Favorite suspect/s?

[Fisherman]

He used the name of his step-father. A name that hed previously used on a census. Someone had obviously then told him though that on official documents he was obliged to use his true name. When the police asked he gave the name that he in all likelihood used from day to day. If he had anything to hide he would have a) given a completely different name or b) given the wrong address.

But he didnt. He gave a name that he used on a census (the surname of his step-father) and his correct address.

How long are you going to keep using this to create a ‘mystery’ where none exists?

Until evidence surfaces that he ever used the name "Cross" with any other authority than the police and the inquest - or any time at all, for that matter.

[Fisherman]

Now ive no doubt that Mr Scobie deserves an excellent reputation. Its been a while since i saw the documentary but i seem to recall him sitting at his desk leafing through a dossier. Im assuming that this dossier was compiled by yourself and Ed Stow and was therefore the case against CL?

Im quite happy to be corrected or informed here.

My point is an obvious one. Did Scobie also have the opportunity to read someones case for CL’s defence? Did he have, say, a month or so to completely familiarise himself with the case, conditions at the time, Victorian policing etc.

No matter how expert Scobie is on legal matters he would have needed to see both sides of the debate to form a balanced judgement (im sure that you see this.) Now he might have seen an argument from the opposing side. I dont know. Could you let us know Fish

As Paul Begg said when this was first debated: There was no need at all for Scobie to see the defences arguments. That was not what he was called upon to do. He was called upon to decide whether the case AGAINST Lechmere was a strong case, and he said it was.

What would the defence be able to say, Herlock? "But he seemed such a nice guy"?

[Jon Guy]

...which was some hundred yards away and where no train was recorded to have passed as Lechmere and Mizen spoke. It was a night where many people spoke about how dead silent it was.

There was a train passing through just after 4.30am, which Mrs Lilley heard.
Maybe not when the Mizen scam was taking place, but very possibly when Nichols was murdered.

[Abby Normal]

Let's keep it confined to East End residents, eh? Cross was certainly on a par with those, in that he lived locally and might have been in the vicinity at the appropriate times. We don't know that he was, though.

What’s so hard to understand that Leches route to work would bring him near the murder sites? At roughly the time of the murders at that?

He’s the best suspect there is in this regard.

Only Hutchinson and Chapman even come close.

[Fisherman]

Of course. He could say “im just off to visit my old mum,” at three o-clock in the morning.

It´s not funny and it carries no substance for the issue at hand, so I will just let this post of yours pass as a mistake.

[Fisherman]

What’s so hard to understand that Leches route to work would bring him near the murder sites? At roughly the time of the murders at that?

He’s the best suspect there is in this regard.

Only Hutchinson and Chapman even come close.

And they don´t come all that close. Chapman had lodgings in Cable Street, but he cannot be linked to the murder spots other than in the same capacity as most Eastenders: they were not all that far off.

Hutchinson can be linked to the Kelly site, but possibly not on the right day. The rest is written in the stars, and there is no reason to think he must have been close to any other murder site at the relevant hours.

Lechmere is VERY much ahead of the rest, and - as you say - the best suspect there is in the geographical regard. And he was actually standing all alone some little distance away from one of the murder victims at the approximate time of her death. That alone tells Lechmere totally apart from the others.

But they will not have any of it, Abby. Just wait and see.

[Elamarna]

The whole premise of your post is wrong. You say that I "refuse" to consider that Mizen lied, but how could I do that? I am saying that I don´t think he did, and that holds no refusal at all.

And no, I really don´t think there is any evidence at all pointing to Mizen as a liar. Let alone enough evidence to allow for saying straight out that he was, the way you did before.

Christer
you tell us, several times infact, what an honest, hard working , religious and thoroughly good chap Mizen was. You imply he is above and beyond reproach. Such is a highly subjective viewpoint, one which refuses to contemplate or consider the possabilities.

That there are sources which suggest Mizen may have lied, is "not up for disscussion" to quote your earlier posting.
The question of if that evidence is strong enough to make the case is however.
Given the seperate sources and nature of those sources, there is sufficient to strongly suggest that the part of his testimony refering to the exchange and subsequent actions are fabrications.

Steve

[Harry D]

What’s so hard to understand that Leches route to work would bring him near the murder sites? At roughly the time of the murders at that?.

Wouldn't he have been late for work during the Chapman murder?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Until evidence surfaces that he ever used the name "Cross" with any other authority than the police and the inquest - or any time at all, for that matter.

That speaks volumes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As Paul Begg said when this was first debated: There was no need at all for Scobie to see the defences arguments. That was not what he was called upon to do. He was called upon to decide whether the case AGAINST Lechmere was a strong case, and he said it was.

What would the defence be able to say, Herlock? "But he seemed such a nice guy"?

Again this speaks volumes.

To make a judgement he only needs to see the case for the prosecution. Poor old Lechmere if thats the justice he’s allowed!

[Sam Flynn]

As Paul Begg said when this was first debated: There was no need at all for Scobie to see the defences arguments. That was not what he was called upon to do. He was called upon to decide whether the case AGAINST Lechmere was a strong case, and he said it was.

What would the defence be able to say, Herlock? "But he seemed such a nice guy"?

I can't see how someone confronted with the bald facts could say that the case against Cross was a strong one - on the contrary, to make any kind of case at all one needs an additional layer of interpretation. Without this, we simply have a man who had adopted his stepfather's name, who saw what he thought was a woman lying on the pavement, called Paul's attention to it, examined it with Paul, and went with him to find a policeman.

That's no case at all, never mind a strong one, so one has to wonder what the "prosecution" dossier actually contained.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wouldn't he have been late for work during the Chapman murder?

Yes. So the time of death must be wrong Harry.

Thats how it works in Lechmere Land.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can't see how someone confronted with the bald facts could say that the case against Cross was a strong one - on the contrary, to make any kind of case at all one needs an additional layer of interpretation. Without this, we simply have a man who had adopted his stepfather's name, who saw what he thought was a woman lying on the pavement, called Paul's attention to it, examined it with Paul, and went with him to find a policeman.

That's no case at all, never mind a strong one, so one has to wonder what the "prosecution" dossier actually contained.

A very valid point Gareth

[Herlock Sholmes]

Christer
you tell us, several times infact, what an honest, hard working , religious and thoroughly good chap Mizen was. You imply he is above and beyond reproach. Such is a highly subjective viewpoint, one which refuses to contemplate or consider the possabilities.

That there are sources which suggest Mizen may have lied, is "not up for disscussion" to quote your earlier posting.
The question of if that evidence is strong enough to make the case is however.
Given the seperate sources and nature of those sources, there is sufficient to strongly suggest that the part of his testimony refering to the exchange and subsequent actions are fabrications.

Steve

Hi Steve,

You’re falling into the trap of not assuming CL to be guilty.

Hope this helps

[Sam Flynn]

What’s so hard to understand that Leches route to work would bring him near the murder sites? At roughly the time of the murders at that?

If you stand outside Christ Church Spitalfieds, you will be within easy walking-distance of all the murder sites, as were thousands of men who lived/worked in the vicinity in 1888. You would still be within easy reach of the murder sites if you stood at any point within a half-mile radius of Christ Church, for that matter - a radius which would, I daresay, raise the number of potential Rippers into the tens of thousands.

The truth is that Cross's route to work ONLY coincided with the site of Polly Nichols' murder and, if I'm going to be pedantic, we only know that to be true on the very morning of her death. All the rest is uncorroborated speculation.