The Mizen scam

[Fisherman]

Jon:

Originally Posted by Fisherman: "Telling you off...? When did I do that???"

Your answer:

"Did Jack Only Kill 3 thread.. post 139"

So, Jon, what are you saying here? Post 139, in response to Observers observation that not all killers are alike, reads: "Not only do I forgive you for pointing that out, Observer; I very much commend you for doing so, since this point seems to get lost every now and then."

Just HOW does that mean that I have told you off for saying that Sutcliffe is a good comparison to the Ripper ...? I completely fail to understand that, so I am going to need your help here, Jon!

"He had to bluff the police or at least be prepared to do so at some point, as he took his victims home with him."

Yes? And? How does that nullify my point that he was a good example of how serial killers could bluff the police? I need your help on that one too.

By the way, I just noticed that your post was given the number 1066. And you are English, so thatīs a pretty bad omen for you ...

All the best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

By the way, I just noticed that your post was given the number 1066. And you are English, so thatīs a pretty bad omen for you ...

I`m Welsh.
Most years are bad for us. ;-)

[Abby Normal]

Hi Dave!

May I have a go?

"I'm puzzled...to a potential ripper (who's obviously by definition, in crude terms, an unbalanced nutter - else why's he doing it?) caught standing over the body of his victim, there are any number of places he can flee with even only a forty yard start...it's not like Hanbury Street..."

To begin with, I think we need to look at the term "unbalanced nutter" here, later followed up with "mentally unbalanced", I think we would easily agree that the Ripper was not like you and me. But to predispose that he was in any way a jumpy guy due to this difference would be to draw a potentially very faulty conclusion.
Lots of killers have acted very cooly under pressure. Some of them have injected themselves into police investigations, others have mocked the police during and after their sprees. Some have - instead of running when people arrived at the spot they committed crimes - included the ones who discovered them in their death tolls.
David Carpenter was one such man, who raped and shot women, and who once had another woman come upon him when he had just subdued a victim. Did he run, as all unbalanced nutters ought to? No, he did not - he waited for the woman to arrive, subdued her too, tied her up, raped her and killed her too.
And that was in a forest, with no PC:s patrolling close by and with every opportunity to leg it.

Please also weigh in that serial killers normally not are "nutters" intelligencewise - many of them score impressive IQ:s when tested.

The aim of running would be to stay undetected and uncaught, Dave, right? Well, that would have been Lechmereīs aim to - he just chose another means to reach that aim, a means that allowed him to walk away at leisure. That does not mean he was any superhuman - it only means that he was cool and calculating. Look at fraudsters and con men - they are extremely cool and audacious, running the risk of being revealed every second - but that does not stop them. They donīt break any sweat, they donīt start stuttering, they donīt suddenly run off, do they? No, they stay totally cool and reassuring in spite of being malicious criminals. Some of them would face very serious terms in jail if caught, some even lifetime if itīs their third consecutive crime. But they donīt wawer for a second. And there are heaps and heaps of them.
Apply that mindset on a serial killer and you will see what I am talking about. Itīs a vicious animal and a very dangerous one - but not superhuman at all.

Look at the many serialists who, when caught, have reacted with total disinterest and laughed the police in the face. These are men that could not care less, men who have put themselves above the law, men who have professed to have felt godlike when taking lives.
Nutters?
Yes.
A hundred per cent certain to run scared?
Not at all.

Furthermore, letīs say that your assessment of the killer is correct. Letīs say that he was a man who would leg it at the first sign of danger. Then given the timings and the warmth in Nicholsī body, it must be reasoned that if Lechmere was not the killer, then he would probably have been the man who scared the true killer off.

But Lechmere said that he had not seen or heard anybody galloping away in Buckīs Row. That would mean that the killer must have noticed Lechmere at an early stage, gotten up immediately from the body and tip-toed very silently away out of Buckīs Row, right?

