The Mizen scam

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Hello Fisherman ,

Lechmere:

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

Oh, look ! I didn't think that I had 'smiley' thingys -but I find that I do !

[moonbegger]

moonbegger

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 ?[/QUOTE]

Sorry Retrog i may have missed it with all the incoming flak .. what number post was it ?

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

" as did many ( not necessarily at same time)"

To bad then that the murders occurred in the early morning hours - cause that rules your "as did many" effectively out, Moonbegger. You have been supplied with the information necessary to realize this.

After this it is repetition, repetition, repe... Ah - something NEW:

"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 ."

Of course not. And I have stated the very same thing on the boards before. A conviction in a court of law requires a lot more in the shape of proof, and that proof is not there.

What IS there, though, is circumstantial evidence that would have any police force - now or then, Moonbegger - quite conviced that they were dealing with a man that was very probably the killer. THAT is what is led on by the details presented here.

No other suspect comes even close to representing such a wealth of pointers to potential guilt as Lechmere does. A hot bid like Kosminsky has a hint from a potentially rambling police bigwig going for him, and is pointed out as a "suspect" - a suspect apparently nobody had anything much to show for. We canīt put him anywhere near any of the murder sites, unless that witness (identity unknown) was on the money.

Hutchinson? Nah.

Chapman? Please ...!

Druitt? We CAN place him in London every now and then, and he HAD a whacky mother. Aaaaand ... thatīs it.

But Lechmere offers REAL, tangible clues, he lies to the police, he swops names, he goes to work along the line of dead Ripper bodies, he is too late in Buckīs Row, he chooses the long route when in a hurry, he appears at the inquest in working clothes, he secures the possibility to explain any blood on him, etcetera.

You are never going to see a bid for the Ripperīs role that has anything like this going for him. And one of the reasons for this - I think, at least - is that only the Ripper could create the Ripperīs tracks.

The fact that we would not get him convicted in a court of law is another matter. I do, however, see at least a possibility that the case as such would have been at least considered for a trial, whereas Chapman, Druitt, Kosminsky etcetera - ALL the others, would have been heartily laughed out of court, with the kind of material we have on them, respectively.

"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 think that the Mizen scam, the object of this very thread, is a very useful pointer. If Mizen was on the money - and I feel certain that he was - then I can see only two possible reasons for the lie. And one of them is that he was genuinely guilty to the Nichols slaying.

That is close, Moonbegger, the way I see things. And it was not realized two months ago. Who knows what another two months will bring? Or two years? Or decades? The hunt for Lechmere is on, 124 years too late, admittedly - but it is on now, and we ARE closing in.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

moonbegger

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 ?[/QUOTE]


Oh ! I,didn't ever 'get ' smileys -but now I do ! What fun !

[moonbegger]

Hello Fisherman ,

I find my self in almost total agreement with your post .. give or take the odd bit of circumstantial evidence .. and i really do hope you find the solid evidence that you are looking for . But untill then !

cheers

moonbegger .

[moonbegger]

Fisherman ,

Sorry i dont know how i missed this bit

"I think that the Mizen scam, the object of this very thread, is a very useful pointer. If Mizen was on the money - and I feel certain that he was - then I can see only two possible reasons for the lie. And one of them is that he was genuinely guilty to the Nichols slaying."

So what was the Other reason ?

moonbegger

[Rubyretro]

Moonbegger,

What fun ! (again).

:: devil:

[Bridewell]

Pnc

Hi Caz

If I might intrude. Serial killers seem to be particularly adept at thinking on their feet. Look at Sutcliffe, upon arrest he had the nerve to feign the need to relieve himself, dumping the knife and hammer he was carrying in the process. If it wasn't for the arresting officer remembering this fact, and actually retrieving the weapons, Sutcliffe would have walked free, and retrieved the weapons himself.

Regards

Observer

No he wouldn't. The car was on false plates (the number displayed was that of a Skoda) and a PNC check had disclosed this.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"what was the Other reason ?"

The other reason would have been that he was late for work, as stated, and so concocted a very elaborate lie in order to pass Mizen.

No matter how we look upon things, away goes the honest man ...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Observer]

No he wouldn't. The car was on false plates (the number displayed was that of a Skoda) and a PNC check had disclosed this.

Regards, Bridewell.

Yes he would. How long do you think they could have held him for false number pates? Don't get me wrong they knew they were onto something, but if he'd kept his mouth shut, they would have had to let him go. The thing is they had found the hammer and knife, and they hinted at this in the interview, that's when he realised the game was up, and he confessed.


Regards

Observer

[Bridewell]

If Mizen was on the money - and I feel certain that he was

Why the certainty? We know that Mizen didn't go straight to Bucks Row, but continued knocking up. Perhaps Lechmere was spinning him a yarn; perhaps Mizen had to come up with a story to explain his failure to react. He wouldn't be the first policeman to delay just long enough to ensure that someone else got there first.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

How Long?

