he'd been employed by Pickford's for 20 years. He and his wife had 11 children, 10 of which survived to adulthood. He and his wife were married for more than 50 years. He continually improved his family's circumstances throughout his life. After his retirement he became a business owner, opening a small shop and working there himself. He died in his bed, past the age of 70, leaving his wife a sizable inheritance. So far as anyone knows he was never arrested, institutionalized, or accused of being a man of ill-humor (despite Christer's hyperventilation at seeing his picture in his worldwide sent documentary).
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-29-2016, 01:17 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick S View Post
Based upon what we know, itís obvious that PC Mizen was not truthful about many details of what occurred in Bakerís Row. His reasons for being less than honest is understandable, albeit not the sinister reasons many researches may hope for. Itís clear the Mizen assumed that the two men heíd met in Bakerís Row had simply come across a woman lying drunk on the pavement. He continued ďcalling people upĒ for work. He reacted with no urgency whatsoever. He asked the men no questions. He didnít ask their names. He was in no great hurry to report to Buckís Row. Stating that he was told a PC was already on the scene absolves him somewhat. Stating that he not told the woman was dead, makes his lack of action somewhat more understandable. Mizenís untruthful statements were made to protect his job and his reputation. Itís clear to anyone willing to see the obvious.
I find this analysis flawed.

Mizenís evidence was not simply that "a PC was already on the scene". His evidence was that he was told that he was wanted by a policeman on the scene. How does that evidence "absolve" him from not reacting with urgency?

If Mizen was trying to excuse his delay in going to Bucks Row, surely the very last thing he would have done would have been to invent a policeman in Bucks Row in need of assistance.

But was Mizen even worried about criticism of his delay? To the extent that he was, he seems to have answered the point comprehensively. Thus:

In reply to a juryman, witness said that when the carman spoke to him he was engaged in knocking people up, and he finished knocking people up at the one place where he was at the time, giving two or three knocks, and then went directly to Buckís-row, not wanting to knock up anyone else.

Other versions of this evidence are as follows:

The witness was at the time in the act of knocking a man upÖ.It is not true that before he went to Buckís-row, witness continued "knocking people up". He went there immediately".


A juryman: Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you were wanted? Witness Ė No. I only finished knocking up one person".

That deals with the point and on its own exonerates Mizen from the charge of unnecessary delay.

In any case, we should not forget that there were two pressures on Mizen which would have kept him at Bakers Row.

Firstly, he was engaged in his duty of calling up. His failure to complete this duty would have meant people not being woken up and thus being late for work. According to police regulations in force at the time, any neglect by an officer in calling up people in the morning was to be reported and the offender punished.

Secondly, he was not supposed to leave his beat other than in an emergency.

So simply being told that a woman had been found in Bucks Row either dead or drunk was not necessarily sufficient for Mizen to have stopped his duty of calling up and left his beat. By all accounts, no mention was made that the woman had been murdered. The matter could have been dealt with by the beat constable who was responsible for patrolling Bucks Row.

Mizen had not been told there was any urgency so his actions were defensible without the need for any fabrication.

However, Mizen might have wanted to invent a policeman in Bucks Row to justify his leaving his beat. A fellow officer in need of assistance would have been good reason for him to stop his duties and go to Bucks Row.

Yet, that begs the question of why Mizen did go to Bucks Row. Absent being told that his assistance was required by another officer, he could, and probably should, have instructed Paul or Cross to go to a police station to report what they had found. Or he could have waited for his sergeant so he could report it to him. Not calling up and leaving his beat opened him up to the threat of disciplinary proceedings against him.

For that reason, I suggest that he was told that he was wanted in Bucks Row by a police officer or at least he genuinely believed that is what he had been told.

Consquently, it seems to me that it is most likely that it was Cross who was lying at the inquest (if anyone was lying).

His answer at the inquest to a juryman that he didnít tell Mizen that he was wanted by another policeman because he didnít see another policeman in Bucks Row strikes me as being a little too clever and fails to meet the point that he might have been lying.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-29-2016, 01:33 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,169
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
I find this analysis flawed.

Mizenís evidence was not simply that "a PC was already on the scene". His evidence was that he was told that he was wanted by a policeman on the scene. How does that evidence "absolve" him from not reacting with urgency?

If Mizen was trying to excuse his delay in going to Bucks Row, surely the very last thing he would have done would have been to invent a policeman in Bucks Row in need of assistance.

But was Mizen even worried about criticism of his delay? To the extent that he was, he seems to have answered the point comprehensively. Thus:

In reply to a juryman, witness said that when the carman spoke to him he was engaged in knocking people up, and he finished knocking people up at the one place where he was at the time, giving two or three knocks, and then went directly to Buckís-row, not wanting to knock up anyone else.

Other versions of this evidence are as follows:

The witness was at the time in the act of knocking a man upÖ.It is not true that before he went to Buckís-row, witness continued "knocking people up". He went there immediately".


A juryman: Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you were wanted? Witness Ė No. I only finished knocking up one person".

That deals with the point and on its own exonerates Mizen from the charge of unnecessary delay.

In any case, we should not forget that there were two pressures on Mizen which would have kept him at Bakers Row.

Firstly, he was engaged in his duty of calling up. His failure to complete this duty would have meant people not being woken up and thus being late for work. According to police regulations in force at the time, any neglect by an officer in calling up people in the morning was to be reported and the offender punished.