No, wrong - for if this is a useful scenario, we must accept that the killer did NOT run for it instantly. Instead, he aborted his deed, stashed his weapon, and set about pulling the clothes down on Nichols, over the wounds to the abdomen. After that, he got up, and did that tip-toeing on soft soles, without being noticed by the fast approaching Lechmere (he was late, and so would have walked briskly, arguably).
Does that make sense to you? Is that what a mentally unstable nutter would do? Or did the killer have a wish to conceal what he had done? If so, why - when he departed the scene as Lechmere entered it? Why risk that extra pair of seconds?

"Is it more rational to accept all this premeditated boldness, plus bluffing Paul, plus bluffing Mizen, plus bluffing the police generally, plus bluffing the coroner, (not to mention his wife)...ad infinitum... or to believe he was exactly what he says he was ..."

Well, he said that he was Charles Cross - and he wasnīt. And we KNOW he bluffed Mizen, that is no conjecture. We also therefore KNOW that he bluffed the coroner, when refusing to admit that he HAD bluffed Mizen. And, in all honesty, if he WAS a stand-up citizen, what would it cost him to say "Sorry, Sir, but yes, I did say that, but that was because I was late to work, and did not wish to be upheld..." That would have cleared a thing or two up - not the pulling of the clothes, though. And likewise not why he opted to loose a few minutes more by choosing Hanbury Street, in spite of being late, something he should never have been in the first place if he left home when he said he did.

So, you see, much as I of course agree that it would have been a more rational thing to do to go to work instead of killing, I think that the more rational EXPLANATION to what he ACTUALLY did, given the testimonies, timings and other circumstances involved, is to believe that he killed instead of going to work like a good chap.

All the best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish

And we KNOW he bluffed Mizen, that is no conjecture

No we dont-and it is conjecture.

Mizen said at the inquest that Lech told him there was a PC waiting for him. Lech denied saying this to Mizen at the inquest.

There could be many reasons for this descrepency including Mizen simply misremembering or lying about it.

There is the POSSIBILITY (and a good one I will admit)that Lech bluffed Mizen, but this is most certainly conjecture.

[caz]

Of course, Caz, we know that the killer stayed undetected. But that does not mean that we - as long as we attach an identity to that killer - cannot conduct a discussion about the built-in usefulness of the methods he USED to STAY undetected (I am now working from the assumption that you cannot only spew venom, but in fact also follow a logical train of thought, since you usually have this gift).

I was going to stop reading your post at this point, Fish, and not bother responding, if you were seriously equating my counter arguments with 'spewing venom'. What are you, man or mouse? But knowing your fondness for such emotive and hyperbolic expressions, I'll not give in that easily.

We cannot conduct a discussion about 'the methods he USED to STAY undetected', for two very simple reasons, 1) we don't KNOW what methods the KILLER may or may not have used to stay undetected, and 2) we don't know that LECHY had any need of them.

Lechy's motivation is entirely guesswork, but even the methods themselves require a good dollop of it, since we don't KNOW that his boss at Pickfords, for example, ONLY knew him as Lechmere, and would therefore have been as useful as a chocolate teapot had the police asked him to vouch for Cross's bonafides. Why did Lechy think the police wanted his home address and employment details, if not to enable them to check on him if and when they felt like it? How could he possibly have anticipated that they would not do so, without Ruby's crystal ball?

And indeed, the discussion we were having was one where you SPECIFICALLY pointed to Lechmere being an idiot for offering another name than his own, and where I answered that the SPECIFIC circumstances involved pointed to anything but idiocy, not least since IF he was the killer, then his ruse worked very well. And not only that, if it had NOT worked in the respect that the police might have found out that he was a Lechmere, then the ONLY name/s he could have used and presented a useful excuse for using, would have been a name/names that he had some sort of legitimate claim to. If he had called himself Mr Idiot, he would have been up for grabs, but calling himself Cross ensured that he would be able to present at least some sort of reason for not having come clear about the Lechmere status to which he confessed otherwise.

