Lack of Threads

[Fisherman]

CommercialRoadWanderer: Well more than tell you what i think, i would like to know which version is the most likely true judging by the documents we got about it. For example, i readed somewhere that Mizen talked with Paul, that Paul did not precisely tell Mizen that she believe the woman was dead, while Lechmere did, and so on.

Well, whenever somebody says that Paul spoke to Mizen, then that somebody is Lechmere. Mizen explicitely says that "a man" came up to him and spoke, and he never says that TWO men did. My conclusion is that Paul was not part of the discussion. He was by the murder site, but he was not active in the discussion. He could therefore well have been out of earshot.

My advice to anybody who wants to study the Nichols murder is to try and differentiate between the sources. Have a look, for example, at how the conversation between the carman and the PC is described by Mizen. Tge various sources make it clear that he claimed that he was told that:
"You're wanted down there" (Morning Advertiser)
"You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there." (Daily News)
"You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman. Witness asked him what was the matter, and Cross replied, "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there." (Echo)
"You are wanted in Baker's-row." The man, named Cross, stated that a woman had been found there. (Times)

Please note how Mizen never says that the carman admitted that he had been the finder himself, joined by Paul later on. "A woman has been found there", "You are wanted there" and "Another PC awaits you there" are all wordings that lead on that there are people in Bucks Row who are asking for assistance, and that they, not the carmen, are the finders. Why did Lechmere not say "We found this woman in Bucks Row, lying on her back..."?

Why would Mizen say this if it was not true? It would be rather an elaborate lie on his behalf. And why does Mizen not mention Pauls role? Lechmere says that both men spoke to the PC, but Mizen says that "A man" did the talking.

All of these layers of deception - would Mizen have concocted them? How did he stand to gain by claiming that ine man only did the talking? If it was untrue, then Paul would be able to give him away, remember. The exact same thing applies to the rest - why would Mizen lie, if he knew that Paul could expose him?

If you really want my opinion about Lechmere, well, my opinion is that i can't really get why Lechmere, given that he was the murderer, did not simply hide or ran when he understood Paul to be heading his way, but instead decided to point him to the corpse, and, no less, to go with him toward Mizen...while probably holding a bloody weapon on himself.

Andy Griffiths, a long time murder squad leader with a clearing rate of 96 per cent said that there was no way Lechmere would run. The surroundings were crammed with PC:s and watchmen, and he would take a tremendeous risk by running. My own guess is that he was what som many serialists are: a psychopath. And psychopaths do not panick. They lack the so called startle reflex that makes the rest of us leap high when scared. Their physionomy does not prepare them for running when in danger, the way normal people react.
It may sound odd, but there is even the chance that he enjoyed the game of conning Paul and subsequently the police. It is a typical trait of psychopaths.

It's infact absolutely normal that the common opinion is that the Ripper was elsewhere and just sneaked away through the darkness.

And still, the coroner said that given the amount of PC:s and watchmen in the vicinity, it was "nothing less than astonishing" that the killer could slip away. You should also weigh in that it was a quiet night with extremely few people in the Bucks Row area. Many witnesses spoke of the silence and the empty streets.
There is also the blood to consider. Jason Payne-James said that bleeding time of three or five minutes was more plausible than seven minutes. Add up how long it would have taken for Mizen to reach the body if Lechmere did the cutting the second Paul entered Bucks Row. You will find that a period of six or seven minutes will have passed between the cutting and Mizens arrival. And that means that an earlier killer demands that we allow for a less viable bleeding time, according to Payne-James.
Ergo, it COULD have been another killer - but the bleeding speaks for Lechmere being the more credible one.

PS. You did not answer my question:
Let me ask you which picture of the affair you think the carman gave Mizen:

A/ That he and Paul had found the woman in Bucks Row and proceeded to tell Mizen about it.
or
B/ That there had been another PC in place in Bucks Row.
Quick reply to this message

[barnflatwyngarde]

To be honest Fisherman l doubt the majority of people on this site would be particularly positive about what they think of you. I could of course be wrong and I'd put money on many thinking you were misguided.

