If

[Fisherman]

To Fisherman

I don't believe Lechmere was Jack the Ripper and there is no evidence to suggest he was Jack so hence not guilty.

Cheers John

Thanks, John ... but that was not exactly what I asked for. What I asked for was:
If we KNEW that Lechmere said to Mizen what Mizen claimed the carman said - would you suspect him in such a case?

[John Wheat]

Thanks, John ... but that was not exactly what I asked for. What I asked for was:
If we KNEW that Lechmere said to Mizen what Mizen claimed the carman said - would you suspect him in such a case?

To Fisherman

No because what Lechmere said to Mizen does not seem to be incriminating to me in itself.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

To Fisherman

No because what Lechmere said to Mizen does not seem to be incriminating to me in itself.

Cheers John

Well, if he said what Mizen said, he certainly lied, we now that much. Plus we know that Lechmere was a suspect as per Connor and Osborne long before it was even known that he swopped names, long before the Mizen scam was considered and long before it was pointed lout that the blood evidence is in line with Lechmere being the killer.
When we consider the scam, it must be considered against this backdrop.

If we find that all of the matters surrounding the carman are useful examples of a perfectly sound, unsuspicious and law-abiding behaviour, then we should of course vote for a not guilty decision. And we must regard the so called Mizen scam accordingly.

[drstrange169]

>>There is not a shred of evidence that either of these men were ever in Bucks Row throughout their whole lives. But they are nevertheless given the upper hand as favoured suspects over a man who WAS there, who WAS found alone with the victim at a stage where she could have been killed seconds earlier ...<<

I don't subscribe to any of them, but I would put Xmere ahead of some of them. I've just embarked on Robinson's titanic opus, to early to say yet, but so far I'd put Xmere way ahead of any Maybrick family member.

One minor quibble, Xmere wasn't found "with" the body, but rather in the same street or perhaps "near" Mrs. Nichols.

In all probability, Mrs Greene, her daughter and Mrs Purkiss were nearer the body than Xmere when Paul arrived.

[harry]

I am not denying anything Fisherman,just accepting that it was two to one against a policeman being mentioned by Paul and Cross,and a cheap trick question will not alter that.

[Wickerman]

I appreciate that this is how you reason, Jon. But the premise of the thread is that we should work from the assumption that Lechmere said exactly what Mizen claimed he said. And if he did, then to what - if any - extent do we think this would sound suspicious or incriminate the man.

I do realize that I didn't play ball, so to speak, but what you asked had me puzzled.

You wrote "Let´s assume that we had all this on tape, and that we knew that it was the truth."

If that is the case then PC Neil did send Lechmere to find Mizen. If it was the truth, what other conclusion can we arrive at?
Neither do I see how this implicates Lechmere.

[Fisherman]

>>There is not a shred of evidence that either of these men were ever in Bucks Row throughout their whole lives. But they are nevertheless given the upper hand as favoured suspects over a man who WAS there, who WAS found alone with the victim at a stage where she could have been killed seconds earlier ...<<

I don't subscribe to any of them, but I would put Xmere ahead of some of them. I've just embarked on Robinson's titanic opus, to early to say yet, but so far I'd put Xmere way ahead of any Maybrick family member.

One minor quibble, Xmere wasn't found "with" the body, but rather in the same street or perhaps "near" Mrs. Nichols.

In all probability, Mrs Greene, her daughter and Mrs Purkiss were nearer the body than Xmere when Paul arrived.

I suspect that Lechmere was around two yards or so from the body when Paul arrived - the street was 24 feet wide, meaning that having detracted the pavement we are looking at a width of the street itself of around five yards. WHat we know was said about where Lechmere stood involves two parameters:
1. Where the body was
2. In the middle of the street

Putting this together, we get "In the middle of the street, where the body was".

So accepting that Lechmere´s body had mass and that Nichols occupied the width of the pavement, we will get a figure of two, two and a half yards between Lechmere and Nichols.

This is by no means certain, but it is the best we have if we want to anchor our guesswork in factual evidence.

Whether the Greens or Purkisses were equally close, closer or further away from the body is impossible to say - but we CAN say that there was a wall between them and the body. And we CAN say that Lechmere could easily have been leaning over the body two seconds before he got to a stance two yards from it.

Therefore, all of the speculation and the endless discussion about how far from the body he was and how viable it is to say "close to", "near", "by the side of" or that he was found "with the body" is completely moot - he was close enough to have been in direct contact with the body seconds only before Paul first saw him, he was aware of the body and he may have been the killer. There is nothing in the position in which he was found that militates against such a suggestion.

I have not bought Robinsons book as yet, but I am having major doubts about the viablity of Michael Maybrick as the Ripper. On the surface of things, it sounds like just another celebrity bid, and even if Charles Lechmere had never existed, I would still say that the killer was in all probability NOT a famous person or a celebrity.

These are chilling days. You are beginning to make more and more sense. It´s quite unsettling.

[Fisherman]

I am not denying anything Fisherman,just accepting that it was two to one against a policeman being mentioned by Paul and Cross,and a cheap trick question will not alter that.