So tell me again what could have been so disastrous about giving Lechmere as his name, compared with giving Cross and facing awkward questions if the police had bothered to check, and found that no bugger recognised him by that name? I still don't see that the name issue (whatever he called himself at the time) can be any more indicative of guilt than innocence.

If Lechmere was the killer, Iīd say we can be pretty damn sure he got it right. At least if we judge by the outcome, and I fail to see what other parameters there are...?

If you still fail to see why this is a circular argument, I can't help you. If anyone you care to point the finger at was the killer, you could still say that person 'got it right': Fleming, Hutch, Barnett, Blotchy, Uncle Tom Cobley - the killer managed to avoid the hangman, but that's as much as can be said, and it's only stating the bleedin' obvious. You have no more clue than anyone else how or why his neck stayed safe, and whether it was down to methods under his control, animal cunning or sheer luck. It could even have been despite him acting like an idiot, because we don't know who he was, or any of his actions when he wasn't up to his elbows in murder.

I donīt speculate that he called himself Cross. We KNOW he did.

Did you mean to say that? I thought your speculation was that he was only using the name Lechmere in 1888 - except when telling the police where he lived and worked.

I don't know if Lechy was 'just a stand-up carman and good citizen' or a cold-blooded butcher and bluff merchant. I'm not making a case either way, I'm merely questioning the basis on which others find him and his KNOWN actions so suspicious. I don't have any speculation to 'sustain'.

You didn't think you could just debate the case against Lechy with like-minded people who find him equally sinister, did you? You didn't think that everyone would just roll over and accept all the worst case scenario speculation, did you? Where's the fun in that?

I don't need to 'start accusing others of speculating' Fish. Speculating is what anyone has to do if they wish to make a case for either guilt or total exoneration. Like Macnaghten, I'm inclined to exonerate Lechy, but I could be wrong, and it's not because I think there is better evidence against someone else. It's because I have seen NO evidence that Lechy even needed to get one over the cops, never mind that he would have succeeded had he used the strategy being speculated for him.

...itīs everybodyīs prerogative to have a go at the few facts we have and try and make sense of them. Keep that in mind, that is my advice.

And my advice is only to give advice where it is needed. Where have I ever said that it's NOT your prerogative (or mine for that matter) to try and make sense of the few facts at our disposal? We merely disagree about what makes sense and what doesn't. That's not a crime and it's not spewing venom either.

And serial killers move the goal posts, Caz - they are nothing like us, they donīt respond to our needs and morals, they donīt conform to what WE would have done in the situations they were in. To speculate that he would have run, is to speculate that he would have done what you and me would have done - and we would not have killed in the first place, so who are we to put ourselves in a serial killersīplace?

Well quite, Fishy. So who are you to say that the ripper would have stayed to bluff things out if he found himself in Lechy's position, or would not have made a hasty escape to avoid the first man on the scene, as he presumably had to every other time he killed in risky or busy locations? Lechy, uniquely, would have been in one hell of a jam if he'd needed to bluff his way out a second time.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Double post - sorry.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Jon:

"I`m Welsh.
Most years are bad for us. ;-)"

Oh! I would have been a bit more careful in my approach had I known that! Still, I find it good news, Jon. I have yet to meet a Welshman I donīt like! And that comprises an on-spot search a number of years ago.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Abby:

"There is the POSSIBILITY (and a good one I will admit)that Lech bluffed Mizen, but this is most certainly conjecture."

Conjecture is something I take care of myself when I feel the need to, Abby. If this is conjecture, then itīs conjecture courtesy of Jonas Mizen, a PC testifying at an inquest.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"What are you, man or mouse? "

How ībout a fish? Barracuda, perhaps?

"We cannot conduct a discussion about 'the methods he USED to STAY undetected'"

We can, and we do. Itīs a theoretical discussion, assuming that he was the killer. Remember the Higgs particle? That one was discussed for fifty years ASSUMING it existed.
Proved right in the end, by the bye...!

