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:
General Police Discussion: Leaving one's beat - by Pcdunn 4 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: And This Is Factual! - by Pcdunn 4 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - by Simon Wood 5 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - by jerryd 5 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: And This Is Factual! - by DirectorDave 5 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - by Pcdunn 6 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: Diary Handwriting - (8 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - (6 posts)
Maybrick, James: And This Is Factual! - (4 posts)
General Police Discussion: Leaving one's beat - (2 posts)
Rippercast: Questions for Michael Hawley - Jack the Ripper Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety - (2 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (2 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
  #401  
Old 06-21-2017, 06:24 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
And I have not been using either the term "together" or "in company" as the basis for my view. Rather I am using what the statements from Lechmere and Paul say about the conversation with Mizen.
There I have not been using any interpretation of the words at all, hence why my reply you quoted said I had not even bothered to argue that .

Steve
I trust my last post has taken you out of your misconceptions about the matter anyway?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #402  
Old 06-21-2017, 06:29 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry D View Post
And yet you have no problem condemning a gainfully employed family-man with a clean criminal record as a notorious serial killer.
It seems to be the other way around with you? You are crying your eyes out abut poor Lechmere, but you donīt mind kicking Mizen in the butt?

Maybe itīs time to grow up for the two of us, who knows? Or maybe we are allowed to make our own separate interpretations?

As for that "clean criminal record", it only amounts to us not being familiar with what he was. Not that such a thing prevents you from thinking Mizen a perjurer, a worthless cop and a shame for the Met, but nevertheless, Harry.

I really AM a partycrasher, am I not?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #403  
Old 06-21-2017, 06:30 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Hi Fishy,

Just reached this suggestion of yours.

If Lechmere was prepared to kill Paul the instant things got tricky, why didn't he do so anyway? He was a psychopath so conscience was no barrier. Why fanny about with trying to 'check just how much Paul had seen'? The clock was ticking and PC Neil would soon arrive and had the men still been at the scene, he'd have been a cretin of a copper not to detain and search them while ascertaining what had been going on. And for Lechmere to know how long he had to assess any risk Paul might pose, before the beat copper would spot them, resourceful and clever wouldn't have covered it. He'd have needed to be more psychic than psycho. But psychopaths have little or no empathy and are not the best judges of what others are thinking, so there's another problem. Paul could have been harbouring seriously bad vibes about him, for all Lechmere knew, or could even have seen a lot more than he was letting on, while playing it cool and planning to express his concerns to the first policeman they came across together. Was your man a behavioural expert to boot?

Love,

Caz
X
Yawn.

This has been answered before. You may have missed out, but I promise that going back and reading up will be rewarding.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #404  
Old 06-21-2017, 06:32 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
So no answer then, Fish? Not even an attempt?

I call that a minor victory for Lechmere's memory.

Love,

Caz
X
You would. I think that is by far the best thing you can get from me - an unwillingness to answer ignornt questions. and then you can do a Steve and claim that I cannot answer.

To be frank, I canīt even remember what you asked about. I may have fallen asleep when reading.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #405  
Old 06-21-2017, 06:42 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,626
Default

caz: This is very important, Fishy - for the survival of your theory. So I do hope you will not pass on a considered response this time.

Oh, okay. Is it the same question that had me erecting a statue in Lechmereīs memory in your former post? I think it must be, otherwise no resurrection would be possible, would it?

Do you maintain that Lechmere the psychopath was spooked into coming forward to identify himself as Paul's 'man', and to give his version of events at the inquest, because of what he had read about himself in Paul's account?

Eh - have I claimed it in the first place? Did I use the term "spooked"? I seem to remember that my feeling was that Lechmere would have been annoyed at first and then possibly a bit roused by the opportunity to fool the police and inquest.
Maybe you can post the snippet where I used the word "spooked"? I must correct it, if this was the case, because I keep telling people that psychopaths do not spook or panick.

Oh, wait - maybe you just made it up! Now, thereīs an idea!

Maybe you can clarify, Caz. Did I say that he was spooked? Really? Or?

In short, did he fear that if he didn't identify himself as this 'man', someone else would and he might hang as a result?

Oh, I see your game - you want to introduce the term "fear" here, so as to make it look as if I have suggested that Lechmere was given to fear and fright.

Okay, then, I fear I have to put you right (Notice how I used the word "fear" here without being afraid at all. The word can be used in that way too, which is important to keep in mind).

I think he realized that there was a very great risk that he would become the prime suspect. I do not think it scared him at all, but I think that he - for purely practical reasons - decided that he needed to take action to prevent that development.

You may have missed out on this, but if he was the killer, it was actually - far from being the act of a panicking man - quite a brazen thing to do to go to the police and call them out, the way he did.

Tell me, Caz - was that the answer I did not give in my earlier post? Or are there more matters that give away how very wrong I am and how geniously correct you are?
Letīs hope the reasoning behind it is less puerile if this is so!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #406  
Old 06-21-2017, 07:09 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,957
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
I only ignore the facts you invent, Steve. The rest of them, I look closely at.

