Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Favorite suspect/s?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Robert View Post
    In Paul's Press interview of September 2nd, which is coloured by Paul's seeming attempt to cast himself in the starring role while relegating Crossmere to a supporting player, Paul says that he spoke to Mizen and complained that Mizen had continued with the knocking up.

    It must have been this interview which prompted the question to Mizen next day about his continuing to knock up, which Mizen denied, saying that he merely finished the knock-up that he'd started.

    I would suggest that if Paul had not spoken to Mizen at all, the latter would have been anxious to contradict, in the clearest possible terms, not only Paul's allegation about the knocking up but also Paul's statement that he spoke to him. But he did not.

    What's more, Mizen would probably have known what Crossmere was about to say, because Crossmere had made a statement to the police. If Mizen knew that Crossmere was about to say that Paul too had spoken to him, then that would have given him an extra incentive to contradict Paul.

    It seems to me that Paul may have been lying or exaggerating about the continued knocking-up, but was telling the truth about speaking to Mizen.
    "I would suggest that if Paul had not spoken to Mizen at all, the latter would have been anxious to contradict, in the clearest possible terms, not only Paul's allegation about the knocking up but also Paul's statement that he spoke to him. But he did not."

    He clearly said that ONE man came up to him and spoke to him, and the coroner asked if there was not another man present as the conversation took place, which Mizen answered with a "yes". It seems clear enough to me that Mizen never said that Paul was in any way involved in the conversation.

    "What's more, Mizen would probably have known what Crossmere was about to say, because Crossmere had made a statement to the police. If Mizen knew that Crossmere was about to say that Paul too had spoken to him, then that would have given him an extra incentive to contradict Paul."

    That´s a probably only, since we do not know at what time Lechmere surfaced. I do not really see what you are trying to say here - surely, if mizen thought that Lechmere would say that Paul spoke too, then why would he contradict that? It could well look very bad on his behalf.

    Personally, I don´t think that Mizen did anything wrong, nor do I think that he planned ahead to deny what Paul had to say in the interview - I think he knew himself that he only finished the knocking up in one errand and he probably also believed that Lechmere would confirm that if the issue came up.
    I think Jonas Mizen did what he was supposed to to, was fooled by Lechmere, didn´t realize that, just as nobody else seemed to see the potential explosive power of what was said - and that the topic of what was said was allowed to fade away because nobody realized that Lechmere could be something else than he seemed to be.

    Comment


    • It’s perhaps strange that a guilty CL came up with the ‘Mizen Scam’ on the spot to avoid being detained and questioned by the police when, just a few minutes earlier, he’d invited danger and police interference by not escaping from the scene of the crime when he had ample opportunity. For all he knew Paul’s footsteps in the dark might have been those of a policeman on his beat and yet he remained to face the music. Even if CL had known that the footsteps werent those of a police officer he would have been on safe ground in assuming that the newcomer would suggest finding one.
      If CL intended a plan then there are a couple of points that i believe are worth mentioning. Wouldnt Paul have felt it a little strange if CL appeared determined to speak to Mizen alone and out of earshot and wouldnt there have been a risk of Paul mentioning this fact? Wasnt CL fortunate that Paul didnt just stick at CL’s side and insist on being present at the conversation with Mizen? I havent looked back into the facts recently but Paul gave a statement to Lloyd’s and, as far as i can recall, didnt give the impression of reticence. Didnt his statement exaggerate his own involvement?
      If CL was guilty Paul came upon him just after hed murdered Polly, before he’d had any opportunity to clean up or even calm down (you might assume that the adrenaline was pumping) and yet, apart from the initial doubt about being approached in the street, he expressed no doubt or suspicion about CL. He walked with him to find a Constable, no doubt they spoke. He was there when they met Mizen. He saw no blood on him or found anything about him that invited suspicion. The same goes for Mizen (whose job it was to be suspicious of people.) Now, of course im not suggesting that this is anything like proof of innocence. Im just saying that its apoint worth mentioning.
      The main gyst of this post is to highlight something that i feel might be termed a ‘behavioural discrepancy.’ On the one hand we have a ‘thrill-seeker’ brazening it out when he had absolutely no need to yet, on the other hand, we have the cautious CL, quick-witted and cautious enough to come up with a ‘scam’ on-the-spot to avoid being questioned by the police. Someone that suddenly doesnt wish to attract unwanted attention. Then we have to consider that this man, who doesnt appear want to draw unneccesary attention from the police, has just killed a woman at the very spot that he (and for all we know only Paul too) passed 6 days a week at just that time. There’s a saying about not doing things on your own doorstep. If we discuss geography then surely this is a bit of a geographical howler on CL’s part? We cant be certain of course but there is a realistic chance that this was his first kill. Could he have chosen a more incriminating spot?
      This is just the starting point of the case against CL but after this there are far fewer ‘knowns.’ We have to start working much harder to build suspicion against CL. Ill say again that we cannot categorically exonerate CL. There is nothing wrong with finding him a person of interest but i simply cant see how a level of confidence can be built up in his guilt. Maybe, in time more evidence will surface and the balance might tip in his favour. Until then i see no reason to assert that he was Jack the Ripper.
      Regards

      Herlock






      "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

      Comment


      • Fish, if you are agreeing that Paul was present when Crossmere spoke to Mizen, then how is the Mizen scam supposed to have occurred?

