Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Mizen scam

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Jon Guy:

    "If the mutilations to the trunk were before he cut the throat, the killer would have had a lot more blood on his hands and cuffs (he would n`t have been putting his hand on Paul`s shoulder ) and the blood would have positively been dripping off him as he stood chatting to Mizen."

    Iīm not sure of that, Jon - thre was strangulation involved, by the looks of things, and that may have taken care of that particular problem. We donīt know to what extent his hands came in contact with Nichols as he cut, do we?

    "Bale - as good an individual as he is, pulled out of the GB Olympic footy team at the last minute citing a bad back, and then goes and scores on the Spurs pre-season tour. I was not misleading you. Not a fan of his."

    Iīm a Spurs fan, Jon. Always was, in fact, dating back to the days of people like Colin Steen and Ralph Coates.

    The best,
    Fisherman

    Comment


    • Abby:

      "Where does he say that he continued knocking up-at the inquest?"

      Yes, ABby. Here you go, the Daily News, 4:th of September:

      "A juryman - Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted?

      Witness - No. I only finished knocking up one person."

      The best,
      Fisherman

      Comment


      • Caz:

        " I think it was a big risk to take if Lechy was the killer and wanted to go on killing - and this is assuming that nobody at his place of work knew him as Cross. So he is meant to have given that name to the police, in the hope that his illiterate wife won’t find out and become suspicious if he gets the urge to kill again on his way to work. "

        If she could not read "Cross", then she could not read "Lechmere" either. His probable aim, though, would have been to stay off the radar with anybody that knew him, generally speaking. And "Wigginbottom" would have been just as risky - riskier, in fact, if revealed.
        I have only pointed this out a dozen times or so ...

        "He should have been worrying that the discrepancies between his and Mizen’s accounts might well have alerted the police and got them making discreet enquiries rather than questioning him again over something he had already denied on oath."

        Absolutely. No qualms there, Caz. But - and thatīs my point - they did not do so. Calculated risktaking at play again. Worked again.

        "How could even the most moronic, or most daring serial killer have gone out and killed again and again under those circumstances?"

        Of course you are right - no serial killer kills if he feels there is a risk he may get caught.
        Hilarious, that one, Caz !!

        "But he would not have calculated for the police checking him out without telling him,"

        Iīm afraid what he calculated and what risks he was ready to take is rather hard to establish, Caz. But a swift look at what OTHER serial kilers have risked may be helpful.

        "The simplest and most logical answer, given the unknowable and potentially fatal risk as outlined above, of giving an effectively false name to the police, compared with the benefit of keeping his wife in ignorance, might be that if Thomas Cross died 19 years previously and his step-son Charles had been at Pickfords for 20 years, the latter may have used the name Cross when he started working for them and simply carried on doing so for the convenience."

        Eh - no. The simplest thing to do is to use ONE name, come what may. Using TWO names is never "simple". And Lechmere was a grown man, starting at Pickfordīs, making his own calls. And we know what he signed when he made his own calls, do we not? Yes, exactly - Lechmere. He married his wife at an early stage too, but there was never any suggestion that she should call herself Cross by the looks of things.
        Therefore, the by far simplest explanation is that he called himself Cross on the 31:st because he wanted the police to THINK that he was named Cross, while he in fact was named Lechmere. And the simplest explanation to such a ruse is, as you will know, that you wish to mislead the police because you have been up to something that they would not take kindly to. THAT is simple!

        "I’m pretty sure the vast majority would make themselves scarce, given half the chance Lechy supposedly had."

        I am sure you are correct, Caz! But that relates to PEOPLE IN GENERAL. When we speak of serial killers, the outcome will differ. And if we speak of serial killers with psychopathic treats, they will change even more. I have repeated over and over again that we are nothing like the Whitechapel killer, and I will do so again: Donīt make the mistake of beliving that we are, Caz.

