Lechmere The Psychopath

[Pierre]

Hoping that Herlock Sholmes reads this post, Iīd like to point out that this is the kind of thing I truly despise - I am being pointed out as laughable and sad, while all the way what I am saying is a fact, not a suggestion:

The Morning Advertiser, September 4 1888:

Police constable George Maizen (sic), 55 H, said - On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row). The man appeared to be a carman. (The man, whose name is George Cross, was brought in and witness identified him as the man who spoke to him on the morning in question). I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.

The Coroner - There was another man in company with Cross?

The Witness - Yes. I think he was also a carman.

So we can see that the coroner has to remind Mizen about Paul to even have the PC mention him, and we can see that it was the coroner who suggested that the carmen were "in company". We cannot possibly know if Mizen would have used the expression, we can only see that he does not even mention Paul until reminded by Baxter.

I donīt think any further commentary from my side is needed.

You were not laughable and sad, according to Steve, the attempt was.

You have to read properly, Fisherman.

Pierre

[Fisherman]

You were not laughable and sad, according to Steve, the attempt was.

You have to read properly, Fisherman.

Pierre

Okay - so letīs see if i understand you!

If I say that what you have to say on these boards is braindead, rude and of no consequence at all to Ripperology... I have not pointed you out as in any way a bad poster? You are just deepy unlucky when posting?

[Pierre]

Okay - so letīs see if i understand you!

If I say that what you have to say on these boards is braindead, rude and of no consequence at all to Ripperology... I have not pointed you out as in any way a bad poster? You are just deepy unlucky when posting?

What I say is that the post is one thing and the poster another.

[Elamarna]

Hoping that Herlock Sholmes reads this post, Iīd like to point out that this is the kind of thing I truly despise - I am being pointed out as laughable and sad, while all the way what I am saying is a fact, not a suggestion:

The Morning Advertiser, September 4 1888:

Police constable George Maizen (sic), 55 H, said - On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row). The man appeared to be a carman. (The man, whose name is George Cross, was brought in and witness identified him as the man who spoke to him on the morning in question). I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.

The Coroner - There was another man in company with Cross?

The Witness - Yes. I think he was also a carman.

So we can see that the coroner has to remind Mizen about Paul to even have the PC mention him, and we can see that it was the coroner who suggested that the carmen were "in company". We cannot possibly know if Mizen would have used the expression, we can only see that he does not even mention Paul until reminded by Baxter.

I donīt think any further commentary from my side is needed.

Firstly how typical that it is ok for you to say another's posts are unrealistic; but when the same is given back you object.

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones Fish!

Secondly it was the attempt to move the goal posts that I called laughable and sad; not you has I have never met you and have no idea what you are like as a person.

Asked to provide a source to back the hypothesis you propose, there is a transparent attempt to change the emphasis of the testimony to suit said hypothesis.


your post implied that because the coroner had asked questions of Mizen. Those responses should be judged differently to the rest of his testimony.


How does the fact the coroner asks the question somehow devalue the answer given?

Are you suggesting that answers to a coroners direct questions, when it is clear to said coroner that something has not been revealed, is somehow less worthy than that which does not require such probing?

There maybe many reason why such is required, in this case given that Paul's story had been published the day before there is of course a reason why Mizen may not wish to include all that happened unless forced to.




Steve

[Sam Flynn]

I trust you are quite aware that I am just as knowledgeable as you are about the complexities and subtleties of the case.

Then you will be as aware as I am that giving a ripperological rookie a short time with a dossier of a hundred or so press clippings is nowhere near enough preparation for them to make meaningful pronouncements about the case.

[Sam Flynn]

Or is it just a case of not wanting to accept Griffiths words, no matter what?

Of course I'd welcome his insights, provided the information he reviewed was balanced and representative, and that he was well versed in dealing with the pitfalls inherent in having to deal with Victorian press reports.

[Fisherman]

Firstly how typical that it is ok for you to say another's posts are unrealistic; but when the same is given back you object.

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones Fish!

Secondly it was the attempt to move the goal posts that I called laughable and sad; not you has I have never met you and have no idea what you are like as a person.

Asked to provide a source to back the hypothesis you propose, there is a transparent attempt to change the emphasis of the testimony to suit said hypothesis.


your post implied that because the coroner had asked questions of Mizen. Those responses should be judged differently to the rest of his testimony.


How does the fact the coroner asks the question somehow devalue the answer given?

Are you suggesting that answers to a coroners direct questions, when it is clear to said coroner that something has not been revealed, is somehow less worthy than that which does not require such probing?

There maybe many reason why such is required, in this case given that Paul's story had been published the day before there is of course a reason why Mizen may not wish to include all that happened unless forced to.

Steve

Save your breath, Steve. It is a fact that when two people set out on some sort of trek/journey/walk in each others company (nota bene what company means here), they are "together" and "in company with each other" until the trek/journey/walk is finished.

