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:
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by Debra A 1 hour and 9 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by jerryd 4 hours ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by DJA 7 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Mary Kellys Inquest - by DJA 7 hours ago.
Rippercast: Colin Wilson: Jack the Ripper Conference in Ipswich, 1996 - by Herlock Sholmes 8 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Abby Normal 8 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (29 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (13 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Mary Kellys Inquest - (5 posts)
Rippercast: Colin Wilson: Jack the Ripper Conference in Ipswich, 1996 - (3 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (2 posts)
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - (1 posts)

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

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

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > General Suspect Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1311  
Old 06-13-2018, 09:28 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,213
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
...there is absolutely nothing in Mizen's account which challenges the accounts of Lechmere or Paul...
And that is worrying, because you'd think if one or both carmen had been telling outright porkies, Mizen's account would have challenged theirs.

If anything it's the other way round, if Paul's newspaper account successfully challenged Mizen to report the encounter in the first place, and of course Lechmere did challenge Mizen's account - at the inquest - by denying having told him a PC wanted him in Buck's Row.

Do we have anything at all to suggest that Mizen said more than just "All right"?

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1312  
Old 06-13-2018, 10:21 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,213
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Afraid thats not how real research works.

Lechmere gives an account which has both him and Paul speaking to Mizen, if Paul is not within earshot that would not be possible.
Paul's Lloyds account also has Paul speaking.

Therefore you do indeed need prove the carmens accounts are faulty, thats how historicalbor for that matter any research works

It becomes increasing obvious that refuting their accounts, other than to simply say they lied is impossible, it is also clear that you are very aware of this.


Steve
Hi Steve,

What I find quite amusing is that Fish needs both men to have lied about the fact that Paul did his own share of the talking while in PC Mizen's company, but PC Mizen isn't playing ball.

What Fish needed was for PC Mizen to have exposed their lies by stating that not only did Paul not utter a sodding word to him, but he was not even in a good position to hear or confirm what Cross had told him, let alone judge how he - Mizen - should have reacted.

The problem for Fish is that PC Mizen never said anything like this, but meekly went along with the basic fact that two men were there when he was told about the woman and he just said "All right" in response. If Cross was the first to speak, then it was Cross who informed Mizen of the situation, with Paul chiming in. But if Paul never chimed in and wasn't even within earshot, it's a great pity for Fish that Mizen never did make that clear.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1313  
Old 06-13-2018, 11:01 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,162
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Hi Steve,

What I find quite amusing is that Fish needs both men to have lied about the fact that Paul did his own share of the talking while in PC Mizen's company, but PC Mizen isn't playing ball.

What Fish needed was for PC Mizen to have exposed their lies by stating that not only did Paul not utter a sodding word to him, but he was not even in a good position to hear or confirm what Cross had told him, let alone judge how he - Mizen - should have reacted.

The problem for Fish is that PC Mizen never said anything like this, but meekly went along with the basic fact that two men were there when he was told about the woman and he just said "All right" in response. If Cross was the first to speak, then it was Cross who informed Mizen of the situation, with Paul chiming in. But if Paul never chimed in and wasn't even within earshot, it's a great pity for Fish that Mizen never did make that clear.

Love,

Caz
X
Hi Caz

Yes indeed it is. Of course the aim of Mizen was to prevent certain public questions being asked about his performance (none of which had any effect on the actual murder) and this he achieved perfectly, to the extent it was not looked at seriously until Lechmere was proposed as a suspect.

Of course i beleive that the combination of Neil's testimony on 1st and the Lloyds article 2nd are the reason for Mizen's story ( and i use that word intentionally) at the inquest on the 3rd.
However i came to this conclusion from anaylisis of the various sources, i didn't come up with the idea and then go looking for the stuff to support it.

Steve

Last edited by Elamarna : 06-13-2018 at 11:11 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1314  
Old 06-13-2018, 06:59 PM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,753
Default

Fisherman,who would want to troll you.All you appear to be is a mouthpiece for two indiviuals who so far have not come forward to confirm you are telling the truth about them.That's stating a fact,not trolling.

What have you proven so far as guilt applies ?Nothing.Can you
place Cross in the company of Nichols while she was alive?No you cannot.

Can you prove factually,that Cross cut the throat of Nichols and caused the mutilatins to her body? No you cannot


Can you prove,that on leaving home that morning,or later on his way to work,the intent to kill and mutilate was a driving force? No you cannot
.

Can you prove that in his possession that morning was a weapon that caused the injuries to Nichols?No you cannot.

You have nothing in the way of proof.Nothing,and you claim to have prima facis evidence of guilt.How strange.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1315  
Old 06-13-2018, 10:19 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Are you saying we cant accept the TOD for Kelly by the Doctors?

If so then we NEITHER ca we accept thre TOD Chapman!

One cannot with any integrity say in one line Phillips TOD places a murder in the required time frame and only a few lines later say that we cannot use TOD by Phillips in tge Kelly case because it does not fit the required hours.