        The best,
        Fisherman

        Comment


        • Moonbegger:

          "And is there such a big difference in how a policeman reacts to being told " a woman is dead " as opposed to " murdered " is a dead woman not such a big deal as a murdered woman ? "

          Please, please, PLEASE, Moonbegger - READ THE MATERIAL!!! When (or if) you should ever get around to doing so, you will see that the carmen said that the woman was dead OR DRUNK! And yes, the difference between murdred and dead is at any rate monumental! Not for the victim, but for the ones who are to deal with the case afterwards.

          Read, Moonbegger. It helps immensely!

          Fisherman

          Comment


          • Dave:

            "With respect, Christer, if you don't believe in Tom's theory yourself then why on earth quote it in the first place? "

            because, of course, you tried to make the point that the Berner Street killer would have been a very jumpy one. I therefore told you that this may not need to be the truth at all.

            You see, Dave, you may recognize VALUE in something you donīt necessarily agree to the full with.

            "In the absence of any proven facts I'm happy to listen to the views of the real experts and form an educated opinion."

            Who are the real experts, then, Dave - and why are they so. Because they have been proven right? Or because they have studied the case for many decades, like I have? What tells them apart? Not that they agree with you, I hope?

            "JtR (if the canonical limits are observed) was active only from the end of August 1888 to the beginning of November 1888...there is NO early, middle or late stage...he was there...then he was gone...

            All far too soon (in, for example Sutcliffe or Zodiac terms) to run out of luck and be discovered "

            Aha. So a minimum of five kills in a ninety-day period is something anybody will accomplish with no police interference ...?

            "Here we go again...muddling the argument to conceal the weakness of your stance...My "convenience" had to do with a considerably different aspect of the case, (viz the Will of the Wisp or otherwise qualities of the killer I posit, rather than yours). Kindly return to my original posting and argue on the grounds I posited, rather than your substitution...You're well named Fisherman...just like a slippery eel!"

            And here I was thinking YOU was doing the eel charade with that "convenient" stuff...?

            "In fact I begin to think Crossmere using the same name consistently on all written records is indicative of a general honesty...vice my ancestor..."

            Only he didnīt, did he? For he signed his police report "Cross" ...

            "Reading up on it and actually trying it are two different things Christer...Are you not even prepared to devote a couple of hours to prove/disprove your theory? Doesn't say much for it then...especially seeing the original statements seem to indicate a positive surfeit of activity at 3.45 am...one short experiment plus a couple of "control" exercises might help prove your point...why are you so averse to trying this? Afraid you'll be 10 minutes out?"

            Try away, Dave! But donīt think I have not spent time doing the exact same. No ten minutes disappear unless logical thinking does so first.

            "You misunderstand...totally...possibly deliberately..."

            Why thanks, Dave!

            "You claim effectively Polly's abdomen wasn't exposed like the classic JtR victims"

            That is not any claim of mine, specifically. It is what is evident from the testimony. Her clothing was pulled down, reaching to just below her abdomen BEFORE Paul approached her. And below the abdomen means that the clothes covered the abdomen. It also means that the cuts to the abdomen were concealed by her clothing. This cannot be misunderstood, I hope.

            "(because, totally without proof, you think Cross might've pulled her clothes down during Paul's approach)"

            I have no proof that Lechmere was the man that did it, but THINKING that he did so can hardly be very detrimental to my honesty, can it? Somebody did do it, very, very few people were around as per the testimony - only Lechmere and Paul was ever recorded in that respect.

            "the fact is, Paul openly admitted to pausing at the side of the body and pulling down the clothing to restore her decency."

            But he DID just that, Dave - only somebody had pulled the down BEFORE, but not all the way down, the probable reason being that she lay on them. Which is why they would not come very far down as Paul did HIS pulling.

            "What? Enough at the time of C1 to cut off an escape? Sorry Fish but you're shot away..."

            I canīt tell if they would have been enough. And I know somebody else who canīt tell either.