It is also a fact that during the trek/journey/walk, the two people need not be physically close to be "together" or "in company with each other".

If Z and Y go to the theatre "together" or "in company with each other", Y can go to the toilet in the intermission, and they will nevertheless be "together" or "in company with each other".

The question "was Z at the theatre in company with somebody" can, will and should be answered with "yes, he was there with Y".

Lechmere and Paul will have arrived in Bakers Row together, quite possiby speaking together. It will have been obvious that they trekked/journeyed/walked together, meaning "in each others company" - but NOT necessarily close to each other.
Therefore, when Mizen was asked by the coroner whether Lechmere was in company with somebody as he approached the PC, the natural answer for Mizen was to say "yes". That, however, must NOT mean anything else than an acknowledgement on Mizenīs behalf that he had noticed that the two men were trekking/journeying/walking in Baers Row as a result of having jointly set out. It says nothing at all - not a iot - about the distance between the two men. It does not determine it to "no more than a yard" to "no more than five yards" to "no more than ten yards" or any other distance. It only tells us that they were both in Bakers Row as a result of having trekked/journeyed/walked there together/in each others company.

In consequence of this, we must realize that if the coroner had asked "There was another man some distance away who had arrived with Cross?", "When Cross spoke to Mizen, there was another man passing by in his company, but who instead of speaking to Mizen proceeded some way down Hanbury Street?", he may well have gotten the same answeer in reply: "Yes".

Letīs not pretend that anybody of us know the distance between the men. Letīs not pretend that there is any maximum distance between then to offer. Letīs speak the truth and acknowledge that neither me nor you can establish any distance at all inbetween Lechmere and Paul. And letīs cknowledge that it WAS the coroner who established the expression "in company with", NOT Mizen, who may have used another expression if he was asked to describe where the men were.

Do you disagree about this, and are you willing to describe in exact terms the maximum distance the expressions used allow for? I would be very interested to hear your answer to that, Steve.

Once we have it, it is discussion over, I fear. And that is long overdue.

[Fisherman]

Then you will be as aware as I am that giving a ripperological rookie a short time with a dossier of a hundred or so press clippings is nowhere near enough preparation for them to make meaningful pronouncements about the case.

No! There are things you can say without knowing anything at all about the case, and there are things where case knowledge helps. It is a large scale, and therefore I asked you to provide examples of how left out information or skewed information can have made Griffiths say that the killer would not/never have run.

I am still waiting for any such example. And my own take on things is that there is no such example to provide. I donīt think you have any sort of case at all, Gareth, but I will listen to whatever suggestion you have.

[Fisherman]

What I say is that the post is one thing and the poster another.

So if I say that your posts are the worst crap that has ever plagued Casebook, that they are mindless and stupid, worthless and embarrasing - I may still regard you as a very clever and good ripperologist, who I hold high in esteem? And who was just unlucky trying to think?

Is there a connection or is there not?

[Sam Flynn]

It is a large scale, and therefore I asked you to provide examples of how left out information or skewed information can have made Griffiths say that the killer would not/never have run.

I have neither the health, time nor energy to think about that right now.

It would be simpler if you told us exactly what information he was given.

[Elamarna]

Save your breath, Steve. It is a fact that when two people set out on some sort of trek/journey/walk in each others company (nota bene what company means here), they are "together" and "in company with each other" until the trek/journey/walk is finished.

It is also a fact that during the trek/journey/walk, the two people need not be physically close to be "together" or "in company with each other".

If Z and Y go to the theatre "together" or "in company with each other", Y can go to the toilet in the intermission, and they will nevertheless be "together" or "in company with each other".

The question "was Z at the theatre in company with somebody" can, will and should be answered with "yes, he was there with Y".

Lechmere and Paul will have arrived in Bakers Row together, quite possiby speaking together. It will have been obvious that they trekked/journeyed/walked together, meaning "in each others company" - but NOT necessarily close to each other.
Therefore, when Mizen was asked by the coroner whether Lechmere was in company with somebody as he approached the PC, the natural answer for Mizen was to say "yes". That, however, must NOT mean anything else than an acknowledgement on Mizenīs behalf that he had noticed that the two men were trekking/journeying/walking in Baers Row as a result of having jointly set out. It says nothing at all - not a iot - about the distance between the two men. It does not determine it to "no more than a yard" to "no more than five yards" to "no more than ten yards" or any other distance. It only tells us that they were both in Bakers Row as a result of having trekked/journeyed/walked there together/in each others company.

In consequence of this, we must realize that if the coroner had asked "There was another man some distance away who had arrived with Cross?", "When Cross spoke to Mizen, there was another man passing by in his company, but who instead of speaking to Mizen proceeded some way down Hanbury Street?", he may well have gotten the same answeer in reply: "Yes".

