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:
Kosminski, Aaron: DNA error - by Westbourne Wink 2 minutes ago.
Catherine Eddowes: A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match - by Caligo Umbrator 7 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Why those particular victims? - by Fisherman 11 minutes ago.
Catherine Eddowes: A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match - by mickreed 21 minutes ago.
Catherine Eddowes: A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match - by Chris 23 minutes ago.
Catherine Eddowes: A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match - by GUT 39 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Catherine Eddowes: A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match - (75 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson - (21 posts)
Non-Fiction: Jack the Ripper and Black Magic: Victorian Conspiracy Theories, Secret Societies and - (12 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Why those particular victims? - (11 posts)
Kosminski, Aaron: DNA error - (8 posts)
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - (4 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Mar 6, 2014, 11:56 pm
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm
Donald Swanson
Edit: Chris
Dec 9, 2012, 3:40 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.
Mike Covell: A Study in Red – The Secret Journal of Jack the Ripper
March 3, 2014, 3:42 am.
Mike Covell: Almost there….
January 24, 2014, 4:05 am.
Mike Covell: Jack the Ripper - Year in Review 2013
December 28, 2013, 7:31 am.
Mike Covell: Jack the Ripper At Last? - Review
December 9, 2013, 2:08 am.
Mike Covell: From Whitechapel to Whitefriargate
November 27, 2013, 4:15 am.

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-21-2012, 07:25 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,954
Default The Mizen scam

Hi everybody!

Having returned from a weeks outdoors living - fishing included! - I am anxious to hear what you all think about what I refer to as the Mizen scam. The theme is presented in my article in Ripperologist 126, in the article "Two murders in Buckīs Row".

Much has been said already about whether I have made my mind up that Charles Lechmere was the Ripper, and those who have taken the time to read my article will know by now that I confess to that exact belief. And it is the Mizen scam that pushed me over the edge, so to speak.

For those unfamiliar with it, I will make a short presentation of the scam.The fewest do, actually - when reading books by Sugden, Evans, Begg and Rumbelow, for example, it quickly becomes clear that the very detail that I belive gives away the Ripper, remains untouched upon in these books.

It all lies in what Mizen claimed "Cross" had told him on the evening of the murder. Mizen says that Cross was the one who spoke to him (apparently pointing to Paul not being involved in the conversation, at least not to any significant degree), and stated in his words to Mizen: "You are wanted in Buckīs Row" (he said Bakerīs Row, but he of course meant Buckīs ditto), and "Another policeman wants you there". "Cross" then proceeded to point out that a woman "had been found there", lying flat on her back, being either dead or drunk.

This has always been the source of much consternation. Lechmere himself witnessed after Mizen at the inquest, and was asked whether he had really told Mizen that another PC waited for im in Buckīs Row. He denied that he had done so, pointing out that there had been no other PC in Buckīs Row.

The situation that was crated at the inquest was thus one that seemingly entailed a question that needed to be settled: Had there been a PC in Buckīs Row as Lechmere and Paul were there, or had there not? The ones that championed the different views were on the one hand Mizen, who argued that there HAD been a PC there, and on the other hand Lechmere, who claimed that this had not been so. And Lechmere came out on top, Paul and Neil supplying corroboration of his version.

This was all a game of smoke and mirrors, though. For the truth of the matter was that BOTH views originated with Lechmere! He was the one who had claimed that there had been a PC in place (when speaking to Mizen) and he was ALSO the one who claimed that there had NOT been a PC in place (when witnessing at the inquest).

But the REAL question should have been another one: Did Lechmere tell Mizen that there was a PC in Buckīs Row, waiting for assistance, or did he NOT do so? THAT is the pertinent question, and in this case, there is no Paul and Neil to corroborate Lechmere!!

So who told the truth, Mizen or Lechmere? Well, when we accept that Lechmere was the truthful party, we end up with a testimony on behalf of Mizen that makes no sense, which is what Sugden, Evans, Begg and Rumbelow all noticed, conveniently leaving the "strange" testimony aside.

But look what happens if we instead accept that Mizen, a serving PC, was the one who told the truth! We can suddenly see how Lechmere fabricated a tailormade lie, shaped in the EXACT manner he needed to have it to ensure that Mizen would not search him, ask him any questions or bring him along back to the murder spot:

-He claimed that a PC was waiting for assistance in Buckīs Row, meaning that Mizen could rely on this colleague of his having already done whatever checking out needed visavi Lechmere and Paul.

-He claimed that a woman "had been found there", effectively obscuring the fact that he himself had been the one who found her.