            The best,
            Fisherman

            Comment


            • Another good point?
              By the time PC Mizen took the stand on the Monday, PC Neil had already been heard – on the Saturday. On Saturday Neil stated in response to a specific question that he had not been called to the crime scene by two carmen. This is clearly because wind of Paul’s newspaper interview (which was first printed on the Sunday) had leaked out.
              Accordingly Mizen will have known that Neil denied seeing anyone so why would Mizen have got all confused over what Cross had said to him.
              I just spotted this, and a question occurs to me. In court it is not generally the case that witnesses are allowed to listen to the evidence of those called before them. Does anyone know whether the same applies (or more relevantly applied back in the LVP) in a Coroners Court?

              All the best

              Dave

              Comment


              • Monty:

                "I ask because anyone who traverses the area today will still see drunks collasped in doorways and not bat an eyelid.

                It was, and is, a common sight. Too common a sight for a PC to deal with in any great urgency."

                At any rate, the possibility that the woman was a drunkard would not have fired Mizen up the same way any suspicion of murder would have. It would therefore have been essential for Lechmere to play down - as much as possible - what the Buckīs Row woman would have been about.

                The best,
                Fisherman

                Comment


                • Frank:

                  "If Mizen misremembered, which was the point Caz made, in his mind it would be the truth and he would act as if it were. So, what you write here would apply to a Mizen who’d misremembered and a Mizen who told the truth. If it was a case of misremembering, he may have got confused after Cross had taken the stand. If he actually told the truth, then - provided that he closely followed the case - he’d be a bad cop indeed if he didn’t put 2 and 2 together and act on it."

                  Mizen witnessed BEFORE Lechmere, Frank. And even if Mizen was trying to put two and two together, we may need to realize that it took 124 years for the Mizen scam to surface inbetween us Ripperologists.

                  It has also been said many times by now, but it apparently needs to be said once more that the fact that Mizen did not take the carmenīs names and addresses down - as I believe would have been procedure - very clearly implicates that he was of the meaning that here was no need for him to do so. This, arguably, would owe to his knowledge of the other PC - the one that had spoken to the carmen and sent them on a mission to go looking for him. And this all happened BEFORE he met Neil!!!

                  And in the end, I think the construction that Mizen would subliminally come to think that Lechmere must have told him about a PC since Neil was there is not a good one. Not at all, in fact. For if you are correct, then Mizen would have set out with no expectations at all to find a PC in Buckīs Row, and he would have been surprised to see one.
                  And he WAS surprised, but not by Neil - he would have expected his presence. What he thought unexpected, though, was that the carman had not mentioned that it was murder or a suicide, something he thought utterly mysterious - since he KNEW that the woman had been looked at by a PC!

                  We can think up lots of alternative scenarios as much as we wish, but the recorded evidence has and must have the upper hand. Sooner or later somebody will suggest that Lechmere yold Mizen: ""Youīd be useful in Buckīs Row. A motherly female needs you there", or something along those lines.

                  And you know what, Frank? THAT TOO will be a possibility - Mizen could have misheard Lechmere. But that too will be a possibility where we must recognize that the recorded evidence trumphs it.

                  And the recorded evidence was, is and remains a perfect example of the EXACT ruse a killer could hope would take him past the police. The suggested PC, who had already run all the checks necessary on the carmen, and the passive formulation of the find in Buckīs Row plus the playing down of itīs potential severity; there are all elements that seemingly corroborate the suggestion of an elaborate lie.

                  Every suggestion to the contrary only adds to the other life-saving precautions taken to save Lechmereīs behind, some of them useful, some of them utterly weak - but ALL of them secondary to the recorded evidence.

                  The best,
                  Fisherman

                  Comment


                  • Presumably also this means you think the two carmen didn't really raise the alarm but more gave a rather vague story to Mizan which highlights a callous nature on their part in abandoning what they thought was an unconscious woman?
                    Hi Lechmere,

                    Had Cross and Paul gone on to work without reporting anything, that would be fairly described as callous. What exactly is callous about finding a woman dead or drunk in the street and then deciding to go in search of a policeman?