Cheers John

This comment is out of order.

Once again we have the unedifying spectacle of rudeness and hostility rearing their heads on these boards.

I have followed Fishermans speculations in regard to the validity of Cross/Lechmeres candidacy, and there is no doubt that he deserves to be looked at.
I do however disagree with Christers basic premise that the case against his suspect is a particularly strong one.
I posted on the boards outlining (briefly) the reasons why I could not share his confidence re Cross/Lechmere.

Christer replied to my post with (shock horror) humilty, politeness and, dare I say it, kindness.

So come on folks, rudeness will probably beget rudeness, and civilty, humilty and humour will probably lead to a better place, and probably more productive posts.

[Columbo]

This comment is out of order.

Once again we have the unedifying spectacle of rudeness and hostility rearing their heads on these boards.

I have followed Fishermans speculations in regard to the validity of Cross/Lechmeres candidacy, and there is no doubt that he deserves to be looked at.
I do however disagree with Christers basic premise that the case against his suspect is a particularly strong one.
I posted on the boards outlining (briefly) the reasons why I could not share his confidence re Cross/Lechmere.

Christer replied to my post with (shock horror) humilty, politeness and, dare I say it, kindness.

So come on folks, rudeness will probably beget rudeness, and civilty, humilty and humour will probably lead to a better place, and probably more productive posts.

Not that it matters, but I absolutely agree 100%. Christer has never been anything but polite and helpful with me and I appreciate his willingness to share as has everyone who's responded to my post(save a few). We don't need the personal attacks, just some good old fashion ribbing and teasing would be fine.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Well more than tell you what i think, i would like to know which version is the most likely true judging by the documents we got about it. For example, i readed somewhere that Mizen talked with Paul, that Paul did not precisely tell Mizen that she believe the woman was dead, while Lechmere did, and so on.

If you really want my opinion about Lechmere, well, my opinion is that i can't really get why Lechmere, given that he was the murderer, did not simply hide or ran when he understood Paul to be heading his way, but instead decided to point him to the corpse, and, no less, to go with him toward Mizen...while probably holding a bloody weapon on himself.

It's infact absolutely normal that the common opinion is that the Ripper was elsewhere and just sneaked away through the darkness.

Just a thought but it could be that Paul had seen Lechmere before walking to work and might've been able to finger him if Lechmere ran.

Columbo

[John Wheat]

John Wheat!

You have not answered my question relating to your claim "as for the surrounding World the majority of this site well I'm sure you know what they think of you."

What is it people think of me? I would like you to expand on this! Sounds fascinating...

To barnflatwyngard

Fisherman requested I respond this. It is also worth noting that others have said alot worse to/about Fisherman.

Cheers John

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

Well, whenever somebody says that Paul spoke to Mizen...

As i wrote, what we were left with about that night is so convuleted that it's just natural that we tend to pick what we are inclined to believe, and dismiss everything else. The first thing i asked myself when i readed about the Lechmere theory was what i already asked you: since it's seems corroborated that Paul and Lechmere both get in contact with Mizen, how is possible that Lechmere talk about a policemen that Paul could have not seen, without Paul pointing that out? Stating that "Mizen talked with Lechmere only" or "Paul was not involved in the conversation" or similar, is not a satisfactory answer. It does not help that Mizen was apparently not able to remember himself if he talked with one guy, or two.

If a policeman was indeed mentioned, it's more likely, at that point, that the two were in league with each other. Or that Paul did not care at all about what happened. Sure thing is, a supposedly guilty Lechmere took an enormous risk in trying a so blunt lie in front of someone who could unmaks it almost immediatly.