-He omitted to mention that the woman was the victim of either murder or suicide; IF ther had truly been a PC in place who had sent Lechmere and Paul looking for a fellow PC, then he would have done so after having noticed the cut throat, and thus the two carmen would have known that murder or suicide was the case. Mizen made that exact remark at the inquest, according to the press, obviously consternated by the leaving out of this important fact. But of course, Lechmere had every reason to play down what had happened, since he needed to slip through the net!

The Mizen scam thus held the EXACT parameters it needed to have to allow Lechmere to slip away unsearched. It can even be questioned whether Jonas Mizen even bothered to take the menīs names. After all, why would he? If that fellow PC had already spoken to the carmen, then he would have noted their names according to regulation.

My suggestion is that Lechmere was very much aware of PC Neilīs beat as he killed Nichols. When Paul turned up, he had a limited time window to come up with a way to leave the spot, and he did so by claiming that he was ALSO late for work, just like Paul. And when the carmen reached Mizen in Hanbury street, Lechmere either chanced that Neil would have had the time to come up via Bakerīs Row, turn right into Buckīs Row and find Nichols, or he was actually sure that this would be the case; the distance inbetween the little group Mizen/Lechmere/Paul and Neil, coming up Bakerīs Row, would perhaps be a mere 50-60 yards or so, and therefore Lechmere may very well have heard Neil walking his beat, and thus he may actually have known that Neil would find the body.

At any rate, we all know that the scam worked in every detail: when Mizen arrived in Buckīs Row, that PC (Neil) WAS there, just like he had been told. And as he ran off for an ambulance, he would not have suspected foul play for a second, having had the carmanīs ("Cross") prediction come true. The only thing that he thought strange was that the carman had omitted to mention the seriousness of the errand. A sound enough reflection, but one that has been left unattended to for 124 years.

Charles Allen Lechmere lied his way past Mizen on the 31 of August 1888. We know this, since Mizen testified about it. To my mind, he unknowingly pointed out the Ripper by doing so - and generations of Ripperologists opted for believing that he was a total crackpot, getting it all wrong...

There you go; this is why my mind is made up. Somewhere along the line, I am sure that somebody will point out that Lechmere may simply have conned Mizen in order to be at Pickfordīs in time. Technically correct though this may be, I would suggest that we do not forget all the other parameters that point in Lechmereīs direction. My conviction is that we are not dealing with an inventive carman, late for work, but instead with what has often been described as classical sociopathy - somebody who would never panic although he was in very serious trouble, but who instead in the blink of an eye came up with useful solutions to every problem along his way, perhaps even without the ability to feel fear. Or remorse, for that matter.

Thoughts, anybody?

The best,
Fisherman

Last edited by Fisherman : 06-21-2012 at 07:27 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-21-2012, 07:34 PM
Simon Wood Simon Wood is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,278
Default

Hi Christer,

It's bad form to solicit opinion.

Regards,

Simon
__________________
Fidiamo in Legno.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-21-2012, 07:44 PM
Monty Monty is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Leicestershire
Posts: 4,546
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Wood View Post
Hi Christer,

It's bad form to solicit opinion.

Regards,

Simon
Nah, its not.

Its bad form to present opinion as fact.

And its not regulation Christer.

Monty
__________________
It begins



Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-21-2012, 07:46 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,954
Default

Iīm not about good form, Simon, havenīt you noticed? After having spent almost 30 years in search of the Ripper, the one response I do not want when publishing that I think that the hunt may be drawing to an end is total silence.

The best,
Fisherman
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-21-2012, 07:50 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,954
Default

Monty:

"Its bad form to present opinion as fact."

I have presented TWO cases, Monty, one in which Lechmere is the killer and one in which he is not. Both canīt be true. But if my version of events is, than the "standard" version has wrongfully passed for fact for 124 years. Surely, that canīt be good form?

At any rate, I donīt give a ratīs behind about form. But I would much appreciate your thoughts on the core issue here!

The best,
Fisherman

Last edited by Fisherman : 06-21-2012 at 07:53 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-21-2012, 07:55 PM
Monty Monty is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Leicestershire
Posts: 4,546
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Monty:

"Its bad form to present opinion as fact."

I have presented TWO cases, Monty, one in which Lechmere is the killer and one in which he is not. Both canīt be true. But if my version of events is, than the "standard" version has wrongfully passed for fact for 124 years. Surely, that canīt be good form?

At any rate, I donīt give a ratīs behind about form. But I would much appreciate your thoughts on the core issue here!

The best,
Fisherman
I know what you've done.