                    Regards, Bridewell.
                    I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.

                    Comment


                    • "With respect, Christer, if you don't believe in Tom's theory yourself then why on earth quote it in the first place? "

                      because, of course, you tried to make the point that the Berner Street killer would have been a very jumpy one. I therefore told you that this may not need to be the truth at all.

                      You see, Dave, you may recognize VALUE in something you donīt necessarily agree to the full with.
                      Fair enough...

                      Who are the real experts, then, Dave - and why are they so. Because they have been proven right? Or because they have studied the case for many decades, like I have? What tells them apart? Not that they agree with you, I hope?
                      Cheeky! The FBI presumably use profilers because in a large number of cases they come up with accurate answers. (Even if the answer isn't 100% right they presumably recognise value in something they don't necessarily agree to the full with - touché!). If an FBI profiler theorises that JtR is a disorganised (in the specific context that the FBI uses) killer, then I have to look on that as an expert opinion and form my views accordingly...

                      Aha. So a minimum of five kills in a ninety-day period is something anybody will accomplish with no police interference ...?
                      Absolutely not Christer...and that wasn't what I was contending. I was responding to your suggestion "It equally applies that these kinds of killers normally run out of luck at an early stage, so in that respect, Hazelwood must have been statistically off the mark"

                      In terms of many serial killers Jack seems to run out of steam at a very early stage...almost before he really got started...five deaths if the canon is accepted...so I don't agree that Hazelwood was necessarily off the mark... I suspect he might well be very accurate as far as that goes...

                      And here I was thinking YOU was doing the eel charade with that "convenient" stuff...?
                      Afraid not...I think it's you doing the wriggling!

                      Only he didnīt, did he? For he signed his police report "Cross" ..
                      .

                      Did he? It's not listed as a document in the Ultimate Sourcebook...but either way, what I'm saying, (possibly in the light of my own relative's reputation!), is that I'd be more suspicious if he habitually used an alias.

                      Try away, Dave! But donīt think I have not spent time doing the exact same. No ten minutes disappear unless logical thinking does so first.
                      Perhaps your sense of time is stronger than than the rest of us mortals then...I still vividly recall the day in a classroom at school when a teacher, to demonstrate the fluidity of time, got us to remove all watches and told us to put a hand up when five minutes had elapsed...the majority of us were nowhere near, and even as an adult I certainly find my own sense of time isn't generally that acute...

                      That is not any claim of mine, specifically. It is what is evident from the testimony. Her clothing was pulled down, reaching to just below her abdomen BEFORE Paul approached her. And below the abdomen means that the clothes covered the abdomen. It also means that the cuts to the abdomen were concealed by her clothing. This cannot be misunderstood, I hope.
                      "Witness went with him, and saw a woman right across the gateway. Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach..."

                      Clearly this must mean something different to you than it does to me.

                      But he DID just that, Dave - only somebody had pulled the down BEFORE, but not all the way down, the probable reason being that she lay on them. Which is why they would not come very far down as Paul did HIS pulling.
                      See above...

                      I canīt tell if they would have been enough. And I know somebody else who canīt tell either.
                      No I can't tell either, Christer...but if Cross didn't do it, then the killer DID escape, as, of course, he subsequently did at four other murder scenes when there was an even greater police presence on the streets...so I'm afraid the fact that on the night of the Nicholls murder, Jack wasn't caught up in the imaginary dragnet, doesn't really advance your case!

                      All the best

                      Dave

                      Comment


                      • Hi All,

                        Apologies if this has been posted before on this thread and I missed it. The following is the full text of the Lloyds Weekly News interview with Robert Paul:
                        On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said :- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. 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.
                        My reading of the above suggests that, if anyone had a private conversation with Pc Mizen it was Robert Paul, not Cross/Lechmere, and that, when Paul checked the body, Polly Nichols had been dead for some time. What I find puzzling is that, while Fisherman is of the view that Paul was exaggerating his own role in proceedings when he did the newspaper interview, Lechmere thinks that the newspaper interview is more likely to be accurate than his inquest testimony. Personally I prefer to put my faith in the inquest testimony, but if the interview account is preferred, then Polly's body was "so cold that she must have been dead for some time" when Paul checked her. I guess you pays your money and you takes your choice as to which account is accurate, but a 'pick and mix' approach is not an option IMHO.

