Favorite suspect/s?

[caz]

How are your "large flaps" these days, by the way?

That's a bit personal, Gareth.

Ah, you were asking Fish, regarding his signature tune. Thank cod for that.

Reminds me:

Q: What are the vital statistics of your average mermaid?

A: 36-22-three and six a pound.

I think that was one of Tommy Cooper's.

Q: How does a tailor take a woman's inside leg measurement?

A: He sticks the tape measure up the leg as far as it will go, takes the wet from the dry and adds half an inch for turn-ups.

Now that was one of my late father-in-law's gems.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Blimus, Caz!

[caz]

Now, if Paul was some way away from Lechmere, and out of earshot, as I suggest may have been the case, what was Mizen supposed to answer?

"The other man was some way away from the man I now know to be Cross, and out of earshot when we spoke, so he wasn't technically present at the time"?

And Cross would have been cross - seething in fact - to learn that Mizen had been both meticulously accurate and perceptive to a fault.

All the hullaballoo about how Mizen would have offered the information that Paul was in company with Lechmere as the latter spoke to him suddenly evaporates when we look at the real picture.

I think you mean the surreal picture, Fish. It's the English nuance thing again, so not your fault.

But is HAS now been established that there are no viable grounds for claiming that they must have been close to each other.

Wrong way round. It has NOT been established that there are viable grounds for claiming that Paul wasn't a party to the conversation, especially considering his account of it in the newspaper. How could he have hoped to get away with his complaint about Mizen if he didn't actually have a clue what Cross had reported to him?

CROSS TO PC MIZEN : Ah, officer, you are wanted by PC Daft in Buck's Row, where a cat has its eyes on a pigeon. No rush, he says, just poodle along there when you've finished knocking up and had a nice cuppa and a full English.

PAUL TO THE PRESS : Shame on that copper for leaving the poor bird to her fate. Cold as ice she was and feathers - sorry, blood [got carried away there] all over the shop. I told him she was a gonner but would he listen? Would he fvck? All coppers are bastards etc etc...

All in all, I think matters like these are extremely crucial to the Lechmere case.

Crucial to making a case, you mean.

Once we dismantle prejudiced, faulty and baseless assumptions that have...

...been used to try and build a case from nothing, Fish will just find another way of 'mantling' them all over again.

Love,

Caz
X

[FrankO]

Christer,

A late reaction, I know, but I had other things to do. I don’t think it will change anything, but here it is anyway.

Thanks, Frank, missed that one - but it is the same wording more or less exactly.

Not exactly, Christer. True or not, it tells that Paul didn’t walk on while Lechmere spoke to Mizen.

How do you feel about Mizens options? Was he likely to answer "no" to Baxters question? Regardless if they were one, three, five or ten yards apart?

Not likely to answer “no”, but if Paul walked on when Lechmere stopped to talk to Mizen, then just an outspoken “yes” would be odd, certainly from a police officer. An outspoken “yes” would only fit with Paul not walking on.

It would be interesting to know how Mizen got the impression that Paul and Lechmere were co-workers walking to work together. It’s logical to think he thought so because they entered the street together (more or less next to each other), walked together to where Mizen was and that they both looked like carmen. But it wasn't because Lechmere told Mizen that HE AND THE OTHER MAN had found a woman, according to the statements of both Mizen and Lechmere.

And how do you feel about what I am saying about the Morning Advertiser? Surely, it leaves the door wide open for Paul having been out of earshot?

If you only take into account what this particular newspaper printed, then it would leave the door wide open for that. But, as it stands, we can’t just ignore what the Times and other newspapers printed. Bottom line is that what we’ve got paints the picture of Lechmere and Paul entering Hanbury Street and walking together to where Mizen is, that Lechmere does (at least most of) the talking - which involves no more than a few short sentences - and that Paul does not walk on. Whether he’s out of earshot or not can’t be determined (if we leave Lechmere’s statement out), much less if this was a result of Lechmere’s doing. But it’s not suggested by the evidence as a whole.

Cheers,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Christer,

A late reaction, I know, but I had other things to do. I don’t think it will change anything, but here it is anyway.
Not exactly, Christer. True or not, it tells that Paul didn’t walk on while Lechmere spoke to Mizen.Not likely to answer “no”, but if Paul walked on when Lechmere stopped to talk to Mizen, then just an outspoken “yes” would be odd, certainly from a police officer. An outspoken “yes” would only fit with Paul not walking on.

