The Mizen scam

[Monty]

I have the greatest respect in the world for our police force and the mainly thankless job they undertake , but for every bunch of good apples there are always a few with worms in .. thats just the way it is . In Life , in General !

If you belive the tosh, it seems the City and the Met had a whole barrel full of bad apples for that period in 1888.

People are far too quick to shoot their lips without bothering to assess the situation and the evidence. Half arsed theorising which has plagued this field the past few years.

And yeah, Im in a cranky mood....big whoop.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"All the evidence (such as it is) suggests that Jack had a killing technique (partial stragulation, laying the victim half-sideways on the ground, and cutting the throat with the front of the neck angled away from himself) which precluded his getting particularly messy...Now his mutilation technique may well be something different...but isn't mutilation what these killings are actually all about? Surely if he hasn't mutilated he hasn't achieved his end? So, with all due respect to Tom, I don't buy this at all..."

I don´t think Tom must be correct here either. I prefer a scenario in which the killer was disturbed - if Stride fell prey to the Ripper. But the key issue is that you somehow tried to use Berner Street as a sign speaking against the Lechmere theory, and therefore I wanted to show you that this cannot be deducted at all.

"Nor do I necessarily buy Jack as a cool calculator..."

If Lechmere was the Ripper, then he WAS a cool calculator. If not, it´s back to the drawing boards and all possibilities are at hand, from a lucky paranoid scizophrenic to a mastermind of crime.

"Roy Hazelwood, a former FBI agent ... reckons Jack was a "disorganised, primitive and impulsive killer, whose murders were frenzied, involved post-mortem mutilation, and exhibited a pogression of brutality".

Yes? And? It equally applies that these kinds of killers normally run out of luck at an early stage, so in that respect, Hazelwood must have been statistically off the mark. It also applies that disorganized killers are totally uninterested in trivial matters like leaving murder weapons and other clues behind - which our boy didn´t.
The discussion of organized/disorganized is older than Hannibal when it comes to Jack, Dave. And there has never been any agreement. Jack displays clear indications of BOTH types of behaviour.

"How very convenient for your argument..."

To be honest, convenience had nothing to do with it. It is a weighed-in factor, as are the others. It is not "convenient" for me that he swopped names - it is a fact, pointing to guilt. It is not "convenient" that he lied to Mizen - that too is a weighed in factor, pointing to guilt. The things that have added to the negative rap sheet of Lechmere have not been convenient, or lucky coincidences. They have been the logical fruits of digging into the material, researching the man.
When the PC that put Sutcliffe away found his knife and pein-hammer, it was not convenient. It was the result of a logical train of thought, checked out at a later stage. The same applies in the Lechmere case, and my prediction is that there is more to come. I feel pretty certain that any amount of research into Lechmere can only spell trouble for the man, not exoneration - but I am fully prepared to stand corrected on that score, should it prove necessary. The accusations against him are extremely grave, and an open mind is very necessary, thus.

"My relative formally signed himself Carty or McCarthy as the mood took him...the bugger even signed as Carty on his wedding certificate...The names are alike enough/different enough to be deceptive and I'm sure that was his particular objective...the family apparently dubbed him "Fly by Night"...which is a difference between him and Cross...and which, coupled with the disclosure of the latter's address, and his employers details, disposes me to think that whereas gg grandad may have been a bit of a natural crook, Cross may well not have been!"

I hope I am not misunderstanding you, but it would seem then that there was a desire to be deceptive and that your relative was a bit of a crook. If so, then you confirm what I have been saying all along - aliases were for people with shady reasons. I do not wish to offend you in any manner, Dave, so please correct me if I got this wrong!

"So how accurate are your own estimates of time, without access to a clock or watch?"

I have read up a lot on time estimations, Dave, and I know that they are wobbly things. But in this instance we have a full score of people all giving time estimations that roughly corroborate each other, and much as we must give some leeway, it cannot be extended to Lechmere finding the body at 3.31 as you suggest. If it had only been the one man estimating, then yes, but we have Paul, Mizen, Neil, Thain all clocking in at times that roughly see eye to eye, and we have Llewellyn arriving at a time that tallies with what they had.

"So here we go again ... conflating unproved facts with educated guesswork to produce a seemingly very convincing argument...until, as I would contend, one starts pulling out the individual bricks and the wall falls down..."

They don´t fall at all, Dave. What happens if you isolate the details is that you can come up with ALTERNATIVE explanations to my suggestions - but not with evidence that brings them down in any respect. Each argument stands on it´s own, but it´s either or in each case; he either lied to Mizen cause he was the killer or cause he was late, he used the name Cross either to avoid police interest or because he always did so on a daily basis. No wall coming down there, is there? Just alternative explanations.
The crux of the matter, though, is that to see what I see, one should NOT treat each detail individually only - it is the combined weight that does the trick. One unflattering detail can always be accepted, two can be overlooked and forgiven - but at some stage, we must realize that it may be a very foolish thing to do, to step in and defend Lechmere no matter how many the damning details become. It´s like I said before - eventually, one small straw can break the donkeys back, if the burden it carries already has become too big.