Yes he would. How long do you think they could have held him for false number plates? Don't get me wrong they knew they were onto something, but if he'd kept his mouth shut, they would have had to let him go. The thing is they had found the hammer and knife, and they hinted at this in the interview, that's when he realised the game was up, and he confessed.


Regards

Observer

The Yorkshire Ripper was pre-PACE so, in answer to your question, he could (by devious means admittedly) have been held for several days on suspicion of stealing the car. That said, I acknowledge that I misunderstood your previous post, when I thought you were suggesting that Sutcliffe wouldn't have been arrested had it not been for the officer remembering etc. So apologies for that.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Cogidubnus]

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.

Hi Christer

So where is all that cool and calculation, in say, Dutfields Yard - he's widely assumed to have flitted at the slightest disturbance there...no staying put and calling the witnesses bluff...no turning on Diemschutz...gone...my take on him (assuming it's the one killer) is he's more a will of the wisp than a stay and bluff it out guy...look how he's there and gone in Hanbury Street...ditto in Mitre Square...

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?

So where's the evidence for this...we have, with respect, only your suggestion...we know from Cross and Pauls testimony, and the medical evidence, that the killer wasn't long gone...there's no evidence though that Cross actually disturbed the killer...the killer could easily have been gone a couple of minutes before Cross hove into view...the body would still have been warm....

Well, he said that he was Charles Cross - and he wasnīt.

This has been discussed at length...I concede there's a need to examine why this identity was used...but more than one explanation is perfectly viable...it's no use using a throw away phrase "and he wasn't" - My gg grandfather (McCarthy) called himself Carty...in one sense he wasn't - in another though he was, because HIS father before him sometimes called himself Carty too...I think there were any number of people using alternative names in the East End at the time...including many JtR witnesses and victims too...and for a variety of reasons too...

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 this, again, we certainly DON'T know...What we do know is that when Mizen was advised of the incident in Bucks Row, instead of making haste there he completed his (presumably privately commissioned?) knocking up before responding...not the actions of a very committed or especially bright copper. It is equally valid to conclude Mizen misremembered exactly what was said to him, or that he was attempting to gloss over his clear and curious lack of energy on the day...It is interesting that when Cross is recalled at the Inquest to comment on Mizen's testimony, his explanation is readily taken at face value...to me this indicates the Coroner trusts Cross's explanation and thinks Mizen's a plonker...

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.

Time evidence in this case is remarkably uncertain, if not downright unreliable...many folk owned no timepiece and relied on Church Bells, Church Clocks, (Hanbury Street), Tobacconists Windows (Dutfields), or just plain guesswork (Dorset Street) - and look what a mess the time testimony is...So how we can accurately assess Cross's journey I simply don't know...If he left home say 0325 and discovered the body at 0331, spent just 4 or 5 minutes over it with Paul, then came across Mizen at 0340 (roughly the time - 0345 - Neil came across the body) then you're not far off...and I don't think you CAN honestly get much closer than that

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.

But you see Christer, the limited evidence we DO have suggests that's just what he DID do...not just that day, but the rest of his working life...in that, I see innocence, whilst you somehow see suspicion...

By the way, Winthrop Street had several people awake and working down it - not a good place to flee.
Cutting straight down an alley into Whitechapel Road could lead into the arms of PC Neil... just as Paul is crying 'Murder'.

Hi Lech

But how is Cross to know Winthrop Street would be a bad place to run...He's NOT gone down there...How does he know where PC Neil is...he's only just moved to Doveton Street and quite likely doesn't yet know the police beats there (even if he's interested)...A theoretical Jack, on the other hand, might...

I really don't buy this Cross/Lechmere as the bluffing killer - so he used a second name...so what...he gave his real address...he mentions his employer...making him easily traceable - if he was really the killer concealing his identity, he'd not have needed to have done that...just said nothing more, quietly buggered off, and taken a different route to work in future...end of...

Sorry guys...don't buy it!

Dave

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

"perhaps Mizen had to come up with a story to explain his failure to react."

Then why would he serve a story involving him being wanted by another PC? Surely, if he needed an excuse for being tardy, that particular element would have been sounder to leave out.

My certainty rests to a large extent on the completeness of the lie. Not only did Lechmere concoct that other PC - he ALSO changed the story to a passive shape as if somebody else had found Nichols, and played down itīs severity. Itīs tailormade to suit the purpose of keeping Mizen in the dark and allowing Lechmere to slip by.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Geez, Dave - thatīs a loong post. Iīll deal with it tomorrow. Promise!

Past midnight here - goodnight!

Fisherman