Monty
__________________
It begins



Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-21-2012, 08:00 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,954
Default

So you know what Iīve done, Monty - that a start. But just like I say, I would prefer any comment that you have on the issue as such.

Is this the explanation that has never been there in relation to Mizenīs testimony, habitually left out in favour of Lechmereīs version of events?

Whenever you feel up to commenting on the issue as such, I would love to discuss it with you. If you are not prepared to do so yet, thatīs fine.

All the best,
Fisherman
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-21-2012, 08:36 PM
lynn cates lynn cates is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 12,345
Default (wandering0 thoughts

Hello Christer. I'll bite.

But first, let me congratulate you on a well written piece.

I agree that Cross' words to Mizen and use of that name and not Lechmere requires explaining--as also his mention of a PC in Buck's Row.

After I read your piece, I asked myself, Under what circumstances would one do this?

I saw two possibilities:

1. If one were the killer of Polly Nichols, one on the C5.

2. If one were a man late for work, who wished not to answer a lot of questions put by a PC, and who expected Neill to pop round soon.

I saw #2 as the simpler, more natural option.

Frankly, I'd daresay that the older the person, the more likely #2; the younger, the more likely he would be excited and wish to expatiate.

And there is the matter of Annie. If Cross is a sociopath who kills for personality defect reasons (as I once definitely believed of "Jack"), then surely he did for Annie long before Long/Cadosch happened by?

Cheers.
LC
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-21-2012, 08:48 PM
Rubyretro Rubyretro is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sussex, England
Posts: 1,911
Default

I would love to reply -but I've yet to read the article (ordered the mag yesterday).

I will reply in due course..
__________________
http://youtu.be/GcBr3rosvNQ
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-21-2012, 09:02 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,954
Default

Lynn Cates:

"let me congratulate you on a well written piece."

Thanks, Lynn!

"After I read your piece, I asked myself, Under what circumstances would one do this?
I saw two possibilities:
1. If one were the killer of Polly Nichols, one on the C5.
2. If one were a man late for work, who wished not to answer a lot of questions put by a PC, and who expected Neill to pop round soon.
I saw #2 as the simpler, more natural option."

And THAT is what happens every time Lechmere is suggested as the killer, Lynn - people give him the benefit of a doubt. And it is understandable - up to a point. Not to this point, however, if you ask me, since I really think that conjuring up such a thing may get you in serious trouble with the police, and law-abiding citizens donīt do that. You may observe that Lechmere always conveys - or tries to convey - the picture of an utterly helpful man. Conning a PC for no good reason at all does NOT fit the frame.

At any rate, what you need to weigh in are all the other factors. When we are faced with a blatant lie, as is the case here, we should ask ourselves: Is this a sign of guilt or something else? And all we can do is to look at the surrounding evidence.
In this case, I would say that if there are other lies involved that serve not an early arrival at his job but something quite different, we need to weigh that in. And calling himself "Cross" did not exactly serve that purpose, did it?

After that, we need to look at other things that may point to guilt. And thatīs where his work route comes in. If he lied about his name, and if he lied to pass Mizen, surely he would not be so unlucky as to have the murders happening along his route to work? Hm? And IF he was that desperately unlucky and there was just the one murder that did NOT tally with that route, then just how incredibly unjust would it not be to him if that murder fell in close proximity to an address that he ALSO had reason to visit frequently? And if it moreover could be pointed out that the "work route" murders happened in the morning hours on his workdays, whereas the odd one out occurred at a time when he did NOT work, but had reason to visit at his motherīs house - then the time has come to realize that the lie he served Mizen makes an already very suspicious track record a hell of a lot more suspicious.

Iīm all for offering the benefit of a doubt, Lynn - but I am totally opposed to being very naïve. Did you read what Richard Nunweek wrote on an adjacent thread: It is all about making sense of things, and the answer to the riddle is hidden in the testimonies. Exactly so. Once we look at what Lechmere told Mizen, it makes perfect sense that he conned his way past him. It is only when we look upon things in that way that we can make sense of this material, normally always regarded as the opposite to sense.
And why would Lechmere see to it that Paul was not involved in the exchange, as implicated by Mizenīs statement that there was another man involved, who proceeded up Hanbury Street? Why would he shape and perform that scam totally on his own? Because, I think, he wanted to make sure that nothing went wrong. He needed to get past Mizen, and he did it.

Iīm off to bed now, but I will join the discussion (the one that relates to the issue, not the "form" one) again tomorrow.

The best, Lynn!
Fisherman

Last edited by Fisherman : 06-21-2012 at 09:05 PM.
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 03:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.