It would be interesting to know how Mizen got the impression that Paul and Lechmere were co-workers walking to work together. It’s logical to think he thought so because they entered the street together (more or less next to each other), walked together to where Mizen was and that they both looked like carmen. But it wasn't because Lechmere told Mizen that HE AND THE OTHER MAN had found a woman, according to the statements of both Mizen and Lechmere. If you only take into account what this particular newspaper printed, then it would leave the door wide open for that. But, as it stands, we can’t just ignore what the Times and other newspapers printed. Bottom line is that what we’ve got paints the picture of Lechmere and Paul entering Hanbury Street and walking together to where Mizen is, that Lechmere does (at least most of) the talking - which involves no more than a few short sentences - and that Paul does not walk on. Whether he’s out of earshot or not can’t be determined (if we leave Lechmere’s statement out), much less if this was a result of Lechmere’s doing. But it’s not suggested by the evidence as a whole.

Cheers,
Frank

A shining example of how a post should be written, if I may say so - you stick with your picture, but wisely leave the door open for being wrong.

You acknowledge that Mizen was not likely to answere "no" - but you think that if Paul walked on, then you would have expected more than a "yes". Of course, there is also the option that Paul simply stayed on the other side of the street, waiting, as Lechmere spoke, and so he could have been out of earshot.

You ask why Mizen got the impression that the two men were trekking together, and just as you suggest, I think they may well have turned the corner up at Bucks Row together, perhaps even speaking to each other. That, however, is no guarantee that they remianed together subsequently - which you wisely recognize.

I am with you when it comes to the impression given by the various papers - it speaks of two men in company with each other. I am also with you on how that does not guarantee that they were in close company as Lechmere spoke to Mizen. You do ot mention it, but I believe you -just like me - will ascribe some of the doubt one can have on the point to how Mizen said that " a man" came up to him and spoke, not "two men". It is - at least in my view - indicative of Paul not having been part of that conversation. Not conclusive, but clearly indicative.

A very good post, Frank, and much needed.

[caz]

prima facie case
Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun Law.
a case in which the evidence produced is sufficient to enable a decision or verdict to be made unless the evidence is rebutted.

'...unless the evidence is rebutted'. And there we have it.

'In law, rebuttal is a form of evidence that is presented to contradict or nullify other evidence that has been presented by an adverse party.'

If Scobie was never presented with any form of rebuttal, how could he judge the evidence against Lechmere fairly?

Prima facie means, more or less "at first glance" "on the face of things". This is what Scobie said and meant, and what he reinforced that by adding that it was a prima facie case "that suggested he was guilty".

Meaning that if we go only by what the prosecution says, Lechmere looks guilty and there is enough in it to make for a court case - SO FAR!

Every post you write, Fish, 'suggests he was guilty'! But would you seriously have been happy to see Lechmere hang on that basis, literally or figuratively, without allowing him a rebuttal presented by any of the more moderate voices on this thread?

He leaves the defence untouched upon, since he never saw it. But you and me both know that there IS no real defence, and absolutely nothing that can clear Lechmere.

Your opinion. Have you checked he had no alibis for the murders almost certainly committed by the killer of Nichols?

It would all come down to his answers in court and his ability to bolster them.

Rubbish. Lechmere wouldn't even have to give evidence, or prove he had alibis for any of the murders.

Of course, if the defence could dig up evidence that Lechmere could not be the killer, the case would be dismissed. But could they?

Again, it wouldn't matter, because the prosecution has to prove he was not only at the scene and with the victim before she was attacked, but that he was her killer beyond reasonable doubt.

"Not guilty, M'lud!""

And I am unanimous in that.

Love,

Mollie Sugden
X

PS No, I'm not losing it today, everyone, with all the silliness and levity. I just had some rather exciting news this morning. All will eventually be revealed.

[Fisherman]

This is victim mentality piled upon victim mentality. I have not used ‘propaganda’ and I have not stated or implied that either Scobie or Griffiths were misled.

My initial point was about Scobie who appeared to be basing his judgment on a dossier which was basically the case against CL. You pointed out that this was standard practice. My following, and ongoing ‘point’ would be that it’s difficult to understand how, on one hand you accept that Scobie only heard one side of the debate, whilst on the other you keep using his opinion (arrived at by reading a one-sided viewpoint) to show the ‘strength’ of the case against CL.

The point about you accusing CL being the ripper was made in response to points being made and wasn’t meant to be my suggestion that suspects shouldn’t be researched. I was merely suggesting that before we outright accuse someone of being Jack The Ripper (with a high level of confidence) we should at least ensure that that we have significant and sufficient evidence. We should not accuse lightly is another way of putting it. And yes I’m not keen on accusing people of being a serial killer on the flimsiest of pretexts.