Secondly, he was not supposed to leave his beat other than in an emergency.

So simply being told that a woman had been found in Bucks Row either dead or drunk was not necessarily sufficient for Mizen to have stopped his duty of calling up and left his beat. By all accounts, no mention was made that the woman had been murdered. The matter could have been dealt with by the beat constable who was responsible for patrolling Bucks Row.

Mizen had not been told there was any urgency so his actions were defensible without the need for any fabrication.

However, Mizen might have wanted to invent a policeman in Bucks Row to justify his leaving his beat. A fellow officer in need of assistance would have been good reason for him to stop his duties and go to Bucks Row.

Yet, that begs the question of why Mizen did go to Bucks Row. Absent being told that his assistance was required by another officer, he could, and probably should, have instructed Paul or Cross to go to a police station to report what they had found. Or he could have waited for his sergeant so he could report it to him. Not calling up and leaving his beat opened him up to the threat of disciplinary proceedings against him.

For that reason, I suggest that he was told that he was wanted in Bucks Row by a police officer or at least he genuinely believed that is what he had been told.

Consquently, it seems to me that it is most likely that it was Cross who was lying at the inquest (if anyone was lying).

His answer at the inquest to a juryman that he didnít tell Mizen that he was wanted by another policeman because he didnít see another policeman in Bucks Row strikes me as being a little too clever and fails to meet the point that he might have been lying.
Ha! Bravo, David!! That last point you are making is one I have entertained for years, without wanting to put it out here on account of how I have always been aware of how it would be thrashed and ridiculed.

Now you did it instead, and I am grateful for it (if I am reading you correctly). It seems to me - who have always been convinced that Lechmere lied - that the carman was gloating a bit when he said that he hadnīt spoken to a PC in Bucks Row since there was no PC to speak to there. A bit too clever, just like you say.

If he was innocent, I would have wanted a simple "no" to that question. It would have been more in line with the otherwise rather sparse and rough answers he gave to the other questions. Itīs of course impossible to prove, but it is one of those things that always added to my overall feeling.

I would also say that the suggestion that Lechmere was the more likely liar is to my mind reinforced heavily by how Mizen did not object to how Neil claimed to have been the finder of the body. Mizenīs ommission to do so only makes sense if he actually did think that Neil WAS the finder - that he was the PC Lechmere had spoken of.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-29-2016, 01:46 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
I find this analysis flawed.

Mizenís evidence was not simply that "a PC was already on the scene". His evidence was that he was told that he was wanted by a policeman on the scene. How does that evidence "absolve" him from not reacting with urgency?

If Mizen was trying to excuse his delay in going to Bucks Row, surely the very last thing he would have done would have been to invent a policeman in Bucks Row in need of assistance.

But was Mizen even worried about criticism of his delay? To the extent that he was, he seems to have answered the point comprehensively. Thus:

In reply to a juryman, witness said that when the carman spoke to him he was engaged in knocking people up, and he finished knocking people up at the one place where he was at the time, giving two or three knocks, and then went directly to Buckís-row, not wanting to knock up anyone else.

Other versions of this evidence are as follows:

The witness was at the time in the act of knocking a man upÖ.It is not true that before he went to Buckís-row, witness continued "knocking people up". He went there immediately".


A juryman: Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you were wanted? Witness Ė No. I only finished knocking up one person".

That deals with the point and on its own exonerates Mizen from the charge of unnecessary delay.

In any case, we should not forget that there were two pressures on Mizen which would have kept him at Bakers Row.

Firstly, he was engaged in his duty of calling up. His failure to complete this duty would have meant people not being woken up and thus being late for work. According to police regulations in force at the time, any neglect by an officer in calling up people in the morning was to be reported and the offender punished.

Secondly, he was not supposed to leave his beat other than in an emergency.

So simply being told that a woman had been found in Bucks Row either dead or drunk was not necessarily sufficient for Mizen to have stopped his duty of calling up and left his beat. By all accounts, no mention was made that the woman had been murdered. The matter could have been dealt with by the beat constable who was responsible for patrolling Bucks Row.

Mizen had not been told there was any urgency so his actions were defensible without the need for any fabrication.

However, Mizen might have wanted to invent a policeman in Bucks Row to justify his leaving his beat. A fellow officer in need of assistance would have been good reason for him to stop his duties and go to Bucks Row.

Yet, that begs the question of why Mizen did go to Bucks Row. Absent being told that his assistance was required by another officer, he could, and probably should, have instructed Paul or Cross to go to a police station to report what they had found. Or he could have waited for his sergeant so he could report it to him. Not calling up and leaving his beat opened him up to the threat of disciplinary proceedings against him.

For that reason, I suggest that he was told that he was wanted in Bucks Row by a police officer or at least he genuinely believed that is what he had been told.

Consquently, it seems to me that it is most likely that it was Cross who was lying at the inquest (if anyone was lying).

His answer at the inquest to a juryman that he didnít tell Mizen that he was wanted by another policeman because he didnít see another policeman in Bucks Row strikes me as being a little too clever and fails to meet the point that he might have been lying.
The would-have-person is back.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-29-2016, 01:48 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,169
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
The would-have-person is back.
And the should-not-have person never went away.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.