Let's assume, however, and whetever a policeman was mentioned or not, that the two just informed Mizen that there was something in need of his attention, and that something was a possibly attacked woman. Whatever the ramification of that conversation was, Mizen was probably supposed to stop the men and go there with them no matter what was said, and who said it. He did not, and we don't know why. It's likely, however, that he did it in good faith, possibly believing that whatever was happening required indeed it's immediate presence.

One thing that puzzles me, on this point, is why Mizen did not try to insist about having been fooled by Lechmere about the policeman thing (given that he may have supposed he was). And if he did, why none apparently took him seriously.

I don't have the knowledge i would need to state that Lechmere, or whoever else, could have been able or not to sneak away given what kind of surveillance was in the area (which i don't know either). However, we know that, by the minute, three policemen were going to be in the immediate area of the corpse, so it does not appear impossible to me that someone could have not escape elsewhere in the meanwhile.

[Fisherman]

CommercialRoadWanderer: As i wrote, what we were left with about that night is so convuleted that it's just natural that we tend to pick what we are inclined to believe, and dismiss everything else. The first thing i asked myself when i readed about the Lechmere theory was what i already asked you: since it's seems corroborated that Paul and Lechmere both get in contact with Mizen, how is possible that Lechmere talk about a policemen that Paul could have not seen, without Paul pointing that out? Stating that "Mizen talked with Lechmere only" or "Paul was not involved in the conversation" or similar, is not a satisfactory answer. It does not help that Mizen was apparently not able to remember himself if he talked with one guy, or two.

It is not corroborated that Paul and Lechmere both spoke to Mizen.

If a policeman was indeed mentioned, it's more likely, at that point, that the two were in league with each other. Or that Paul did not care at all about what happened. Sure thing is, a supposedly guilty Lechmere took an enormous risk in trying a so blunt lie in front of someone who could unmaks it almost immediatly.

As I said, I am assuming that Paul was out of earshot. But it could well be that Lechmere told Paul that he was going to say to the PC that a colleague of bis was waiting in Bucks Row, and that Paul agreed to it. He was seemingly not a great friend of the police.

Let's assume, however, and whetever a policeman was mentioned or not, that the two just informed Mizen that there was something in need of his attention, and that something was a possibly attacked woman. Whatever the ramification of that conversation was, Mizen was probably supposed to stop the men and go there with them no matter what was said, and who said it. He did not, and we don't know why. It's likely, however, that he did it in good faith, possibly believing that whatever was happening required indeed it's immediate presence.

Mizen obviously decided that he was not obliged to take the men back to the site. And that in itself tells me that Mizen was not informed that the carmen were the finders, but instead that somebody else had found the body and that there was a PC in place.

One thing that puzzles me, on this point, is why Mizen did not try to insist about having been fooled by Lechmere about the policeman thing (given that he may have supposed he was). And if he did, why none apparently took him seriously.

But we cannot know that he did not insist. He may well have done so after the inquest. I think that much hinged on how Lechmere had sought out the police twice - that would have impressed pon the police that the carman was a helful, honest person. And so they decided that there was a m isunderstanding of some sort. A juryman asked Lechmere if it was true that he had told Mizen that there was another PC in Bucks Row, but when he denied that, there was no further progress. It could equally be said that the police and the coroner and jury had a responsibility to take the errand further. But as I said before, generations of ripperologists have passed over this ground without halting and asking themselves what the implications were.

I don't have the knowledge i would need to state that Lechmere, or whoever else, could have been able or not to sneak away given what kind of surveillance was in the area (which i don't know either). However, we know that, by the minute, three policemen were going to be in the immediate area of the corpse, so it does not appear impossible to me that someone could have not escape elsewhere in the meanwhile.