"With just as much actual proof as you've mustered, I'd suggest the police checked out Cross and he was clean"

... which is why they knew he was called Lechmere?

"if the woman wasn't exposed...if her abdomen wasn't openly on view, then how come Paul (not Cross you note) felt obliged to pull down her dresses to decently cover her?"

Blimey, Dave! Paul was a VICTORIAN! Decency to such a man faded one inch over a woman´s foot, for Christ´s sake! He did not pull the dress down to help people not to see the wounds - he did not know they were there in the first place! - he did so to preserve the woman´s decency! Prostitutes did not wear hotpants back then, they wore skirts that swept the streets.

"The police weren't omnipotent - they couldn't simultaneously be everywhere..."

Which is why Ripperologists have accepted that Jack COULD have done the deed and disappeared. But the truth of the matter is that it would have been pretty miraculous if he did, since there were PC:s and watchmen aplenty around. Spratling speaks at the inquest, I believe, of how he had spoken to "all the watchmen", implicating that they were not fewish - and not one of them had seen or heard anything at all at the given time. The inlet and outlet of Buck´s Row was pretty much covered, leading Swanson to speak of how it was utterly strange that the killer had succeeded to escape "without the slightest shadow of a trace".
And all the while, the police KNEW that two men had walked in and out of Buck´s Row, they knew that these men had even been in physical contact with Nichols, and they knew that one of the men had enjoyed an unestablished time of privacy with her. But this man did not fit the bill, quite clearly.

The rest of the points you make, are for Lechmere to answer.

All the best, Dave!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"I still don't get why Mizen would not take umbrage at the fact that CrossMere basically accused him of telling an untruth . "

How do you know he did not? Lechmere witnessed AFTER Mizen, and so we do not have his reactions. Sure enough, he would have been extensively questioned about this detail by his superiors BEFORE the inquest, but they would not have been able to make heads or tails of it. They would have assumed that Mizen was honest, and they would have thought that "Cross" made an honest impression too, leaving them with the obvious call of a mistake.
What Mizen thought, if he was fuming and frothing or if he thought it all uninteresting - who knows?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"If you belive the tosh, it seems the City and the Met had a whole barrel full of bad apples for that period in 1888. People are far too quick to shoot their lips without bothering to assess the situation and the evidence."

True enough. What I find irritating in this particular issue is that some posters work from the presumption that Mizen would have lied - without being able to show what good that lie would do him. In the universe I live in, people who lie normally do so to gain an advantage. What Mizen said could only get him further bogged down, which is why I think the better guess is that he was coming clear.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Without wishing to accuse any one of being untruthfull ..

There is an odd situation where as both Paul and Crossmere State that Mizen WAS told of a murdered woman ..

Also Paul claims Mizen carried on knocking people up after he was told , which he thought was a great shame ..

YET...

Mizen claims CrossMere did not say anything about a murder having been committed. He also denied that before he went to Buck's-row he continued knocking people up.

So Who was being a tad economical with the truth .. Do we take the word of two working men .. or one policeman ?

cheers

moonbegger.

[Fisherman]

No, Moonbegger - Mizen was NOT told of a murdered woman. He was only informed about a woman lying flat on her back in Buck´s Row, either dead or drunk.

And no, Mizen does NOT say he did not go on knocking people up - he actually says that he finished the knocking-up errand he was proceeding with as Lechmere arrived, before going straight to Buck´s Row. He denied any FURTHER knocking-up than that, though. And it´s easy to see how Paul could have drawn the conclusion that Mizen prioritized the knocking-up business, since he admits to doing that in some small proportion.

You need to read the material carefully before commenting on it. As it stands, you will only confuse the readers of this thread.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Oh Really ! I was going off pauls press statement .. combined with inquest testimony ..
Paul clearly states Mizen carried on Knocking up , he was also told of the murdered woman .. you know, the dead one !

Also ...

Has anyone entertained the radical thought that , the reason CrossMere may have felt uneasy and bluffed his way past Mizen .. was in fact because he was in possession of a knife or cosh ( for his own protection ) and seeing as was first on the scene at a possible murder , a few panic bells may have gone off ..

And i really dont think there could be a greater confusion on this thread than the yo yo jack scenario ..