If we accept the premise that the carmen were both innocent, then we will have two against one.

If we accpet that Lechmere could have been the killer, then we should not trust him.

And if we look at what Paul said at the inquest, and compare to the three parts of the Mizen scam, then how does he corroborate Lechmere?

1. The playing down of the seriousness. Does Paul say that they told Mizen that the woman could be dead? No.

2. The scam. Does Paul deny that Lechmere told Mizen that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row? No.

3. The question of who spoke to Mizen. Does Paul say specifically that he also spoke to Mizen? No.

Ooopsie, Harry.

[Fisherman]

I do realize that I didn't play ball, so to speak, but what you asked had me puzzled.

You wrote "Let´s assume that we had all this on tape, and that we knew that it was the truth."

If that is the case then PC Neil did send Lechmere to find Mizen. If it was the truth, what other conclusion can we arrive at?
Neither do I see how this implicates Lechmere.

Huh? Now it´s getting very confusing. The premise is not that Neil sent Lechmere - we de facto know that he did not.

The premise, Jon, is that Lechmere consciously lied. That he made up a story about another PC waiting in Bucks Row.

That is the question I am asking: If we make the supposition that Charles Lechmere lied to Mizen in this respect, if we could be sure that this was exactly what happened - then how would that impact your take on the matter?

[harry]

If we accept. Who does?who did? There seems to be only yourself Fisherman,that does believe Mizen was told a policeman awaited in Bucks Row.
IF there had been a listening device.What nonsense.You sure youré not having dream sessions with Mizen?

[Fisherman]

If we accept. Who does?who did? There seems to be only yourself Fisherman,that does believe Mizen was told a policeman awaited in Bucks Row.
IF there had been a listening device.What nonsense.You sure youré not having dream sessions with Mizen?

Yes, I am absolutely sure of that. I instead have nightmares about people who are presented with clear evidence but fail to see it. It is chilling. Imagine, Harry - people who are informed about how a suggested killer avoids giving his real name to the police, and who react by saying "Probably totally innocent, that!"

I would not want to lie in a world with such people. It´s lucky these eerie characters exist in nightmares only.

How odd of you to ask who accepts a premise, by the way. That does not have any bearing on the theoretical discussion. Your criticism is therefore a tad ridiculous.

Not that I am not used to it, but it would be nice to see a normal discussion.

[drstrange169]

>> ... the best we have if we want to anchor our guesswork in factual evidence<<

Of course, we have NO factual evidence, just some vague witness pronouncements.

My bad maths aside, you already know where Xmere said he was when Paul approached and it wasn't a couple of yards, but significantly further.

Unlike Xmere, the Purkiss's and Greene's admit they were there when the murder was committed. We only have their word that there was a wall between them when it happened. Why should they not come under close scrutiny?

>>1. The playing down of the seriousness. Does Paul say that they told Mizen that the woman could be dead? No.
2. The scam. Does Paul deny that Lechmere told Mizen that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row? No.
3. The question of who spoke to Mizen. Does Paul say specifically that he also spoke to Mizen? No.<<

Since both the police and the coroner believed Xmere's version over Mizen's, one has to wonder if some of the unreported bits of Paul 's testimony did in fact corroborate Xmere.

Or perhaps Mizen 'fessed up at some stage.

Oopsie indeed;-)

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=drstrange169;355970]>> ... the best we have if we want to anchor our guesswork in factual evidence<<

Of course, we have NO factual evidence, just some vague witness pronouncements.

On the contrary, we DO have factual evidence, albeit it is to some extent vague, just as you say. It is nevertheless factual that Paul spoke of "where the body was" and "in the middle of the road".

My bad maths aside, you already know where Xmere said he was when Paul approached and it wasn't a couple of yards, but significantly further.

I hope you are not referring once more to the faulty representation you achieved by cutting away half of a quotation?

Unlike Xmere, the Purkiss's and Greene's admit they were there when the murder was committed. We only have their word that there was a wall between them when it happened. Why should they not come under close scrutiny?

Because they were inside. You are trying to be wise here, but it´s ot working. Throughout the history of crime, it has ALWAYS been a point of great interest when some person has been found together with or in close proximity to a freshly slain victim.
That stands, and it will stand long after any attempts to dismantle the arguments have vapoured away.

>>1. The playing down of the seriousness. Does Paul say that they told Mizen that the woman could be dead? No.
2. The scam. Does Paul deny that Lechmere told Mizen that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row? No.
3. The question of who spoke to Mizen. Does Paul say specifically that he also spoke to Mizen? No.<<

Since both the police and the coroner believed Xmere's version over Mizen's, one has to wonder if some of the unreported bits of Paul 's testimony did in fact corroborate Xmere.

Yes, one has to wonder that. And I often have. I also think it odd if the police were as incompetent as not to scrutinize a man found in the position Lechmere was found.
But I keep ending up with the fact that there are MORE indicators than just the finding with a victim. The name change, the so called mizen scam, Pauls not saying that he heard Lechmere, the geographical correlations etc.