"Why did Lechy think the police wanted his home address and employment details, if not to enable them to check on him if and when they felt like it?"

He may, Caz, have supposed that it was protocol, picking up on the fact that ALL the witnesses were asked for the same information, including Pollys father, her former husband and Emily Holland. He would, if you ask me, not have been all that convinced that the police pondered paying THEM visits. He thus knew that not all witnesses were guaranteed any further police interest.
What do you think?

"How could he possibly have anticipated that they would not do so, without Ruby's crystal ball? "

Iīve given you half the answer already. The other half is that he could NOT be sure that they would not check. If he HAD been sure, he could have called himself Dr Prunebottom, knowing that he would risk nothing. But I would say that the mere fact that he chose "Cross" instead points very much to a calculated risk on his behalf.
What do YOU think?

"So tell me again what could have been so disastrous about giving Lechmere as his name, compared with giving Cross and facing awkward questions if the police had bothered to check"

AGAIN? Yes? Alright - he won himself the obvious benefit of not having his aquaintances knowing that he was the carman that found Nichols and witnessed at the inquest. If - say - his wife had known this, there is more reason to believe that she would have been able to pick up on the correlation between his morning walks and the subsequent killings. The same thing goes for all his aquiantances and working comrades.

Now YOU tell ME once again - oh, thatīs right, you have not told me before, have you? - why a man with Lechmere on his postbox, bringing up young Lechmeres and married to a Lechmee would call himself Cross. That post issue - how would the ones who knew him as Cross address any letters to him? Would his neighbours have called him Cross? And WHY would he sign ONE dealing with the authorities Cross and sixty OTHERS Lechmere? Why just this one - the murder protocol one?

" If anyone you care to point the finger at was the killer, you could still say that person 'got it right': Fleming, Hutch, Barnett, Blotchy, Uncle Tom Cobley"

... but in most other cases we canīt tell what it was they would have gotten right, since we donīt know. And in the Hutch and Barnbett cases, we have no evidence that they lied or used aliases.
That is why a study of Lechmere offers a very useful list of the things he did and said, comprising one nameswop and a lie, meaning that we can make a theoretical assessment of the value of the ruse that got him through, applicable to no other suspect.
Hard to understand? Not at all - I should say.

"Did you mean to say that? I thought your speculation was that he was only using the name Lechmere in 1888 - except when telling the police where he lived and worked."

Yes, Caz. Exactly. He called himself Cross when speaking to the police, they recorded it, the papers recorded his name at the inquest - and thus we KNOW that he called himself Cross. Which is why we need to ask ourselves WHY he did so.
In fact, it was EXACTLY what I was aiming to say.
Hard to understand? Not to me, it ainīt.

" I'm merely questioning the basis on which others find him and his KNOWN actions so suspicious."

U-huh? Well then, Caz, put yourself in the position of the police back then. They knew NOT that he used a faulty name, they knew NOT that he lied to Mizen, they seem not to have questioned his late arrival in Buckīs Row, they seem not to have picked up on the killings all falling along his route to work etcetrera.
Now, letīs say that there was a way to enlighten them and offer them this information; the false name, the lie to Mizen, the late arrival, the killing place and -time correlation!
How do you suppose the police would have reacted to this added knowledge? By shrugging their shoulders? By saying "Sounds stand-up to us!"? Or by realizing that they needed to haul Lechmere over the coals?
Hard to decide? Not to me, it ainīt.

"You didn't think you could just debate the case against Lechy with like-minded people who find him equally sinister, did you?"

I was rather hoping for the opposite - good, useful criticism. And, well, I got criticism, some of it useful, much of it crappy. Thatīs life.

"I don't need to 'start accusing others of speculating' Fish."

Seeing as you engage in such things yourself, Iīd say thatīs a useful stance!

"And my advice is only to give advice where it is needed."