        Comment


        • . He clearly said that ONE man came up to him and spoke to him, and the coroner asked if there was not another man present as the conversation took place, which Mizen answered with a "yes". It seems clear enough to me that Mizen never said that Paul was in any way involved in the conversation.
          Just because CL did the talking we cant assume a ‘scam.’ From your quote Mizen says that Paul was presentwhen the conversation took place. He doesn't say that he was 5 yards away and out of earshot. We have to assume, quite reasonably, that ‘present’ meant ‘standing in their company.’
          Regards

          Herlock






          "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

          Comment


          • I think Fish may be about to get mystical....

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Robert View Post
              Fish, if you are agreeing that Paul was present when Crossmere spoke to Mizen, then how is the Mizen scam supposed to have occurred?
              I didn´t even know that I was agreeing about that.

              Am I...?

              I somehow don´t think so.

              As I wrote yesterday, I can see a possibility of Lechmere talking Paul into agreeing about conning the first PC they met, in oder to be able to get to work in time, and in THAT case, Paul could have stood by as Lechmere spoke. And at the inquest, Paul would reasonably be reluctant to admit that they fooled Mizen. However, it would be risky for Lechmere, and so I favour the idea that Paul didn´t hear what was said.

              But now you seem to have decided for me that I do think Paul was present....?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Robert View Post
                I think Fish may be about to get mystical....
                When fish start to get mystical, it must be the Dawning of the Age of Aquariums.
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                Comment


                • I'm not sure what you think, Fish. This double Mizen scam is a new one on me.

                  In any case, you favour the idea that Paul didn't hear what was said. Since there is no record of Paul's being deaf, and since you insist that the street was quiet, I take it you think that Paul was present only briefly, and then went off?

                  Comment


                  • Nice one, Gareth. By the Fish Dimension, of course.

                    Comment


                    • Once we look at the Mizen scam, I think we are approacing it from different angles.

                      You say "Well, Lechmere would not be the killer, and so we need to understand why Mizen misunderstood or lied, since Lechmere cannot have said that there was another PC present in Bucks Row".

                      I say "Okay, there it is - that´s how we know that Lechmere was the killer; he scammed Mizen into allowing him and the knife free passage".

                      I do it the simple way, if you will. I take Mizens testimony at face value.

                      You do it the hard way - you predispose that he got it wrong or lied.

                      I add no extra layers to his testimony. You do.

                      Then again, turning it around, I add extra layers to Lechmeres testimony, since I think HE lied.

                      But basically this is the crux we are dealing with. Who to beleive? A PC with an excellent record, a deeply religious man who was very successful in managing his fathers business? Or a carman who managed to raise a dozen kids and rise to a shop owner, seemingly doing well for himself and his family?

                      You know who my money is firmly on.

                      If Lechmeres working trek had not been at the right time and through exactly the right area.

                      If his mother had not lived in 1 Mary Ann Street when Stride died.

                      If Eddowes had not died more or less along his old working trek to Broad Street from James Street.

                      If the wounds in Bucks Row had not been covered.

                      If Paul had said "I saw him walking in front of me".

                      If Lechmere had said "My name? It´s Charles Allen Lechmere."

                      If Nichols had stopped bleeding before Neil and Mizen saw her.

                      If Lechmere had helped Paul prop Nichols up.

                      If Lechmere had said "I left home at close to 3.40 that morning."

                      If all of this had been the other way around, I would have said that there was nothing at all in it, and that it was a toss-up.

                      As it stands, not only has the coin already dropped to the ground, but it also has Charles Lechmeres face on the upside.

                      Comment


                      • Herlock, you write:

                        It’s perhaps strange that a guilty CL came up with the ‘Mizen Scam’ on the spot to avoid being detained and questioned by the police when, just a few minutes earlier, he’d invited danger and police interference by not escaping from the scene of the crime when he had ample opportunity.

                        What you need to pay attention to is how these two matters were not on the table initially. He decided to stay put and con the oncoming person, yes - and that is not something that makes an ex-murder squad surprised - quite the contrary.

                        But it was only as a development that he could not foresee at that stage, that he needed to come up with the scam. He may well have hoped to just con the oncomer and then be done.

                        What he thought when he realized that he was going to accompany Paul searching for a PC is written in the stars, but it could span from "damn it!" to "This is going to be fun!".

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                          Just because CL did the talking we cant assume a ‘scam.’ From your quote Mizen says that Paul was presentwhen the conversation took place. He doesn't say that he was 5 yards away and out of earshot. We have to assume, quite reasonably, that ‘present’ meant ‘standing in their company.’
                          We "have to assume" nothing of the sort, Herlock.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                            But basically this is the crux we are dealing with. Who to beleive? A PC with an excellent record, a deeply religious man who was very successful in managing his fathers business? Or a carman who managed to raise a dozen kids and rise to a shop owner, seemingly doing well for himself and his family?
                            Seems pretty even to me, Fish, although I would observe that being deeply religious is no guarantee of honesty.
                            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Robert View Post
                              I'm not sure what you think, Fish. This double Mizen scam is a new one on me.

                              In any case, you favour the idea that Paul didn't hear what was said. Since there is no record of Paul's being deaf, and since you insist that the street was quiet, I take it you think that Paul was present only briefly, and then went off?
                              I think that there is nothing at all gainsaying that the two men arrived in the street in close physical company with each other, and that Lechmere then said "There´s a copper! I´ll talk to him, and you just go on ahead so you won´t be late!"

                              For example. There are of course other possible scenarios too that would likely put Paul out of earshot. It is not exactly rocket science - unless we make it our business to claim it is.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                                Seems pretty even to me, Fish, although I would observe that being deeply religious is no guarantee of honesty.
                                It IS pretty even - that far. But then you need to add the list if anomalies I posted. After that, Lechmere is smoked, well and truly, in my eyes.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X