                        Regards, Bridewell.
                        I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.

                        Comment


                        • Dave:

                          "Cheeky! The FBI presumably use profilers because in a large number of cases they come up with accurate answers. (Even if the answer isn't 100% right they presumably recognise value in something they don't necessarily agree to the full with - touché!). If an FBI profiler theorises that JtR is a disorganised (in the specific context that the FBI uses) killer, then I have to look on that as an expert opinion and form my views accordingly..."

                          But other profilers, Dave, have offered other suggestions. And the main point of contention in this issue has always been the question whether Jack was eith or. There are traits of BOTH around, just like I told you, and other FBI profilers have recognized this.

                          "In terms of many serial killers Jack seems to run out of steam at a very early stage...almost before he really got started...five deaths if the canon is accepted...so I don't agree that Hazelwood was necessarily off the mark... "

                          IF the "canon " is accepted? You DO realize that the "ifs" are very many here, donīt you...?

                          "I think it's you doing the wriggling!"

                          I donīt wish to sound grumpy, Dave, but I come to the boards with honest intentions, and I would appreciate if you accepted this. You have now implicated that I mislead intentionally, that I wriggle, that I muddle the arguments etcetera. Would it not be better if you stuck to countering my arguments, instead of accusing me of foul play? If I am muddling things and wriggling, then surely you could produce the goods to prove this, just as I would much prefer evidence that I am misleading intentionally instead of having it suggested with no substantiation. It is hard to fight such things, and if I am to fight at all, I want to know exactly WHAT I am to fight.

                          "Did he? It's not listed as a document in the Ultimate Sourcebook..."

                          Okay. So are you suggesting that he left his version of events for the police report, without being asked to sign it afterwards, like we know that - for instance - Hutchinson was asked to do. One signature for each sheet, as it were?

                          " ...but either way, what I'm saying, (possibly in the light of my own relative's reputation!), is that I'd be more suspicious if he habitually used an alias."

                          You think? Donīt you think it would be rather more suspicious if a person ONLY signed with a fake name when involved in a murder investigation? I know I think so, and it has been suggested that if we can find that Cross signature in other documents, it will practically exonerate him in that department. I tend to agree with that, unless the name is used in other documents where he had a need to escape attention.

                          "Perhaps your sense of time is stronger than than the rest of us mortals then..."

                          With respect, Dave, I am not the one peddling a magic act here. You are. When Thain, Paul, Neil and Mizen all say that it was 3.45ish as they were called into action, then we may be reasonably sure that this holds true. If your scenario applies, then all four men were ten, fifteen minutes off - in the same direction. I am not saying that it is physically impossible - just utterly improbable.

                          ""Witness went with him, and saw a woman right across the gateway. Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach..."
                          Clearly this must mean something different to you than it does to me."

                          Try me. Tell me where you think this MUST be! Where EXACTLY was the lower line of her clothing at? You may have to realize that we MAY agree on this, for I am saying that two inches down on her thighs can be accepted as being almost up to her stomach. But I am ALSO saying that across her genital area can likewise be accepted as a useful bid, just as two inched above her pubic hair may be so. The bottom line is that I regard the phrase "almost up to her stomach" as very imprecise. If you can prove me wrong for doing so, we will all take the case one bit further towards a settlement, so Iīm all ears!

                          "No I can't tell either, Christer..."

                          No, you really canīt, can you?

                          "but if Cross didn't do it, then the killer DID escape"

                          I cannot remember the latest time anybody had anything negative to say about that suggestion!

                          "...as, of course, he subsequently did at four other murder scenes when there was an even greater police presence on the streets..."