No invention it's there.

A. It does not say that Paul was within earshot when Lechmere told fibs to Mizen, though, does it?

It says Paul also commented to Mizen, commenting on Lechmere's comments to Mizen. By definition he must be within earshot to do that. To suggest otherwise just portrays the intransigent view you insist on holding.

B. I am convinced that killers who want to get cleared will sometimes lie to enhance peopleīs picture of them. It is a major problem to claim that we must accept the testimony of a man who is under suspicion of murder. His testimony must be regarded as uncertain. Therefore, we must move on to the other sources, and we immediately find that Mizen says not a iot about any statement from Paul on the night.

And that is the problem. He is only under serious consideration to a few.
You believe he is the killer therefore is testimony is suspect. Because his testimony is suspect in you view, it is disregarded. To a great degree that is a position of wish fufulfilment.

These two testimonies cannot be joined together - either Lechmere and Paul both walked up to Mizen and spoke to him (in which case Lechmere is telling the truth), or it was just Lechmere who did so (in which case Mizen is telling the truth).
If the first option applies, can you offer any idea at all why Mizen would say that ONE man approached and spoke to him, if it was in fact TWO men who did so?

Firstly they can be joined up. The content of the conversation is consistent.

Why did he say one man?
Two options :
A.he saw no point in reporting the brief comment Lechmere says Paul made.

B. He lied. The same as you claim others did. His reason for such ? To cover up his behaviour.


But it directly contradicts Lechmeres and Mizens version of who did the talking. Does that not bother you in the least? Can you see what it does to your data? It puts it in grave doubt, Steve.

It does bring Paul's testimony in to question you are correct. Particularly his role. However and it is a big however the content of what was actually said to Mizen and his reply is consistent in both the Lloyds report and Lechmere's sworn statement. They corroborate each other. Can you not see that?

Plus, of course, the paper interview does not on any way exclude the possibility that Lechmere spoke to Mizen with Paul out of earshot. It never touches on the subject.

And therefore it cannot be used to suggest it occurred. There is no such suggestionin the source just pure speculation on your part.


It does of course give a consistent account of the conversation with Mizen, when compared to that of Lechmere
.

I donīt claim that what was said was not said.

Actually you did.
What you posted was:
"THERE-IS-NO-DATA-FOR-PAUL-HAVING-OVERHEARD-WHAT-LECHMERE-TOLD-MIZEN!"

That seems a clear denial of the statements to me.

I claim it makes for an imposible scenario where both Paul and Lechmere played the leading role. But most of all, I claim that we cannot exclude that Lechmere spoke to Mizen with Paul out of earshot. Even if Paul DID tell Mizen that the woman was dead - whereafter the PC supposedly disguised this fact and perjured himself at the inquest - he may well have walked off afterwards, leaving Lechmere to dupe Mizen with Paul out of earshot.

Yes that is your position. You see no reason to doubt Mizen. Your idea that Paul walked off is NOT ACTUALLY SUPPORTED BY AN SOURCE. It's just your view.


Correct on the latter score!

Why a simple sorry, could not be given rather than that response, I fail to understand.

It may have something to do with then overall tone of this discussion - of course, I realize that I alone are to blame for it, but nevertheless.
Like normal insults are the fault of those who are insulted.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #407  
Old 06-21-2017, 07:19 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,957
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
I trust my last post has taken you out of your misconceptions about the matter anyway?

Not at all. Same old over and over.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #408  
Old 06-21-2017, 07:33 AM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 981
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Patrick S: Let's discuss Mizen's ensuing actions, shall we?

Yes, lets!

You say they indicate he was told only that a woman was lying on the ground.

No, I donīt. I say they indicate that he was told that another PC was in place in Bucks Row.

Even though the other two men involved in the encounter disagree. One was a police hating liar out for publicity as you tell it. The other, well....you know who.

I do, yes - a person who I think was the killer and whose word I would be very wary about. Not least since I know that he used an alias and since I know he disagreed with the police about what had been said.
It is not a numerical exercise to me, therefore.

So, we must discount their words and rely only upon Mizen.

No, "we" must not. I do.

Meanwhile, we know that Neil testified that he'd found the body.

Yes.

Alone.

Yes.

No mention of Paul and Cross.

No mention of Paul and Lechmere, no.

I think its reasonable to conclude that Mizen said nothing, to anyone, about his meeting with the two men, of being told that Nichols was lying in Buck's Row, dead or otherwise. He clearly kept that to himself.

There is that "clearly" again. It is not clear at all, Iīm afraid. My own take on things is that he wrote in his report that he was summoned to Bucks Row by Neil, and the ones in charge would have known that Neil said that he summoned Mizen with his lamp, so there was no discrepancy. It all seems very uncontroversial to me.
But hereīs the thing - you object to my interpretation of Lechmere, and you think I am wrong to expect the worst. But in Mizens case, YOU are expecting the worst, although a very simple explanation can be offered.

