The Mizen scam

[Ben]

Is it really too much to ask that Fisherman and Lechmere stop duplicating each other’s posts at such length? I realise there has been an awful lot of criticism and negative feedback for them to keep fending off (or trying to, at least), but couldn’t they take it in turns or at least check which points have been responded to? Come on, chaps, interested parties will want to read this thread from the start in order to get a good idea of what exactly is being proposed, but they’ll be deterred from doing so if it means having to wade through a whole load of rubble before alighting on anything of interest.

“At work, I try to add some healthy exercise by taking a walk each lunch. I have three different walks to choose from, all equally long.”

Cross wasn’t embarking on a leisurely work for the purpose of getting some “healthy exercise”, Fisherman. He needed to walk in order to get from his home and his place of work. The evidence is that he went via Hanbury Street, which was a very good and direct route that used the more major roads as opposed to a maze of alleys that he had no reason to be familiar with. It’s all very well to look at internet images of Victorian maps and go: “Ooh, look what I found! – an ever-so-slightly quicker route that he could have taken!”, but while you might have been a great help to Cross had you enlightened him in that regard in 1888, there is no good reason to think that he had ever explored – or was ever aware of – the alternatives. Remember how recently he had moved into the area…

“I understand that you are trying to invert things here, somehow trying to point to a suggestion that it would have taken a helluva lot for him to choose Old Montague Street and that he would have avoided it in the longest”

I’m simply pointing to the evidence, Fisherman, which is what you ought to interested in. The evidence is that he went to work via Hanbury Street. There is no evidence that he ever used, or ever knew about, the alternatives. If the route worked perfectly well, I can’t see him being arsed to explore other options. For what possible reason, anyway? To find a more scenic route? He’d have a job. The notion that he “chose” Hanbury Street implies that he was aware of the “choices”, but there’s no evidence that he was, and no good reason to suppose that he was either.

“1. He may have avoided to show Mizen that he used Old Montague Street, since the previous murder had taken place there a mere three weeks before the Nichols slaying. That would be a very good reason to use Hanbury Streeet instead!”

But my point, remember, was that the next murder was committed ON Hanbury Street. You have Cross the Ripper on the one hand avoiding Old Montague Street because he was worried that it might expose some sort of “link” with the Tabram murder from three weeks earlier, and yet committing a murder on Hanbury Street despite the fact that he had already been linked to that location, not just by a solitary policeman, but the entire newspaper-reading population of the country. Are you not spotting the inconsistency of reasoning here?

“2. Paul used Hanbury Street, and if he either wanted to read up more on him or simply wanted company on his morning walk, then Hanbury Street would also be the bettr choice. There, one more really "good" reason for that particular choice.”

“Reading up on him” wouldn’t have achieved a great deal, and anyone who “wanted company on his morning walk” is hardly likely to be a serial killer acting in the immediate aftermath of his crime.

“Yes, Ben. Mizen COULD connect him to the George Yard slaying, but he would in all probability not say "Stop there! Are you not the man who will kill on Hanbury Street next week?"

But once there had been a murder in Hanbury Street, there was every reason for Mizen (and everyone else who read the papers!) to make a connection between the mystery carman who first informed him of the Nichols murder, and the fact that this same carman then continued along Hanbury Street where the next murder was committed a week later.

“It can VERY easily be that Lechmere said "you walk on ahead and Iīll catch up with you!" Paul WAS pressed for time”

No, not “very easily”. Very implausibly. Very improbably...because no such detail appeared in most accounts of the inquest, which had Paul departing Cross’s company after the encounter with Mizen. No “calling back” was necessary on Mizen’s part, as it was simply a case of getting carman #1 to endorse what carman #2 had observed. There would have to be something moronically negligent about any police officer who failed to ascertain such a corroboration, and yet moronic negligence on the part of PC Mizen is one of the many unrealistic assumptions that this poorly received and highly derivative “Cross as ripper” theory relies upon.

“And why on earth would Mizen call Paul back to have it corroborated? If Lechmere had lied, then so could Paul.”

Why ask someone to corroborate someone else’s events? Isn’t that rather a silly question? And do you really not understand that it would reflect very poorly on Mizen’s competence had he not sought this corroboration? And why would Lechmere expect Paul to join in the lie? The two men had never met before, so what is to say they were remotely on the same wavelength, or that Paul wouldn’t become suspicious?