I make that a point, Caz, always. It would be wasting my time otherwise. Thatīs sometimes the outcome at any rate...
I genuinely thought you had misunderstood what a serial killer is and why and how he differs from us. Until you realize that they do not all run away when discovered, Iīm afraid I will remain at that stance.

" So who are you to say that the ripper would have stayed to bluff things out if he found himself in Lechy's position?"

Nobody. But I AM the one who apparently needs to say that he COULD have done so, and that if Lechmere was the killer, he obviously did this very thing.

" Lechy, uniquely, would have been in one hell of a jam if he'd needed to bluff his way out a second time."

See the above, about risktaking amongst serial killers, etc. Read again about Dahmer - the police had procured HIS name, they had procured the Asian boys name, they had Dahmerīs address.
Surely, surely he would NEVER take the risk of harming the boy? It would have put him in "one hell of a jam", right?
And yet, hours after the police left the apartment, Dahmer was picking out the best parts of his friends body, stocking up in the fridge.

Bottom line? Serial killers are risktakers. All of them, each and everyone, though some more than others. Arguably, anyone who kills and guts people out in the open streets in the middle of a five million people metropolis would belong to the heaviest risk junkies of them all - or risk accepters, if you prefer that term. Both can apply.

Caz, Jack the Ripper laid his life on the line, over and over again, because his urge to kill was greater than his fear to get caught. Itīs VERY simple maths. Had it been the other way around, he would either have chosen other venues or refrained from killing on the whole.

Is this a man you propose would never bluff his way out from a tight spot, because it would leave him sobbing over all the future strikes he would had been prohibited to commit? If so, I may need to give you even more of that dreaded advice.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Oh! I would have been a bit more careful in my approach had I known that!

Not a problem, Christer. I may have misled you with clues to my nationality in the past, and I am glad we can still be friends.

We`re crap at football, too ;-)

[moonbegger]

Oh Lechsmear .. ( thats how to be relevant and witty , jot it down )

However this bit is good ,

Cross/Lechmere enters a police station and approaches the desk.
Cross/Lechmere: I'd like report that I found the body of a woman on Bucks Row on Friday last.
Policeman: Hello hello hello what have we here?
Cross/Lechmere (adopting Ronnie Corbett attitude): But before I do that let me tell you about dear old Thomas Cross. He was a policeman based in Leman Street and he was married to my Mama. He was a wonderful chap, I have such fond memories. I remember when he used to let me play with his truncheon etc etc.
Policeman: Well I never. What are your Christian names? I already know your surname must be Cross.
Cross/Lechmere: Err yes I suppose it is, sort of really. My other names are Charles Allan.
etc etc.

It's fortunate Cross/Lechmere didn't say his step-father was the Emperor Napoleon or this would be the Bonaparte/Lechmere theory.

[ Yes, but it would have also been a lot more believable ]

By the way is 'Team Lechmere' named after the poster Lechmere or after the serial killer known as Jack the Ripper (case solved) Lechmere?

[ Go figure Sherlock , the clues are there ]


Did Cross/Lechmere know whether or not Paul had actually seen him in the act?

My guess is ..
[ Let me stop you there Tunnel Vision Boy .. i didn't ask for your guess ! We all know where your narrow minded conjecture will lead us]

that Cross/Lechmere would know that Paul hadn't actually seen him in the act. The road was very dark.

[ Ha , Ha , of course it was .. But light enough for Paul to see CrossMere from 40 yards .. Crossmere would have NO clue if he had been seen By Paul , or indeed Mrs Purkis opposite , as crept out of the shadows after killing Polly ]


"Paul didn't notice that Polly's eyes were open, nor that her throat was cut. My best guess is that Cross/Lechmere wanted to avoid scarpering only for Paul to call out that all too familiar East End night time call 'Murder'.

[ LechSmear , more GUESS work eh , at which point does the hero swoop down and save the day]

Was he aware that he wouldn't be searched by a copper?
No but that could happen if he walked off ..