                          Iīm afraid we donīt have the total on this subject, only the general statement that more PC:s got out into the streets as the killing proceeded. Whether that made Buckīs Row relatively well covered or not, I canīt say.

                          " ...so I'm afraid the fact that on the night of the Nicholls murder, Jack wasn't caught up in the imaginary dragnet, doesn't really advance your case!"

                          Of course it does. Itīs easy maths. No other persons were seen leaving or entering the area, and therefore the likelyhood is that the killer was one of the people sighted.
                          Of course, this does not cover the whole thing, and the killer, if anybody else than Lechmere, MAY have come, killed and gone absolutely unnoticed. But the abscense of any other people who did not belong to the streets in question of course is a pointer more for than against Lechmere.

                          The best,
                          Fisherman
                          Last edited by Fisherman; 07-28-2012, 08:41 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Hi Colin

                            As regards Paul's inflation of his own involvement, I have to say I'm with Christer on this one...I think the subsequent (consequent?) knock on the door to summon Paul to the Coroners Inquest would have been a wake-up call even Mizen would've been proud of...

                            All the best

                            Dave

                            Comment


                            • Colin:

                              "Lechmere thinks that the newspaper interview is more likely to be accurate than his inquest testimony."

                              In what respect?

                              "if the interview account is preferred, then Polly's body was "so cold that she must have been dead for some time" when Paul checked her."

                              Whatīs the problem? Llewellyn and Neil, a medico and a PC, both tell us that she was warm, so why would anybody put much faith in that part? Mizen, another PC, tell us that Lechmere did the talking, and the latter corroborates that he spoke to the PC. You may want to look at the Evening Standard, I believe, where Lechmere is quoted as saying something like "we" looked at the body, "we" went for a PC, but "I" spoke to the PC and "I" then left and went to work. Telling, they way I read it!

                              The best,
                              Fisherman
                              Last edited by Fisherman; 07-28-2012, 08:42 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Hi Christer

                                But other profilers, Dave, have offered other suggestions. And the main point of contention in this issue has always been the question whether Jack was eith or. There are traits of BOTH around, just like I told you, and other FBI profilers have recognized this.
                                That's fair enough...you believe your profiler, I'll believe mine...

                                "In terms of many serial killers Jack seems to run out of steam at a very early stage...almost before he really got started...five deaths if the canon is accepted...so I don't agree that Hazelwood was necessarily off the mark... "

                                IF the "canon " is accepted? You DO realize that the "ifs" are very many here, donīt you...?
                                I inserted that particular "if" phrase to respect those who's beliefs are not restricted to the canonical five, Christer...and for no other reason...so let's, between ourselves, just accept the five...now in your view was Hazelwood off the mark or not?

                                "I think it's you doing the wriggling!"

                                I donīt wish to sound grumpy, Dave, but I come to the boards with honest intentions, and I would appreciate if you accepted this. You have now implicated that I mislead intentionally, that I wriggle, that I muddle the arguments etcetera. Would it not be better if you stuck to countering my arguments, instead of accusing me of foul play? If I am muddling things and wriggling, then surely you could produce the goods to prove this, just as I would much prefer evidence that I am misleading intentionally instead of having it suggested with no substantiation. It is hard to fight such things, and if I am to fight at all, I want to know exactly WHAT I am to fight.
                                This was not an attempt to imply outright dishonesty Christer. Perhaps as English isn't your first language, you aren't picking up on the nuances...In English we have a phrase "playing the slippery eel" - it's semi-respectful and falls short of implying sharp practice. It's actually a description of somebody attempting not to be pinned down too firmly. I'm sorry if you've felt otherwise.

                                Okay. So are you suggesting that he left his version of events for the police report, without being asked to sign it afterwards, like we know that - for instance - Hutchinson was asked to do. One signature for each sheet, as it were?
                                I'm merely observing that because the document hasn't survived we have no idea what it says, or how it was signed...for all we know it might've contained an explanation of the whole Cross/Lechmere name-change scenario...