Mizen would not have been questioning the competence of Neil to enquire about the two Carmen. It would have been the most normal thing in the world. It needn’t have been an interrogation, i.e. “did you do your job properly and check then”. He could simply have asked about them – “What do you know about them?” “Did you find them with the body?”. It was such a startlingly obvious subject to come up, and I regard it is as borderline impossible that it did not.

“Why would he not say to the papers that Mizen had spoken of the two men to him, if this was the case”

Well obviously if Cross had never mentioned to Mizen that he and Paul had encountered a policeman in Buck’s Row, there was no reason for Mizen to quiz Neil over it, since he had no reason to believe that the two Carmen had ever been in contact with Neil.

“It only adds up one way, Iīm afraid. And itīs not your way.”

Which is why the overwhelmingly vast majority go with the explanation that there was no “Mizen scam”, and why you and Lechmere are pretty much on your own in suggesting there was one, presumably? It’s so important to cultivate a bit of humility with discussions such as these, especially when proposing a highly controversial idea that isn’t going down very well.

“Now, what you want is for Neil to say: "I see you saw my lamp and decided to answer my call. Anybody sent you here?"

or for Mizen to say

"Well, here I am, thanks to the two carmen you sent to fetch me".

It’s not about what I “want”. It’s about what we should rationally accept, and we should rationally accept that the two policemen would have discussed the subject of two men being the first at the scene of a crime. Or else there was something deeply wrong with them.

“But on the murder night he did NOT deny this - he in fact proposed it, as we know from the evidence given by Mizen”

Don’t “in fact” me. You know full well it is nothing of the sort. You know full well that Cross flatly denied having encountered any PC in Buck’s Row or mentioning any such encounter to PC Mizen. It was his word against Mizen’s. The only reason you rule out the perfectly logical and largely accepted explanation that Mizen had misremembered the circumstance of the initial meeting is because, as you so readily admit, you “want” Cross for the murders.

All the best,
Ben

[Lechmere]

Simon - one more strange thing is that if the initial Cross and Paul encounter over Polly's body took place at 3.45 - followed by their touchy feely act on her body - and then there was the slight delay with the Mizen-Cross-Paul encounter, and then he took the long scenic route up the very safe and non dangerous Hanbury Street with Paul, and then he still got to work on time at 4.00am
Unless he and Paul were in early training for the London Olympics and sprinted down Hanbury Street (hold on perhaps it was as dangerous as Old Montague Street) and Cross must have carried on with his gallop all the way to Broad Street - then there is no way he could have been at work by 4 am.

[Lechmere]

Ben I think you need to read back over this thread, through all those annoyingly duplicated posts, and you will see that every point your raised has been kicked into touch.

[Fisherman]

Jon:

"In the first, Lewis is not being questioned, in the second she is".

Jon, have a look at the emphasis you place on the so called loiterer. You think that he would represent a very significant bid for the killerīs role.
Then what about the police? Would they instead ignore him? Ignore a man that was standing outside Millerīs Court, roughly around the hour(s) when Kelly was killed?

My feeling is that they would not have refrained form asking Lewis, once she mentioned the man. She would not have left that police interview without having been asked repeatedly if there was not some little thing that she could provide on the man. The policewould not want to just leave it for the odd day; they would have been desperate to get anything on the guy - but Lewis could not provide it. Not a iota. Nothing. And going from that to describing a heavyset man, on the short side, with a black wideawake hat, looking up the court as if waiting for somebody, is not going from no desription to no description. The demeanor she describes is a very particular one, one that takes a good deal of observation on her behalf.

So I do not agree with you at all about this point. The two descriptions are very much unalike.

At any rate, you have the guy "within feet" of Kelly. Then how close was Lechmere to Nichols? Within the odd inch? No matter how you compare the two, Lechmere has the upper hand in terms ov viability as regards the connection to the victim, distancewise, timewise, wall- and doorwise. Why a feeling on your behalf that Lechmere seemed unsuspicious should change that fact is beyond me, quite frankly. And how it could more suspicious per se to look at an entrance passage as opposed to standing over the body of a freshly killed victim, is equally beyond me. What is it with Lechmere, that makes everybody see a necessarily good guy and striving provider, and nothing else. Clearly, Jon, the weighing you do here is very strange, resting solely on your gut feeling and not at all on the known facts adhering to each man.

I am in no way saying that you are not free to go by gut feeling, Jon - I sometimes do so myself - but given the multitude of potentially very damning evidence against Lechmere visavi our not knowing a single thing about the loiterer than a possible interest in arched passageways ...