[ Not if he had half a brain in his head .. ( something which you clearly assume he had plenty of ) Ears , eyes , and cunning would triumph over an unaware beat plod any day of the week . And as you have Crossmere down as the king of hindsight , would it not have been one of his lesser risks to assume Paul would have strolled right past the sleeping drunk, Just like he most likely would have done if CrossMere hadn't dragged him back to take a look , after all that was the reason the killer covered her up in the first place was it not ]

"Was he aware that no one would call him out (in court or if the police visited him) due to his name swap?
No but undoubtedly the reason he chose that fake name was precisely because he could come out with a concocted explanation for using it."

[ Was Cross a fake name ? i think Not LechSmear , and what exactly would have been his "Concocted explanation" for using it be, The Truth perhaps ?
and further more what difference would it have made anyway ?

You see LechSmear , you have gloriously failed to answer any of my questions i put to you without the use of your Tunnel vision guess work .. a tool for which i really have no faith . but your sense of humour is coming along nicely .

cheers

moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

Jon:

"Not a problem, Christer. I may have misled you with clues to my nationality in the past, and I am glad we can still be friends.

We`re crap at football, too ;-)"

Gareth Bale - crap? Thatīs one more misleading, Jon, surely!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Oh Lechsmear .. ( thats how to be relevant and witty , jot it down )

Did someone else feed you that line, Moonbegger - a wild shot, but I'm guessing so ?

It's just that I didn't think that you were quite so nasty -I thought that there was just some entertaining sparring going on, and not actual death rays being fired -more (paint) balls..

My guess is ..
[ Let me stop you there Tunnel Vision Boy .. i didn't ask for your guess ! We all know where your narrow minded conjecture will lead us]

Maybe you forgot what thread you came to ?

Fisherman has a thread devoted to Lechmere/Cross and Mizen, and it is clear that Lechmere is a (very possibly 'the' ) person who has done a great deal of research into this subject. They are obviously going to animatedly defend their theories.

That's not 'tunnel vision', that's a logical reaction.

How could they possibly have a theory, and at the first questioning from you, not defend it (if it is defendable -which it clearly is).

What do you expect them to do ? Roll over and go home if they reply with logic to some mad idea of yours but you keep banging on that your question hasn't been answered, when it clearly has ?

My take on the your virulence towards Lechmere, is that he was probably just tired and bored answering the same questions over and over, and it was late, and he got a bit fed up about going in futile circles.

If you put a sensible fresh question to him, I'm sure that he'd be less irritable.

t

hat Cross/Lechmere would know that Paul hadn't actually seen him in the act. The road was very dark.

[ Ha , Ha , of course it was .. But light enough for Paul to see CrossMere from 40 yards .. Crossmere would have NO clue if he had been seen By Paul , or indeed Mrs Purkis opposite , as crept out of the shadows after killing Polly ]

Try putting yourself in the shoes of Lechmere/Cross. You might see a shape of a man walking towards you..how could you be sure that differences in light direction, or individual eyesight, wouldn't mean that he saw more than you ? Wouldn't you be very curious abut what he'd seen, if your life defended on it ?.

This isn't tunnel vision, Loonbegger, it is taking into account human psychology, and building a case.

People are curious. Would you disagree with that ?

"Paul didn't notice that Polly's eyes were open, nor that her throat was cut. My best guess is that Cross/Lechmere wanted to avoid scarpering only for Paul to call out that all too familiar East End night time call 'Murder'.

[ LechSmear , more GUESS work eh , at which point does the hero swoop down and save the day]

It is blindingly obvious that some one scarpering away from a freshly murdered corpse into the arms of a policeman coming the other way might invite 'questions'. Questions over which they had no control, and a presumption of guilt to fend off.

Was he aware that he wouldn't be searched by a copper?
No but that could happen if he walked off ..

[ Not if he had half a brain in his head .. ( something which you clearly assume he had plenty of )

But just everything supports that view..