And of course I do not accept any of them.

What is unbecoming is the continual personal slights and attacks on those who do not agree with the views posted.


Steve
I am saying that we canīt accept BOTH TOD:s for Kelly. And you know that, so there is no reason to sound surprised. She couldnīt have died twice, once at 2 AM and then again at 6 AM.
At least one of the doctors must be wrong. That goes without saying. And consequentially both can be wrong.

Pointing that out should not be necessary. In any serious debate, it would never be. Here? Different story.

You move on to say that if I donīt accept Kellys TOD, I cannot accept Chapmans TOD either.
But you know, I really can.

Not only was there no contesting TOD:s in Chapmans case, it also applies that the time elapsed was much shorter, and so the task of establishing a TOD becomes easier.

Moreover, in Chapmans case, Phillips gave a span, not a decided time. He said that she had been dead at least two hors and probably more.

In the rational world, that means that there is no real chance for Long and Cadosh to be correct - if they were on the money, I feel quite convinced that Chpman would not have been just about totally cold. And that applies regardless of the uncertainty involved in the establishing of TOD back then.

So, you see, I am once again effectively disallowing you to impose upon me how I must reason, and opt for the logical route instead.

That leaves you with having to accept two deaths for Kelly, since you accept Chapmans TOD, and since you say that if we accept one thing in one case we must do so in the next too.

Really, Steve? Kelly died two times?

I leave the remark about my insults uncommented on for obvious reasons.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1316  
Old 06-13-2018, 10:30 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
I do wish you would stop this quoting Scobie as if a Prima facie is anything other than a decision to proceed to trial.
Every prosecution by the authorities requires such, that those whom are found innocent and guilty.

Its nothing more than a Barrister saying that on the evidence available the case cannot be dismissed.

Scobie however is just one man, others in his profession may not agree with him.

And of course many cases which go to court are dismissed or simply lost.


Steve
Yes, many cases are lost. But in those cases too, it applies that the prosecution has made the call that the case is good enough to win, otherwise they would not have gone to court.

I am not saying that a case against Lechmere would have been won. I am saing that Scobie thought that it looked like a case that could have been won, a case good enough to prosecute.

And far from just saying that the case could not be dismissed - which, incidentally, is what people out here are saying in many a case - he actually said that the case suggests that Lechmere was guilty. And he added that a jury would not like the implications.

So Iīm afraid that you will have to learn to consort with Scobie. His is an important view. And yes, potentially other barristers may disagree with him. But it will take a barrister disagreeing with him before that is an established fact. And even if it happens, we will still have a situation where legal experts are discussing the bouyancy of a legal case against Lechmere.

I have asked before, but have never gotten an answer: Which other Ripper suspect has that going for him, as a suspect?

The answer is of course: Not a single one.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1317  
Old 06-13-2018, 10:31 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Guy View Post
Yes, of course, Abby (and Christer)

Simply... the other finders didn`t have anyone to corroborate their story of finding the victim.
Lechmere didnīt either, to be perfectly precise. What Paul could corroborate was that Lechmere was in place near the victim, not how he found her.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1318  
Old 06-13-2018, 10:34 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
He was also a man that was never presented with the case against CL’s guilt to compare. But according to Fish you only need to hear one side to make a fair decision (where have we seen evidence of that before .)
I have told you before to stop this nonsense. I do NOT think that a fair decision is reached by using one side only, but I DO think that it is om great imporatance and interest to hear if the prosecution side of a case thinks that the evidence is enough to take to court.

Please do not misrepresent me any more on this issue. Not out of ignorance or out of malice!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1319  
Old 06-13-2018, 10:36 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Blimey, Fish, it might have been better for you if you had engaged your brain before putting your mouth into gear in the first place. But you don't know when to stop digging that hole for yourself, do you?

Love,

Caz
X
The only hole around here was dug by the poster who could not tell misogyny from a recommendation to take up less disturbing hobbies than ripperology. Since that poster (you, by the way) did notn have the decency to retract that mistake, I will make it abundantly clear how wrong it was.

So dig away, by all means.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1320  
Old 06-13-2018, 10:38 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
I suppose it all depends on whether Mizen was aware of what Paul had already said publicly, in that newspaper story.

If Mizen was aware that Paul had given himself the role of main spokesman, in order to trash the PC's lethargic reaction, and knew damned well that this man Paul had not even bothered to speak to him, but had let Cross do the talking and therefore had no idea what was said or if the PC's reaction had been in any way inappropriate, he'd have had every reason to say so, when asked if anyone was with Cross when the latter spoke to him:

"Two men approached together, but when Cross spoke to me, the other man was some little distance away and said nothing."

Not only would this have dealt neatly with the trouble Paul was trying to cause and put him back in his box, but it would have been Mizen's duty to say so, if he knew Paul had lied in that account because he had not told him the woman was dead, and in fact only Cross had said anything at all and had played down the urgency.

Love,

Caz
X
The first words clinch the matter - " it all depends".
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 12:23 AM.


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