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Abby:

"Since you have Lech as the ripper-please explain how you think the events of the night of MK's murder occured. AS in-where do you think he encountered her? Do you think she went out again after her encounter with A-man. Do you believe Hutchs story about seeing her? Do you beleive MK met Blotchy, Hutch, A-man and Lech all in the same night? The more details of your thoughts on the movements of all involved the better."

I have expanded on this many times before, Abby, so I will try and keep things short.

I think Leman Street, at the junction with Old Monague Street would be a fair guess for the encounter; Leman Street was Kellysīhunting grounds, as verified by both Harvey and Dew.

I donīt think she encountered Astrakhan man on the murder morning, but on the morning BEFORE that - which was why Hutchinsonīs story was awarded very reduced importance after this was found out. The hunt for Astrakhan remained as effectively shown by newspaper reports, since he remained a witness that had been in contact with Kelly a mer 24 hours before her demise.

Consequentially, I believe Hutchinsonīs testimony to be quintessentially or completely true, or at any rate given in good faith - but relating to the wrong date, as confirmed by the fact that he never mentioned Lewis (who would have stepped on his toes passing him by, more or less) and that neither press or police had anythingat all to say about the perceived corroboration inbetween Lewisīloiterer and Hutchinsonīs presence in Dorset Street.

By now, you will have realized that I put Blotchy - uncorroborated as he was - on the murder night, Hutchinson and Astrakhan on the night before that, and Lechmere at the time of death.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Cross wasn’t embarking on a leisurely work for the purpose of getting some “healthy exercise”, Fisherman. He needed to walk in order to get from his home and his place of work."

Makes not a iota of difference. If I can choose from two or more alternatives when repeatedly walking somewhere, I WILL choose different options for the variation, as long as the routes are roughly comparable - like Hanbury Street and Old Montague.

"No, not “very easily”. Very implausibly. Very improbably...because no such detail appeared in most accounts of the inquest"

Nobody asked about it at the inquest, Ben. Didnīt you notice?

Apart from a noteworthy instance where you try to teach me humility (!), I find you have already had answers to all the rest of your reoccuring questions.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"Ben I think you need to read back over this thread, through all those annoyingly duplicated posts, and you will see that every point your raised has been kicked into touch."

There you go, Lechmere. Iīm afraid I have just given voice to the exact same opinion, something Ben advices us against doing. Oh, well ...

All the best,
Fisherman

[Mr Lucky]

But once there had been a murder in Hanbury Street, there was every reason for Mizen (and everyone else who read the papers!) to make a connection between the mystery carman who first informed him of the Nichols murder, and the fact that this same carman then continued along Hanbury Street where the next murder was committed a week later.

Hi Ben

Yes, this is very good point, the 'mystery carman' was Robert Paul who hadn't contacted the police/coroner. He was eventually 'fetched up in the night' by the police, so the conjecture is that police did suspected him of some involvement in the murders. This is something that does need further study.

I'm trying to make a list of witnesses (not suspects) who were fetched up in the night to see how regularly this sort of thing happened, quite frankly I'm not doing very well with it at all.

If fact, my list of 'suspects' who were 'fetched up in the night' isn't going too well either.

Anyway, thanks for your help.

[curious]

What is it with Lechmere, that makes everybody see a necessarily good guy and striving provider, and nothing else.
Fisherman

Perhaps because you have not demonstrated any thing that really, really says he must be dangerous.

With Levy, he was an offal dresser, he had the necessary skills to commit the murder, ditto, Jacob Isenschmid, even Tumblety posed as a field surgeon and perhaps possessed the necessary skills.

We know nothing about whether Lechmere could handle a knife and subdue women so that no one heard anything. He was a carman and future grocer.

With his home situation, he could have given the name Cross to keep his wife from worrying. Remember, she was at home with a houseful of kids, had just had a baby and was dealing with the physical and emotional effects of that as well as nursing and caring for a new baby that might have been sick and dying. Trying to distance himself from a murder and trying to protect his wife from worry actually makes sense and makes him a good guy.

Fisherman, don't you think the killer must have known how to subdue women silently and then slice them up? Where did your carman learn to do that with his homelife and worklife so closely monitored that he had no time to kill except on his way to work?