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"Oh Really ! I was going off pauls press statement .. combined with inquest testimony ..
Paul clearly states Mizen carried on Knocking up , he was also told of the murdered woman .. you know, the dead one ! "

The time has come for you to get your act together, Moonbegger. Much as Paul knew that the woman had been murdered as he witnessed at the inquest halfways into September, he DID NOT DO SO when he met with Mizen on the last day of August. Much as he knew that it was a slaying when he spoke to the press, he did not know this on the 31:st!!!
Both Paul and Lechmere told the coroner that they saw no blood and had no idea that the woman had been murdered AT THAT STAGE. Consequentially, they could not have told Mizen that she had been the victim of a crime (well, Lechmere could if I am correct, but he would not do so since it would have had him hanged).

Are we on the clear with this now? On the night of the 31:st, as Lechmere spoke to Mizen, the PC was NOT informed that the woman in Buck´s Row had been murdered! Ergo Mizen could not, would not and should not say that he had been told this. He in fact instead witnesses that Lechmere had neither said that it was a murder or a suicide, and that goes to show that Mizen believed that it was odd that two carmen that had been sent to fetch him because a fellow PC had discovered a woman that had been killed or who had committed suicide (Mizen was discerning enough to realize that BOTH possibilities would have been open at the initial stages) had no knowledge of WHY the had been sent.

"Has anyone entertained the radical thought that , the reason CrossMere may have felt uneasy and bluffed his way past Mizen .. was in fact because he was in possession of a knife"

Hopefully not, since it would have been a daft thing to do. There would have been no blood on the knife if he was innocent and it would probably been hard to find a man who did not carry a knife. It was the common man´s everyday tool, and if carrying such a thing made you a killer, then the police needed to lock up half the population of London.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Moonbender
If Cross/Lechmere had a knife on him it would not be entirely unusual as he may well have needed one for work. If it was covered in blood it may be incriminating. If it was clean it would imply innocence. No big problem - if you think things through before typing.
Oh Fishermkan beat me to it on that very very obvious point.
A cosh? How many law abiding carmen do you think walked around with a cosh? Are you starting to move towards thinking he was a bit of a rogue?

[Lechmere]

Monty
Now you have re-surfaced on a Lechmere thread could you provide your take on the Mizen evidence and his behaviour or conduct.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lechmere

If Cross/Lechmere had a knife on him it would not be entirely unusual as he may well have needed one for work.

Maybe, if his horse got lame .... ;-)

[Lechmere]

"The rest of the points you make, are for Lechmere to answer."

Oh thanks!
Cog
I don't believe that the double event was pre-thought out. The connection to the race name is too convoiuted to me and what killer would predict that a journalist would make that connection?
If CRoss/Lechmere was the killer it would have gone like this.
He viisted his mother and daughter on his evening off.
He leaves for home, perhaps having a drink first. Perhaps he is in a bad mood - seeing his mother with his second step father. Perhaps he was belittled by a domineering mother. He sees Stride soliciting in Berner Street and strikes. But she struggles too much - being younger and fitter than his previous victims and it is too dark in the yard. Then he is disturbed. He hides then flees but is unsatisfied and goes to where he knows he will probbaly find another victoim. he finds Eddowes, then flees towards his hosue dropping the apron on the way.

It is somewhat rare for a serial killer of vulnerable victims to kill a non vulnerable person who disturbs them. IOt is of no surprise that the killer - whoever he was - did not attack Diemschutz. The characteristics given to Cross/Lechmere - cool calculating etc - would almost certainly apply to whoever the killer was.

Polly's dress would have reached to her ancles. In Victorian times woman covered their whole leg as the whole leg was regared as being 'too sexy'.
An attempt to make Polly decent would involve pulling the dress fully down.
When 'dicovered' by Cross and Paul the dress would have been down just below the waist - covering the wounds. The wounds simply must have been covered.
Paul tugged it down a bit to cover her thighs - leaving the majority of her legs still exposed when Neil came along.
If you read the accounts it is clear that this is what the situation was.

Agreed the police were not omnipotent but this is one of the few Whitechapel murders where no shifty individiual was seen around the crime scene. Apart from Cross of course. The lack of anyone else being seen in the vicinity of Polly's body isn't proof that it was Cross but it is just a little extra pointer. If Thane and Mizen said they saw a dozen people pass by then I am sure you would suggest that any one of these could have been the killer! And you would be right to. But they didn't.

If Cross/Lechmere was innocnet then he probably wouldn't have taken any notice of the beats or what was going on down Winthrop Street. True. But that is hardly the point.


There is no way the police returned to the case and checked Cross/Lechmere out - he was still refererd to just as Cross in a police report in October 1888. The police always recorded known aliases or alternative names in their reports.