                                " ...but either way, what I'm saying, (possibly in the light of my own relative's reputation!), is that I'd be more suspicious if he habitually used an alias."

                                You think? Donīt you think it would be rather more suspicious if a person ONLY signed with a fake name when involved in a murder investigation? I know I think so, and it has been suggested that if we can find that Cross signature in other documents, it will practically exonerate him in that department. I tend to agree with that, unless the name is used in other documents where he had a need to escape attention.
                                Fair enough...you may believe what you like...but see above...

                                "Perhaps your sense of time is stronger than than the rest of us mortals then..."

                                With respect, Dave, I am not the one peddling a magic numer here. You are. When Thain, Paul, Neil and Mizen all say that it was 3.45ish as they were called into action, then we may be reasonably sure that this holds true. If your scenario applies, then all four men were ten minutes off - in the same direction. I am not saying that it is physically impossible - just utterly improbable.
                                OK so Paul left home at the same time as he accompanied Cross in approaching Mizen and that's ok with you? All I'm saying is that people's unsupported impressions of time are very unreliable...and the evidence supports this view.

                                ""Witness went with him, and saw a woman right across the gateway. Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach..."
                                Clearly this must mean something different to you than it does to me."

                                Try me. Tell me where you think this MUST be! Where EXACTLY was the lower line of her clothing at? You may have to realize that we MAY agree on this, for I am saying that two inches down on her thighs can be accepted as being almost up to her stomach. But I am ALSO saying that across her genital area can likewise be accepted as a useful bid, just as two inched above her pubic hair may be so. The bottom line is that I regard the phrase "almost up to her stomach" as very imprecise. If you can prove me wrong for soing so, we will all take the case one bit further towards a settlement, so Iīm all ears!
                                I would suggest the lower line of her clothing lay somewhere between her navel and her pubic hair...that's what the particular wording suggests to me, and the slight raising of the legs (characteristic of a ripper murder) would probably have prevented it being any lower anyway...the major part of the abdominal wounding would still have been concealed (if I read the Swanson notes and the Llewellyn testomy correctly).

                                "No I can't tell either, Christer..."

                                No, you really canīt, can you?
                                Ouch...I've somehow got to you haven't I? And I'm such a sweet natured guy!

                                "but if Cross didn't do it, then the killer DID escape"

                                I cannot remember the latest time anybody had anything negative to say about that suggestion!
                                So, with respect, haven't you asked yourself why that might be?

                                "...as, of course, he subsequently did at four other murder scenes when there was an even greater police presence on the streets..."

                                Iīm afraid we donīt have the total on this subject, only the general statement that more PC:s got out into the streets as the killing proceeded. Whether that made Buckīs Row relatively well covered or not, I canīt say.
                                Well I'm certainly glad we're agreed on something...

                                " ...so I'm afraid the fact that on the night of the Nicholls murder, Jack wasn't caught up in the imaginary dragnet, doesn't really advance your case!"

                                Of course it does. Itīs easy maths. No other persons were seen leaving or entering the area, and therefore the mathematical likelyhood is that the killer was one of the people sighted.
                                Of course, this does not cover the whole thing, and the killer, if anybody else than Lechmere, MAY have come, killed and gone absolutely unnoticed. But the abscense of any other people who did not belong to the streets in question of course is a pointer more for than against Lechmere.
                                Sorry but I can't agree with that one Christer...in fact in terms of mathematical probability it may be a null (I'll leave those of a more logical/mathematical bent to confirm/deny that)...the fact that nobody apparently saw anyone leaving the area doesn't indicate anything at all...nobody saw Jack the Ripper carving up his victims...so can I deduce from that, that it more likely didn't happen? Of course not...so I'd contend the fact nobody saw Jack leaving the scene logically has precisely no effect whatever on the likelihood of Cross being Jack the Ripper.

                                All the best
                                (really!)

                                Dave
                                Last edited by Cogidubnus; 07-28-2012, 09:23 PM. Reason: Minor clarification re "slippery eel"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X