While you tout all these "lies" and discrepancies, where is the world is any indication Lechmere had the necessary skills?

curious

[Lechmere]

We know Cross's mother had a cat meat business by 1891 and this business wAs kept in the family - one if Cross's children was still in the cat meat business up to the 1930s at least

[Damaso Marte]

Did Cross work Saturdays and Sundays?

[Fisherman]

Curious:

"With Levy, he was an offal dresser, he had the necessary skills to commit the murder, ditto, Jacob Isenschmid, even Tumblety posed as a field surgeon and perhaps possessed the necessary skills.

We know nothing about whether Lechmere could handle a knife and subdue women so that no one heard anything. He was a carman and future grocer."

No, no, no, Curious. Levy and Issenschmidt had proffesionalism in the field of butchery. Saying that this means that either guy "had the skills to commit the murder" is taking things way out into the woods. Pro primo there has never been any consensus that the killer must necessarily have had any surgical insights or butcher ditto. Some say that this applies, others that it does not. Pro secundo, being a butcher does of course not mean that you are capable of murder! Heavens, Curious! Neither Levy nor Issenschmidt would necessarily be better suspects than Lechmere since they were butchers. Ridgway used pantyhose to strangle his victims. Should the police look for people who had a professional connection to pantyhose when looking for stranglers? Look at the serialists that have cut their victimes to death - were they all butchers? Did they all have trades that forced them to learn about knifeskills?

The second you find unmistakable traits of butcher amongs the Ripper victims, then we will go looking together for butchers, Curious. Before that, we need to realize that the knife was by far the commonest weapon in slayings in the East End. And as best I can tell, that did not render their prisons full of butchers only.

"With his home situation, he could have given the name Cross to keep his wife from worrying."

In an earlier post, I suggested that somebody would sooner or later throw this up. It was meant as a sarcasm at that stage, but there you go ...

"Fisherman, don't you think the killer must have known how to subdue women silently and then slice them up?"

Known? As in trained on somebody? No, I donīt think he trained by subduing and killing before he started his spree. I think he felt an urge or a desire to kill, and I think he fantazised about doing so by way of knife. Somewhere along the road, he developed a wish to open the women up and extract organs. He did not, however, train to do so before he set out on the streets - his killings and his practice were in all probability one and the same.
He may have had a very rough idea of wanted to do as he set out, but equally, he may have had a very detailed scheme for what he wanted to achieve.
He may have been overwhelmingy strong and very quick, and he may have been a slower, weaker type, all of which would have impacted the outcome.
Do you see wat I am getting at? I am getting at the fact hat we donīt know how apt a killer he was from the outset; he could have been good and he could have been bad.

But letīs look at some other serialists!
David Carpenter was a meek, stuttering guy with no shooting practice. How would he be able to overcome, rape and shoot his victims? Nine of them?

How did Ridgway find out about how to kill women by strangulation, being a car painter? Forty-eight victims.

Joel Rifkin, the clumsy, stupid, ignorant guy - how did he mnage to aquire the skills to strangle or beat seventeen women to death undetected? He claimed that killing was the one thing he had ever achieved true skills in, incidentally.

And Rader, letīs not forget the family man Rader! Where did he pock up on strangling, suffocating, torturing and hanging people? Ten victims.

Harvey Glatman, heard of him? "The former convict led a quiet bachelor life, avoiding social contact with the opposite sex for six long years, while inwardly he seethed with morbid lust", thatīs how he is described on the net. He was a TV repair man and a photographer. How on earth did that allow him to achieve the skills to abduct and strangle a number of women - that inconspicious, small man with them protruding ears ...

Amazing, is it not? And if a tiny, repeatedly ridiculed TV repair man could do that, one has to ask oneself what a carman, probably tough, strong and streetsmart, could achieve, should he fall prey to the same urges.

Letīs end the "he was probably nice"-routine here and now, Curious. He was either or and none of us knows what applies.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Damaso Marte:

"Did Cross work Saturdays and Sundays?"

We canīt tell at this remove, Iīm afraid. Normally, Saturdays were workdays, and Sundays were days off, though.

The best,
Fisherman

[curious]

Curious:

"With Levy, he was an offal dresser, he had the necessary skills to commit the murder, ditto, Jacob Isenschmid, even Tumblety posed as a field surgeon and perhaps possessed the necessary skills.

We know nothing about whether Lechmere could handle a knife and subdue women so that no one heard anything. He was a carman and future grocer."