Letīs not pretend that anybody of us know the distance between the men. Letīs not pretend that there is any maximum distance between then to offer. Letīs speak the truth and acknowledge that neither me nor you can establish any distance at all inbetween Lechmere and Paul. And letīs cknowledge that it WAS the coroner who established the expression "in company with", NOT Mizen, who may have used another expression if he was asked to describe where the men were.

Do you disagree about this, and are you willing to describe in exact terms the maximum distance the expressions used allow for? I would be very interested to hear your answer to that, Steve.

Once we have it, it is discussion over, I fear. And that is long overdue.

Please do not tell me to save my breath. I will talk as long as I want. Just as you will.

However we are all accustomed to the way you debate and so the approach is no surprise.

What you post is not source data. It is your own view of how you feel English is used and it's meanings.

There is no attempt to address the issues to which you are apparently replying. The suggestion that another question may have got a similar answer is exactly the same It's pure supposition not supported by any data.

You continue to propose this hypothesis and back it with Pure opinion and what if's.There is no data at all to support the hypothesis.

Produce data to say they did not approach Mizen together, as a pair, which is what The Carmen say; not just a view which can be used to support yet another hypothesis. That of course being the so called "Mizen Scam". That hypothesis too along with the blood flow hypothesis may soon be shown to be less than the supporters of both wish them to be.


To return to the beginning, we have 3 witnesses who say that Lechmere and Paul approached Mizen together.

When asked to produce data to support the idea this may not be so, what is offered is not data which refutes such, but an alternative intreptation of some of the original data.
That is fine, however that very intpretation needs to be based on something more substantial than questioning what "together" means.

The truth is simple you do not believe Lechmere, you do not believe Paul and you only believe Mizen so long as you can intperet him the way you WISH.



Steve

[Varqm]

Well put. Lechmere acted in precisely the manner one would expect from a witness. He stopped the first passer-by, alerted him to the body, then accompanied him to find a policeman.

Absolutely.Mizen was incompetent.If Mizen was thorough,Lechmere and Paui's name,home/work address (at least for a visit and interview later that day) and full statement would have been known that day even within hours not days which possibly created a lot of misconceptions.
It would have seem to Lechmere the police,through Mizen, did not want his information - full statement,etc.- so he had no reason to report back.In Miller's Court they did not allow anyone to leave before they got interviewed which was the proper way.I do not know the law then but the police also could have frisked him which would have proven whether he had a knife,blood,etc..But this was the known first murder in the series.If this was the 4-5 th murder Lechmere would have been frisked I would think.
Lechmere in my mind lost his ability to prove himself an ordinary witness because Mizen was incompetent.
It have to be said that Lechmere's main job that early morning was to be at work on time,work asa carman,earn his money,after all this murder,however bad it was, would not have earn him any and not play detecive. Mizen was incompetent.But it's clear as water that Lechmere was an ordinary witness anyway.

[harry]

Anyone, who has in any way involved themselves,directly or indirectly,in the Nicholls murder,has a right to express themselves on these boards.If Griffiths or Payne-Stewart or any other expert believes they are being unfairly treated,let them post.I for one would welcome a direct opinion of theirs,as opposed to the,references of Fisherman.

[GUT]

Absolutely.Mizen was incompetent.If Mizen was thorough,Lechmere and Paui's name,home/work address (at least for a visit and interview later that day) and full statement would have been known that day even within hours not days which possibly created a lot of misconceptions.
It would have seem to Lechmere the police,through Mizen, did not want his information - full statement,etc.- so he had no reason to report back.In Miller's Court they did not allow anyone to leave before they got interviewed which was the proper way.I do not know the law then but the police also could have frisked him which would have proven whether he had a knife,blood,etc..But this was the known first murder in the series.If this was the 4-5 th murder Lechmere would have been frisked I would think.
Lechmere in my mind lost his ability to prove himself an ordinary witness because Mizen was incompetent.
It have to be said that Lechmere's main job that early morning was to be at work on time,work asa carman,earn his money,after all this murder,however bad it was, would not have earn him any and not play detecive. Mizen was incompetent.But it's clear as water that Lechmere was an ordinary witness anyway.

One point varqm, it wasn't the first known murder in the series, news reports of the day made it abundantly clear that it was considered the second or third.

[Pcdunn]

There was a whole hour between the last sighting of Nichols alive to the discovery of her body. It's entirely possible that she found a punter, pissed up what little money she earned and then slumped in Buck's Row worse for wear. That would explain why no one heard a sound, because the killer throttled her while she was already unconscious on the ground.

However, I don't believe that a serial killer who targeted prostitutes just happened to find a victim lying in the gutter on a silver platter for him like that. He must have been a punter.

This is a logical explanation, and one I agree with, Harry. I just can't see Lechmere leaving in enough time to locate a victim on Whitechapel Road, bring her to Buck's Row (on his usual route to work!), and do her in just before another carman comes along.

Remember, too, the police at one time thought Nichols was murdered elsewhere and dumped where she was found, due to an apparent "blood trail" that seemed to be related (but failed to amount to anything).