And you go on about "victim mentality". Again! You just cannot help yourself, can you?

I use Scobies stance as a sign of the strenght of the prosecution case. Since he (probably) didn´t see the defence - which in my view only amounts to offering alternative reasons for the many accusation points - I cannot use it in any other way. I never said that Scobie crushed the defence, did I? I say that he sees enough in the prosecution part to state that there is a prima facie case to answer and that suggests that Lechmere was guilty.

If you want more evidence then there is in Lechmere´s case, then you actually are not prepared to allow for anybody at all being pointed at as a Ripper suspect. No other suspect compares in that department, and consequentially, no other suspects has ever been weighed by a barrister and found good (or bad) enough for a trial.

If a barrister says that the prosecution evidence is sufficient, then I´d say apart from conclusive proof, we can find no more sufficient grounds for naming a person as a suspect.

And in this context, you must accept that the alternative explanations so richly suggested by you and others, are not any facts at all. Rwturning to Scobie, he said that a jury would not like the material adhering to Lechmere one bit, and that has to stand as long as no REAL reason to alter it surfaces. For example, when I say that he always otherwise used the name Lechmere in contact with authorities and that he is never recorded to have used the name Cross by his own choice other than in combination with a murder inquest, then we should not fool ourselves into believing that it is an established fact that he used Cross at Pickfords. It is not, it is nothing but a suggestion and we have no idea how Lechmere would have answered the point if the question was ever asked from him in a trial.
The same goes for the other alternative suggestions: they represent a rich source of helpful alternative thinking that is tied to a number of rippeologists today and not to Lechmere himself. The accusation points, however, are factually grounded.

They may all have had factual answers if asked in 1888 - but as long as they were not, it remains that what we actually KNOW speaks against the carman being innocent. It tells a story that the jury would not like, as per Scobie.

[Sam Flynn]

This "a man" red herring really needs to be put to bed. The account of Mizen's testimony reads:

"Constable G. Mizen, 56 H, stated that at a quarter past 4 on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, and a man passing said "You are wanted in Baker's-row [sic]"... When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man"

When he spoke. When. Not before or after, but when.

[Elamarna]

Then I would have to ask Fish why he thinks PC Mizen was either stupid, deliberately misleading, or both. Why did he think he was being asked about anyone else who was present when a conversation had taken place between him and the man who had just come from the scene of the latest murder?? Just something to say to pass the time of day?

If the other carman had walked off out of earshot, and was not present for all or part of that conversation, or had an ear trumpet that he wasn't using, that's what Mizen should - and arguably would - have stated, to make it clear that this other man wasn't actually in on what was being said.

Love,

Caz
X

Problem Caz is that such does not fit the narrative of "Killer Lechmere".


Steve

[Fisherman]

'...unless the evidence is rebutted'. And there we have it.

'In law, rebuttal is a form of evidence that is presented to contradict or nullify other evidence that has been presented by an adverse party.'

If Scobie was never presented with any form of rebuttal, how could he judge the evidence against Lechmere fairly?



Every post you write, Fish, 'suggests he was guilty'! But would you seriously have been happy to see Lechmere hang on that basis, literally or figuratively, without allowing him a rebuttal presented by any of the more moderate voices on this thread?



Your opinion. Have you checked he had no alibis for the murders almost certainly committed by the killer of Nichols?



Rubbish. Lechmere wouldn't even have to give evidence, or prove he had alibis for any of the murders.



Again, it wouldn't matter, because the prosecution has to prove he was not only at the scene and with the victim before she was attacked, but that he was her killer beyond reasonable doubt.

"Not guilty, M'lud!""

And I am unanimous in that.

Love,

Mollie Sugden
X

PS No, I'm not losing it today, everyone, with all the silliness and levity. I just had some rather exciting news this morning. All will eventually be revealed.

First: given the quality of your posts, do not call my posts rubbish.

Second: Would I hang Lechmere on the evidence avaliable? I have answered that question before, and I´m afraid I was not as blood-thirsty as you seem to hope for ("he would do anything to hang the poor, poor man, believe me"). No, I would not hang Lechmere on the evidence existing.

However, I would not free him, as you suggest, on account of suggestions made by posters out here! Certainly not! It would require REAL facts, telling us that he COULD NOT be the killer. What is produced out here is a shitload of alternative, innocent explanations, and as i keep saying, such explanations can ALWAYS be provided. Maybe Wilkes didn´t shoot Lincoln? Maybe he just pressed the gun to his head, whole somebody else did the shooting from behind? Maybe ballistics should be disregarded since the police may have swopped the bullets?
You see, no matter how clear-cut a case is, alternative innocent explanations can ALWAYS be provided. Using them to clear Lechmere in retrospect would be, to lend a phrase from a great thinker out here (specialising in misogyny and related topics) - outright rubbish.