This is an issue that cannot be completely resolved since we do not have the full information and the exact timings. We only have the coroner who said that it was nothing less than astonishing that the killer got away, and Swanson who said that the killer disappeared without the faintest shadow of a trace. It was a "mystery most complete" it was said - but I think there was no mystery at all. Lechmere fits the blood timetable, and he is surrounded by anomalies. It makes a world of sense to me to suggest that he was the killer, since there is really nobody else. All there is, is a rumour of a pohantom killer who could creep in and out of a murder site unnoticed, regardless of the surveillance. And who was able to make the blood flow from Nichols´ neck for a longer time than suggested by a forensic expert like Jason Payne-James.


Have you seen the documentary about Lechmere? Otherwise, here´s a link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH35A-O6C1E

It gives a useful overview of the reasoning behind the Lechmere theory.

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

One point that i think it's interesting is the fact that, apparently, nor Lechmere nor Paul have any means to shed some light on the scene, while the policemen were equipped with their lanterns.

Their behaviour at the scene, try to move the woman or check for her body to verify the presence of life or not, it's valid given that they may have not able to see the still flowing blood.

Apart from that...well, i'm not the kind that use to explain strange or daring behaviours with insanity or some unexplainable mystery with the use of superpowers...but whoever run from Buck's Row MAY have been the same human who escaped from Dutfield's Yard and Mitre Square in the same night, so i'm not that impressed that he may have performed a similar feat before.

[Billiou]

Not that it matters, but I absolutely agree 100%. Christer has never been anything but polite and helpful with me and I appreciate his willingness to share as has everyone who's responded to my post(save a few). We don't need the personal attacks, just some good old fashion ribbing and teasing would be fine.

Columbo

Agree.

[Columbo]

Not that this isn't interesting, but we sure got off topic of the thread.

Columbo

[Billiou]

My advice to anybody who wants to study the Nichols murder is to try and differentiate between the sources.

To me, this is an important point. Don't just look at one newspaper account of the Inquest, look at them all.
Unfortunately we don't have an exact word for word account of what was said at the Nichols Inquest. The newspaper accounts will depend on what the reporter heard, what he wrote down, what he typed up to give to his editor, what the editor did to this, and how accurate the typesetter was in the final newspaper edition.
Example:
Mizen's words?:
The Times: When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street.
The Star: Cross, when he spoke to witness about the affair, was accompanied by another man. Both went down Hanbury-street.
The Echo: By the Coroner - There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness. The other man, who went down Hanbury-street, appeared to be working with Cross.
The Morning Advertiser: The Coroner - There was another man in company with Cross? The Witness - Yes. I think he was also a carman.

So we see that TMA is the only newspaper to report what seems to be the actual words of the Coroner and Mizen. The Coroner asks the questions, Mizen replies. The Times and The Star have made this into a statement that Mizen didn't make.
Then The Echo, which does include what are replies to questions "By the Coroner", adds Mizen's replies as "There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness" [compares well to the TMA account - and note that all accounts mention Cross speaking to Mizen, not Paul], and "The other man, who went down Hanbury-street, appeared to be working with Cross" [this must have been in answer to the Cornoer's question, but whether only adding to his response to the Coroner's first question, or answering another question, we do not know].

The TMA account of "The other man, who went down Hanbury-street" changes to "both went down Hanbury St" in The Times and The Star.

Why this happened, and what Mizen actually did say, are both open to question, and we will never know for sure.

[Columbo]

As i wrote, what we were left with about that night is so convuleted that it's just natural that we tend to pick what we are inclined to believe, and dismiss everything else. The first thing i asked myself when i readed about the Lechmere theory was what i already asked you: since it's seems corroborated that Paul and Lechmere both get in contact with Mizen, how is possible that Lechmere talk about a policemen that Paul could have not seen, without Paul pointing that out? Stating that "Mizen talked with Lechmere only" or "Paul was not involved in the conversation" or similar, is not a satisfactory answer. It does not help that Mizen was apparently not able to remember himself if he talked with one guy, or two.

If a policeman was indeed mentioned, it's more likely, at that point, that the two were in league with each other. Or that Paul did not care at all about what happened. Sure thing is, a supposedly guilty Lechmere took an enormous risk in trying a so blunt lie in front of someone who could unmaks it almost immediatly.