[FrankO]

Hi Frank! I´m afraid that, either way, Lechmere seems to have taken great care not to disclose that HE had found her. "A woman is lying there" in combination with "Another policeman wants you there" produces the inevitable picture of a PC having found her. And that remains the bottom line - the lie about the PC and the omittment to say that Lechmere himself was the discoverer gives him away. Together, of course, with the ensuing lie at the inquest, where he flatly denied it. He was even so brazen as to mock Mizen by saying that he had not said anything about a PC because there was no PC there. It would have sufficed to just answer "No, Sir" to the coroner´s question, but I believe he was too satisfied with his own ruse to refrain from expanding on it.
Not that I can prove THAT, though!

I agree that ‘A woman is lying there’ isn’t clear either about who actually found the woman, Fish, but my point was to point out that Mizen very likely didn’t say that Cross told him something like: ‘A woman has been found in Buck’s Row.’. In our enthusiasm we should be careful not to present things as fact while they’re not.

If you assume Cross was Polly’s killer, I can see how his vagueness and a lie would have served him. However, as it stands, the bottom line for me is that the conversation on the basis of which you put Cross in the frame for Jack the Ripper is too limited to draw that conclusion.

The thing that I actually have the hardest time with is the notion that if Cross did kill Polly, he wouldn’t pay attention to his surroundings and wouldn’t have heard Paul like Neil heard Thain.

It’s a pity that the information regarding Polly’s murder is so limited & incomplete in general, and that we particularly don’t have the police statements of the 3 key figures and that the Coroner didn’t ask all the right questions (if only on our behalf).

The best, Fish!
Frank

[Fisherman]

On the point of Lechmere avoiding the police because he carried a knife, it should also be added that if he was the innocent man he said he was, then he would have had no idea that a knife had been used on Nichols ...

Pretty useful point, that, eh?

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Frank:

"I agree that ‘A woman is lying there’ isn’t clear either about who actually found the woman, Fish, but my point was to point out that Mizen very likely didn’t say that Cross told him something like: ‘A woman has been found in Buck’s Row.’. In our enthusiasm we should be careful not to present things as fact while they’re not."

Oh, I think "we" can contain that enthusiasm quite well, Frank! And if we look at the inquest reports we have both wordings, as per for example the Daily Telegraph and the Times. Moreover, IF we were to allow only for "where a woman was lying in the street", it would only go to show that "a woman had been found there", right? Small difference, and I fail to see that I can be accused of any cherry-picking since no version is more damning for Lechmere than the other.

"If you assume Cross was Polly’s killer, I can see how his vagueness and a lie would have served him. However, as it stands, the bottom line for me is that the conversation on the basis of which you put Cross in the frame for Jack the Ripper is too limited to draw that conclusion."

The conclusion that it would have served him to avoid police interest? But you just said that you could see how that works, did you not?
Of course, what you would mean is that it is too limited to put it beyond doubt that this would have been what happened. In that case, I tend to agree to some extent. But I couple it with his late arrival in Buck´s Row, with his giving the wrong name, with the pulled-down dress, with his concealing the wounds etcetera, etcetera. And in that context, the combined weight of the evidence is larger than that of each little detail weighed together.

"The thing that I actually have the hardest time with is the notion that if Cross did kill Polly, he wouldn’t pay attention to his surroundings and wouldn’t have heard Paul like Neil heard Thain."

But he DID hear Paul, Frank! The question is at what stage, however. He SAYS 30-40 yards off, which I tend to think gives him away - for if Neil heard Thain 150 yards away, then surely this would be a very short distance indeed. I therefore reason that Lechmere would probably have heard Paul from a longer distance - long enough to give him time to decide to bluff it out, but not long enough to make him decide to run for it. And how those distances would have been perceived by Lechmere, nobody knows! He may have heard Paul immediately after he turned into Buck´s Row and STILL chosen to bluff him. As you will understand, there were advantages to travelling in company with another man!
And we must NOT work from any "truth" that all killers will run if given the chance!
Last, but not least, as I have suggested before, if Lechmere did not hear Paul until rather late in the process, then this COULD be due to him working in a "bubble", sort of, when cutting away at Nichols.

"It’s a pity that the information regarding Polly’s murder is so limited & incomplete in general, and that we particularly don’t have the police statements of the 3 key figures and that the Coroner didn’t ask all the right questions (if only on our behalf)."

Sort of, yes. But I tend to see it the other way around: it´s very lucky that we are left with enough material to be able to suss out that Lechmere is a very good bid for the killer´s role. If we had not had Mizen´s information that Lechmere was the one speaking to him, we would be in the dark. If we had not had the Echo article telling us that Mizen did not know "Cross´" name and status, the scam would not have been as obvious as it is, etcetera. I think we have a lot - and that more will surface.

Take care, Frank!
Fisherman