[Fisherman]

Problem Caz is that such does not fit the narrative of "Killer Lechmere".

Steve

That is not strictly correct. The two could have agreed to con Mizen, as I said before.

But just as you say, there may be things that do not sit well with the picture of Lechmere as the killer.

Is it a problem for you that I in such cases look for how he could nevertheless be the killer? After all, I believe he was and I am researching him as the killer, and so I feel I must test if the accusations can hold water.

Perhaps you want to join Caz, knitting, baking and reading instead of being subjeted to the harsh reality of somebody actually presenting a long since dead man as a Ripper suspect?

Is it not time to end this charade now? To stop the crocodile tears flowing? And to try and get some sort of foothold in reality?

You can begin by answering Gary Barnetts post directed to you. Speaking about a dire need to get real.

[Fisherman]

This "a man" red herring really needs to be put to bed. The account of Mizen's testimony reads:

"Constable G. Mizen, 56 H, stated that at a quarter past 4 on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, and a man passing said "You are wanted in Baker's-row [sic]"... When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man"

When he spoke. When. Not before or after, but when.

"A" man passing. Not "two men passing". And there are other representations of it. Plus there is Mizens pointing out of Lechmere as "the man he spoke to" or something such. Not "one of the two men he spoke to".

The Morning Advertiser (nowadays the paper the anti-Lechmereian brigade loaths more than any other paper) has it:

Police constable George Maizen (sic), 55 H, said - On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row). The man appeared to be a carman. (The man, whose name is George Cross, was brought in and witness identified him as the man who spoke to him on the morning in question).
I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.

The Coroner - There was another man in company with Cross?

The Witness - Yes. I think he was also a carman.

There goes YOUR red herring.

Nota bene how Paul is left out - as if he was never present or parttaking in the conversation. As if he was never even there, actually, until Baxter mentions him.

Now, what do we do when we have different wordings and different possible interpretations? Correct: we decide that just the one that fit our purposes is relied upon. And... no, wait - where did I get that from? It´s just plain wrong and lousy research. What I REALLY wanted to say was "we read Frank van Oploos post, since it shows us how a REALLY discerning poster does his homework".

I think your red herring may have turned blue in the face by now (sorry, couldn´t help myself. )

[Fisherman]

"The other man was some way away from the man I now know to be Cross, and out of earshot when we spoke, so he wasn't technically present at the time"?

And Cross would have been cross - seething in fact - to learn that Mizen had been both meticulously accurate and perceptive to a fault.



I think you mean the surreal picture, Fish. It's the English nuance thing again, so not your fault.



Wrong way round. It has NOT been established that there are viable grounds for claiming that Paul wasn't a party to the conversation, especially considering his account of it in the newspaper. How could he have hoped to get away with his complaint about Mizen if he didn't actually have a clue what Cross had reported to him?

CROSS TO PC MIZEN : Ah, officer, you are wanted by PC Daft in Buck's Row, where a cat has its eyes on a pigeon. No rush, he says, just poodle along there when you've finished knocking up and had a nice cuppa and a full English.

PAUL TO THE PRESS : Shame on that copper for leaving the poor bird to her fate. Cold as ice she was and feathers - sorry, blood [got carried away there] all over the shop. I told him she was a gonner but would he listen? Would he fvck? All coppers are bastards etc etc...



Crucial to making a case, you mean.



...been used to try and build a case from nothing, Fish will just find another way of 'mantling' them all over again.

Love,

Caz
X

If there is something - anything - of real relevance in this post, could you please point it out to me? I can´t find it, and I don´t want to seem misogynous by looking like I avoid you.

[caz]

First: given the quality of your posts, do not call my posts rubbish.

Is that an order? I don't think I called a whole post of yours rubbish, did I? Just something you wrote in one of them. But if the cap fits...

No, I would not hang Lechmere on the evidence existing.

Now that wasn't rubbish. I trust Scobie would be of the same meaning. Sorry, I meant 'opinion'. I'm not turning Swedish, honestly!

However, I would not free him, as you suggest, on account of suggestions made by posters out here! Certainly not!

So what then? Put him in some kind of eternal limbo of suspicion? Pull out his toenails until he coughs? If he doesn't, confine him in history's prison because he can't be proved innocent?