Let's assume, however, and whetever a policeman was mentioned or not, that the two just informed Mizen that there was something in need of his attention, and that something was a possibly attacked woman. Whatever the ramification of that conversation was, Mizen was probably supposed to stop the men and go there with them no matter what was said, and who said it. He did not, and we don't know why. It's likely, however, that he did it in good faith, possibly believing that whatever was happening required indeed it's immediate presence.

One thing that puzzles me, on this point, is why Mizen did not try to insist about having been fooled by Lechmere about the policeman thing (given that he may have supposed he was). And if he did, why none apparently took him seriously.

I don't have the knowledge i would need to state that Lechmere, or whoever else, could have been able or not to sneak away given what kind of surveillance was in the area (which i don't know either). However, we know that, by the minute, three policemen were going to be in the immediate area of the corpse, so it does not appear impossible to me that someone could have not escape elsewhere in the meanwhile.

You do very well with your english. You say it's a second language?

I think technically he wasn't fooled but lied to about a cop being there. It just happened to work out in Lechmere's favor. Good point none the less.

Columbo

[Columbo]

To me, this is an important point. Don't just look at one newspaper account of the Inquest, look at them all.
Unfortunately we don't have an exact word for word account of what was said at the Nichols Inquest. The newspaper accounts will depend on what the reporter heard, what he wrote down, what he typed up to give to his editor, what the editor did to this, and how accurate the typesetter was in the final newspaper edition.
Example:
Mizen's words?:
The Times: When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street.
The Star: Cross, when he spoke to witness about the affair, was accompanied by another man. Both went down Hanbury-street.
The Echo: By the Coroner - There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness. The other man, who went down Hanbury-street, appeared to be working with Cross.
The Morning Advertiser: The Coroner - There was another man in company with Cross? The Witness - Yes. I think he was also a carman.

So we see that TMA is the only newspaper to report what seems to be the actual words of the Coroner and Mizen. The Coroner asks the questions, Mizen replies. The Times and The Star have made this into a statement that Mizen didn't make.
Then The Echo, which does include what are replies to questions "By the Coroner", adds Mizen's replies as "There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness" [compares well to the TMA account - and note that all accounts mention Cross speaking to Mizen, not Paul], and "The other man, who went down Hanbury-street, appeared to be working with Cross" [this must have been in answer to the Cornoer's question, but whether only adding to his response to the Coroner's first question, or answering another question, we do not know].

The TMA account of "The other man, who went down Hanbury-street" changes to "both went down Hanbury St" in The Times and The Star.

Why this happened, and what Mizen actually did say, are both open to question, and we will never know for sure.

Well done.

It's gonna boil down to what you want to believe, but as Fisherman has stated you have to look at the whole picture with Lechmere, and take everything into context.

Columbo

[Columbo]

One point that i think it's interesting is the fact that, apparently, nor Lechmere nor Paul have any means to shed some light on the scene, while the policemen were equipped with their lanterns.

Their behaviour at the scene, try to move the woman or check for her body to verify the presence of life or not, it's valid given that they may have not able to see the still flowing blood.

Apart from that...well, i'm not the kind that use to explain strange or daring behaviours with insanity or some unexplainable mystery with the use of superpowers...but whoever run from Buck's Row MAY have been the same human who escaped from Dutfield's Yard and Mitre Square in the same night, so i'm not that impressed that he may have performed a similar feat before.

It is interesting that, as far as I know, neither of them struck a match. That makes me think there was enough lighting for them to just make out Polly but not enough as to show details, i.e. flowing blood.

Columbo

[GUT]

It is interesting that, as far as I know, neither of them struck a match. That makes me think there was enough lighting for them to just make out Polly but not enough as to show details, i.e. flowing blood.

Columbo

Or neither had a match on them.