If it had been just the one thing, Dusty - but it is not.

Or perhaps Mizen 'fessed up at some stage.

And was rated as an excellent copper when he retired? I don´t think so. The suggestion remains an uncorroborated one, with no supporting evidence.

When we need to resort to suggesting conjecture like this, we may need to ask ourselves first what it looks like WITHOUT that conjecture...

[drstrange169]

>>I hope you are not referring once more to the faulty representation you achieved by cutting away half of a quotation?<<

The very same!


>>... It is nevertheless factual that Paul spoke of "where the body was" and "in the middle of the road".<<

By your own logic expressed in the above quote, it would be factual that Xmere was at the wool warehouse when he saw Mrs. Nichols, because he "spoke" it.

If you re-read your own Paul quotes, you will see that they are conflicting.
The "woman" was NOT in the middle of the road, ergo, Xmere was NOT where the "woman" was.

Just another case of Paul altering his story once under oath. And since the "middle of the road" version is corroborated by Xmere, that is the more likely to be correct version.

Standing in the middle of the road by the wool warehouse.


>>Because they were inside.<<

They claimed they were inside. Xmere claimed he never approached Mrs. Nichols's body. Both claims should and probably were investigated.


>>I also think it odd if the police were as incompetent as not to scrutinize a man found in the position Lechmere was found.<<

But, if we refer to your God of all things final Chief Inspector Swanson, the police DID "scrutinize" Xmere.

"... enquires were made into the history and accounts given of themselves of persons, respecting whose character & surroundings suspion was cast in statements made to police."


>>And was rated as an excellent copper when he retired? <<

He didn't retire the next day, so no reason, if his record was otherwise good that he wouldn't be rated otherwise.

I doubt admitting that he might have misheard Xmere would have even rated a blocking from the duty sergeant.


>>When we need to resort to suggesting conjecture like this, we may need to ask ourselves first what it looks like WITHOUT that conjecture...<<

What conjecture? The police report is there for all to read. The newspapers reported Baxter's summation. Neither accuses Xmere of lying, why then should we conject otherwise?

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=drstrange169;355981]>>I hope you are not referring once more to the faulty representation you achieved by cutting away half of a quotation?<<

The very same!

Shame on you, Dusty!

>>... It is nevertheless factual that Paul spoke of "where the body was" and "in the middle of the road".<<

By your own logic expressed in the above quote, it would be factual that Xmere was at the wool warehouse when he saw Mrs. Nichols, because he "spoke" it.

Ah! But look at the difference! I say that it is factual that Paul SPOKE of things, and you say that it is factual that Lechmere WAS at the wool warehouse. The factuality of these matters can only apply to what was said,´I´m afraid.

It is also a question of which quotations re in conflict with the others - and you halfed quote is in conflict with the rest of the recordings, I´m afraid. Pauls statements are n ot in conflict with any other source - but for yours (but only if we halfe it).

If you re-read your own Paul quotes, you will see that they are conflicting.
The "woman" was NOT in the middle of the road, ergo, Xmere was NOT where the "woman" was.

Oh, how clever! I am HUGELY impressed!! But has it occurred to you that Lechmere never could have stood where the woman was? I mean, if she was there, then how could Lechmere stand there too? Did he step on her?
The simple answer is that the two statments are in perfect order and work very well together. Nichols was lying where the gates to the Stable yard were, and Lechmere was standing outside them, out in the road - so he was standing where the body was.

Just another case of Paul altering his story once under oath. And since the "middle of the road" version is corroborated by Xmere, that is the more likely to be correct version.

You can be standing in the middle of the road along a 130 yard axis there. So in order to find out WHERE on that axis he stood, you need to specify a detail along the axis, tp get the exact position: In the middle of the road, where the body was.
End of.

Standing in the middle of the road by the wool warehouse.

Nope.

>>Because they were inside.<<

They claimed they were inside. Xmere claimed he never approached Mrs. Nichols's body. Both claims should and probably were investigated.

Yawn. Not wasting any time on that one.


>>I also think it odd if the police were as incompetent as not to scrutinize a man found in the position Lechmere was found.<<

But, if we refer to your God of all things final Chief Inspector Swanson, the police DID "scrutinize" Xmere.

"... enquires were made into the history and accounts given of themselves of persons, respecting whose character & surroundings suspion was cast in statements made to police."

Not "all" persons. "Persons". Sorry.

>>And was rated as an excellent copper when he retired? <<

He didn't retire the next day, so no reason, if his record was otherwise good that he wouldn't be rated otherwise.

So the rating refers to the last day on job only? I see.

I doubt admitting that he might have misheard Xmere would have even rated a blocking from the duty sergeant.

We doubt different things, then. I doubt you, for example.

>>When we need to resort to suggesting conjecture like this, we may need to ask ourselves first what it looks like WITHOUT that conjecture...<<

What conjecture? The police report is there for all to read. The newspapers reported Baxter's summation. Neither accuses Xmere of lying, why then should we conject otherwise?

The conjecture about how Paul vouched for Lechmeres innocence and how Mizen fessed up. THAT conjecture.