What is produced out here is a shitload of alternative, innocent explanations...

That many, eh? How many guilty ones have you managed to produce?

You see, no matter how clear-cut a case is, alternative innocent explanations can ALWAYS be provided. Using them to clear Lechmere in retrospect would be, to lend a phrase from a great thinker out here (specialising in misogyny and related topics) - outright rubbish.

Except that everyone here has acknowledged that Lechmere can't effectively be cleared - only presumed innocent unless he can be proven guilty, in the time-honoured fashion. So who are you accusing of clearing Lechmere using this shitload of innocent explanations?

By the way, that really stung you, didn't it, when you wrote that misogynous rubbish and were rightly called out on it. If you don't like your posts being described as misogynous, don't write misogynous posts in the first place, and then try to shift the blame onto the person they were directed at. I don't actually give a stuff because at least you didn't say it in private or behind my back, so it tells us all something useful. But don't insult your readers by pretending you didn't write it and mean it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

And you go on about "victim mentality". Again! You just cannot help yourself, can you?

No I can’t Fish. You are constantly accusing other people of things that you yourself are guilty of.

I use Scobies stance as a sign of the strenght of the prosecution case. Since he (probably) didn´t see the defence - which in my view only amounts to offering alternative reasons for the many accusation points WHAT?!?! - I cannot use it in any other way. I never said that Scobie crushed the defence, did I? I say that he sees enough in the prosecution part to state that there is a prima facie case to answer and that suggests that Lechmere was guilty.

I let anyone judge this point - If a barrister is presented with a prosecution case and says “its looking good “ you are not in the least worried about trumpeting the merit of that opinion? You don’t feel that evidence that might have been presented by the defence might have had a bearing on the prosecution Barristers opinion? You think that a prosecutor might still be willing to say “yes there’s a good enough case to proceed,” knowing, for example, that the defence might have either evidence that throws serious doubts or even evidence that the killer was 200 miles away at the time. Why can’t you accept this?

If you want more evidence then there is in Lechmere´s case, then you actually are not prepared to allow for anybody at all being pointed at as a Ripper suspect. No other suspect compares in that department, and consequentially, no other suspects has ever been weighed by a barrister and found good (or bad) enough for a trial.

He was near the body in Buck’s Row. No reason at all to get carried away though.

If a barrister says that the prosecution evidence is sufficient, then I´d say apart from conclusive proof, we can find no more sufficient grounds for naming a person as a suspect.

And that opposing viewpoints and alternative interpretations are inconvenient and therefore surplus to requirements. I’d have a guess that the Barrister was called Holmgren.

And in this context, you must accept that the alternative explanations so richly suggested by you and others, are not any facts at all. Rwturning to Scobie, he said that a jury would not like the material adhering to Lechmere one bit, and that has to stand as long as no REAL reason to alter it surfaces.

The fact that he chose to remain and put his head in the noose while he could easily have escaped is a FACT.

For example, when I say that he always otherwise used the name Lechmere in contact with authorities and that he is never recorded to have used the name Cross by his own choice other than in combination with a murder inquest, then we should not fool ourselves into believing that it is an established fact that he used Cross at Pickfords. It is not, it is nothing but a suggestion and we have no idea how Lechmere would have answered the point if the question was ever asked from him in a trial.

Conveniently omitting the fact that he used his real Christian names and gave his correct address. And the fact that Cross was his step-fathers name and that he’d previously used it in a census. The ‘name thing’ is a red herring.

The same goes for the other alternative suggestions: they represent a rich source of helpful alternative thinking that is tied to a number of rippeologists today and not to Lechmere himself. The accusation points, however, are factually grounded.

Don’t really understand that bit?

They may all have had factual answers if asked in 1888 - but as long as they were not, it remains that what we actually KNOW speaks against the carman being innocent. It tells a story that the jury would not like, as per Scobie.

You should organise a mock-trial Fish. I’d be staggered beyond belief if CL was found guilty. I’d also expect the judge to criticise the prosecution for wasting the courts time.

Like most ‘suspects’ we cannot categorically exonerate CL. Its overwhelmingly unlikely that we will ever be able to unless we get freakishly lucky (or unlucky from your point of view) and someone finds proof that CL was elsewhere at the time of one of the murders. There is a difference though between suspecting that CL might have been guilty and continuing to research him and having such a high level of confidence in his guilt based on such flimsy or non-existence evidence. The constant refrain of “well its not impossible” really does speak of the weakness of the case. No jury would come even close to finding CL guilty on the evidence that exists.