No, no, no, Curious. Levy and Issenschmidt had proffesionalism in the field of butchery. Saying that this means that either guy "had the skills to commit the murder" is taking things way out into the woods. Pro primo there has never been any consensus that the killer must necessarily have had any surgical insights or butcher ditto. Some say that this applies, others that it does not. Pro secundo, being a butcher does of course not mean that you are capable of murder! Heavens, Curious! Neither Levy nor Issenschmidt would necessarily be better suspects than Lechmere since they were butchers. Ridgway used pantyhose to strangle his victims. Should the police look for people who had a professional connection to pantyhose when looking for stranglers? Look at the serialists that have cut their victimes to death - were they all butchers? Did they all have trades that forced them to learn about knifeskills?

The second you find unmistakable traits of butcher amongs the Ripper victims, then we will go looking together for butchers, Curious. Before that, we need to realize that the knife was by far the commonest weapon in slayings in the East End. And as best I can tell, that did not render their prisons full of butchers only.

"With his home situation, he could have given the name Cross to keep his wife from worrying."

In an earlier post, I suggested that somebody would sooner or later throw this up. It was meant as a sarcasm at that stage, but there you go ...

"Fisherman, don't you think the killer must have known how to subdue women silently and then slice them up?"

Known? As in trained on somebody? No, I donīt think he trained by subduing and killing before he started his spree. I think he felt an urge or a desire to kill, and I think he fantazised about doing so by way of knife. Somewhere along the road, he developed a wish to open the women up and extract organs. He did not, however, train to do so before he set out on the streets - his killings and his practice were in all probability one and the same.
He may have had a very rough idea of wanted to do as he set out, but equally, he may have had a very detailed scheme for what he wanted to achieve.
He may have been overwhelmingy strong and very quick, and he may have been a slower, weaker type, all of which would have impacted the outcome.
Do you see wat I am getting at? I am getting at the fact hat we donīt know how apt a killer he was from the outset; he could have been good and he could have been bad.

But letīs look at some other serialists!
David Carpenter was a meek, stuttering guy with no shooting practice. How would he be able to overcome, rape and shoot his victims? Nine of them?

How did Ridgway find out about how to kill women by strangulation, being a car painter? Forty-eight victims.

Joel Rifkin, the clumsy, stupid, ignorant guy - how did he mnage to aquire the skills to strangle or beat seventeen women to death undetected? He claimed that killing was the one thing he had ever achieved true skills in, incidentally.

And Rader, letīs not forget the family man Rader! Where did he pock up on strangling, suffocating, torturing and hanging people? Ten victims.

Harvey Glatman, heard of him? "The former convict led a quiet bachelor life, avoiding social contact with the opposite sex for six long years, while inwardly he seethed with morbid lust", thatīs how he is described on the net. He was a TV repair man and a photographer. How on earth did that allow him to achieve the skills to abduct and strangle a number of women - that inconspicious, small man with them protruding ears ...

Amazing, is it not? And if a tiny, repeatedly ridiculed TV repair man could do that, one has to ask oneself what a carman, probably tough, strong and streetsmart, could achieve, should he fall prey to the same urges.

Letīs end the "he was probably nice"-routine here and now, Curious. He was either or and none of us knows what applies.

The best,
Fisherman

Letīs end the "he was probably nice"-routine here and now, Curious. He was either or and none of us knows what applies.

that's right none of us know, including you even though you insist you do, You don't have a smoking gun or anything anywhere to indicate this man was capable of murder. While you exonerate all the butchers, you cling tenaciously to a carman . . .

I'm out of here, but your constant overblown shoot-down anything that moves tends to convince me in the opposite direction.

So, long,

All the best.

curious

[Fisherman]

Curious:

"that's right none of us know, including you even though you insist you do"

Read again, Curious. Please, please, PLEASE read again: "He was either or and NONE OF US KNOWS what applies."

When I express myself like that - how in the name of God can you say that I insist that I DO know? What does it take to make you understand that when I say "I donīt know" then I mean that I just donīt know? In how many ways can I admit that we are BOTH at a loss in this respect?

I am PROPOSING that Lechmere was the killer. I am PROPOSING that he - as well as scores of serial killers - may have been able to do the deeds. How does that get me cornered in a position where I have "insisted that I know", although I have never done so? Please tell me that, Curious!

Do you want it in any other language than English? Should I sign off all my posts with "I honestly donīt KNOW that Lechmere was the killer, but I THINK that he probably was"? How do I free myself of your reoccurring accusations of having somehow insisted that I know? How?

The best,
Fisherman