Recall that Mizen did - eventually - make his way into Buck's Row. Yet, he still said nothing. He said nothing the entire day of the 30th. He said nothing on the 1st, before Neil gave his version. Which stood uncorrected by anyone until after Paul's words appeared in print on Sunday the 2nd.

Yes, exactly. I recall that VERY well. Mizen did NOTHING at all about how Neil said that he was the finder. And he really SHOULD have done that - IF he knew that Neil was NOT the finder.
According to you, he DID know this, and so it becomes inforgiveable that he didnīt tell his superiors that the body was found by a carman and not by Neil.
However, Patrick! If Mizen had been told that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row - as he claimed - then look at how totally consistent with that information his behaviour becomes!
He did not tell Neil about the carmen - but why would he, if he surmised that Neil already KNEW about them, and had sent them to fetch Mizen?
He did not tell his superiors that a carman was the finder, and that Neil was lying through his teeth - and he should have done, IF he had not been told that another PC was in place in Bucks Row. If this was so, then it is perfectly understandable that he was working from the idea that Neil WAS the finder, that the carmen had arrived later and been sent by Neil to fetch him.

So, Patrick, these are the options:

1. Your version: For some reason, Mizen decided not to tell anybody about the carmen. I think the idea is that he had realized in retrospect that it would have been good if he took their names, and now he wanted to cover that up. And when Neil took the stand and witnessed about being the finder, Mizen let it pass, since he didnīt want to come clean on the topic. Then, when Paul and Lechmere surfaced, he was forced to admit their existence.
Drawback: If this happened, then his superiors would have kicked him off the force for having lied to them. That, at least, is my suggestion.

2. Mizen was lied to by Lechmere, and acted accordingly, always believing that Neil was the finder up until Paul and Lechmere re-surfaced, telling a different story. He did not offer a single lie, but instead he did his best and testified honestly.

Take your pick.

On the third Mizen takes the stand to tell his version, which has him being told that he was "wanted (by a PC) in Buck's Row". But, this isn't the only instance we have of the police perhaps bending the truth about what they did and said in Buck's Row, is it?

Hold it. Why are you talking about it as an established case of the police bending the truth? That is not inly unestablished but also unlikely as per the above.

We have Thain and his cloak, as well. We have the slaughtermen claiming Thain told them about the murder. But Thain denied it. But, the men clearly KNEW about the murder because they showed up at the scene. They testified that Thain told them about the murder. We know that Thain went to their place of work and retrieved his cloak. But, he claimed he didn't tell the men. They must have just guessed it.

Neither man need be an awful human being to have told what amounted to self-serving white lies (both of which served the Met, as well).

I am sorry, but that has nothing at all to do with Mizen and his veracity.
We have a number of ridiculous posters out here. Does that make you ridiculous? Or me?
It does not work like that.
I shall let this post stand uncommented upon by me. I happy enough to simply have Christer's answers posted and available here. I encourage everyone who would like believe in this theory to read it, read it again, and then ask themselves if this is something they feel is worth believing in.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #409  
Old 06-21-2017, 07:49 AM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 981
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
It seems to be the other way around with you? You are crying your eyes out abut poor Lechmere, but you donīt mind kicking Mizen in the butt?

An important distinction here.....No one is accusing Mizen of murder, of being Jack the Ripper (among others). In fact, I've said many times that if Mizen misrepresented what he was told and what he did on the night of Nichols' murder that it doesn't diminish him to any great extent. He can still be a worthy officer, a Christian, a hero. Only one who acted to protect his career, his income, his family. Bending the truth, even outright lying to protect one's interests and livelihood is a far more common thing than seria murder after all.

Maybe itīs time to grow up for the two of us, who knows? Or maybe we are allowed to make our own separate interpretations?

As for that "clean criminal record", it only amounts to us not being familiar with what he was. Not that such a thing prevents you from thinking Mizen a perjurer, a worthless cop and a shame for the Met, but nevertheless, Harry.

Again. This is hyperbole to advance your argument. Mizen can have outright LIED at the inquest and he can STILL be a wonderful guy. As well, I wouldn't be surprised he told his story with either the tacit or outright approval of his superiors, hoping to stem the tide of media attacks on the police that had come after Smith and Tabram and intensified after Nichols (likely fueled somewhat by Paul's "Remarkable Statement").

So let's not equivocate, Christer. Saying Mizen testified to protect himself after Paul's attack on him and the Met appeared in Lloyd's is hardly the same as saying that "the carman" was Jack the Ripper.


I really AM a partycrasher, am I not?
Above bold.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #410  
Old 06-21-2017, 07:53 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Like normal insults are the fault of those who are insulted.

Steve
Yeah, sort of - any which way, Steve, it DOES take two to tango, and I think that neither of us has something to win by claiming that we are nothing but unfortunate victims.

For some reason we have descended into this bickering instead of concentrating on the case only. Presumably, it is because one or both of us find it hard to live with how we are not accepted as winners of the debate by our opponents.

Last edited by Fisherman : 06-21-2017 at 08:04 AM.
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 11:01 PM.


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