Ears , eyes , and cunning would triumph over an unaware beat plod any day of the week . And as you have Crossmere down as the king of hindsight , would it not have been one of his lesser risks to assume Paul would have strolled right past the sleeping drunk, Just like he most likely would have done if CrossMere hadn't dragged him back to take a look , after all that was the reason the killer covered her up in the first place was it not ]

You keep forgetting how narrow the road was, how poor the people were (eye to scavenging something free of value), how curious people are..

I feel that the biggest probability is that Paul would have noticed that corpse for what it was..

"Was he aware that no one would call him out (in court or if the police visited him) due to his name swap?
No but undoubtedly the reason he chose that fake name was precisely because he could come out with a concocted explanation for using it."

Lechmere's answer makes sense..

[ Was Cross a fake name ? i think Not LechSmear , and what exactly would have been his "Concocted explanation" for using it be, The Truth perhaps ?
and further more what difference would it have made anyway ?

I don't know. But you're good at concocting explanations, Moonbegger...maybe one of them ?,

You see LechSmear , you have gloriously failed to answer any of my questions i put to you without the use of your Tunnel vision guess work .. a tool for which i really have no faith .

But Lechmere is a poster with researched argument above guesswork ?
It's you who replies with guesswork.

[moonbegger]

Hello Fisherman ,

Lechmere:

Walked a path to job where the murders occurred, one by one.

[ as did many ( not necessarily at same time ) I used to often walk a route home from shoreditch to Essex Rd , through rough streets where muggings regularly occurred . I was never arrested for being a mugger (and rightly so)this is just unfortunate coincidence !

Had a mother living in a place that potentially explains the only murder that fell outside his working path and -time.

[ This does not even come close to a guilty coincidence , unless his mother was involved also ]

Gave a name to the police he did not use otherwise, dealing with the authorities.

[ This may or may not be true , there really is no way of proving it one way or another .. so it remains CONJECTURE ! ]

Lied to a PC at the murder night, enabling him to pass the PC without being questioned or searched.

[ Also may or may not be true , its one statement for , and one against . deemed as inadmissible ]

Arrive at the murder spot at a later stage that he ought to have done, given the time he left home, by his own admittance.

[ I agree , this needs to be answered , and there is indeed many a innocent explanation as well as a guilty one ] My guess is ( i now sound like Lechsmear ) the London police are not the dummy's you make them out to be , and would have ironed all this out to their satisfaction . every line of inquiry is not necessarily documented , unfortunately for us .

Chose the longer route to his job, in spite of claiming to be late.

[ dont see this as being a crime ( maybe avoid a dodgy street ) Montague ? ]

Was alone with the victim in the first murder case, with the possibility of physical contact, at the established approximate time of her death

[ whoever discovered Polly would have been alone with her , it comes hand in hand with being the unfortunate person who is discovering the body ]
just like Chapmans discovery .

Even when these facts are laid out one by one it becomes blatantly obvious Fisherman , With all due respect , There is not a criminal court in the Land today , let alone then , that could or would find CrossMere guilty of anything . in fact it wouldn't even make it past a committal hearing me thinks .. And that indeed is a FACT !

I would really love you to dig up some truly damning evidence that puts him with his fingers in the so called cookie jar , i really would , but as of yet i dont see it , and in a court of law, Evidence is King , conjecture sits in the gallery , and guilt swings from a rope .

moonbegger .

[moonbegger]

Ooops
Have I been too rough?

Hi Ruby ,

I am always very respectful to those who are respectful to me ,

i am sorry , i just assumed that those who put it out there wouldn't mind too much when it comes back ..

i guess my sarcasm , and wit may be a tad harsh ..

but it gave me fits

moonbegger

[Rubyretro]

i guess my sarcasm , and wit may be a tad harsh ..

but it gave me fits

moonbegger[/QUOTE]

Well it gave me 'fits' too, Moominbegger, (but that was probably cold turkey from the LSD).

Why don't you answer my previous long post to you, addressing your points ?