The Mizen scam

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Hi Ruby,

I don’t recall ever suggesting a journalist ‘coined’ the term. In fact I’m one of the remaining few who doubt that a journalist was responsible for that postcard. I have suggested in the past that it was probably a known racing term though, and ‘double event’ also appears in The Diary of a Nobody, which was first published in Punch, in serial form from July 1888. The actual term appears in the issue for February 9, 1889, and refers to two pieces of good news received on the same day

I suspect the author of the postcard was a horse-racing fan who relished the opportunity of using the term in that way to stir things up - hoaxer or killer.

Thankyou for that bit of info -I own 'Diary of a Nobody' somewhere, and enjoyed it very much (I seem to remember identifying with Pooter getting a nice pot of red paint and enthusiastically painting everything red, including the inside of his bathtub ?).

It is neither here nor now on this thread, and it isn't a 'theory' that I'm 'set' on I just have an open mind as to whether Jack was really disturbed, or mean't to actually kill 2 victims that night, with a nod to the Autumn Double.
As you point out, it was a known term at the time.

I don't think that the idea is convoluted in the least. Nowadays we imagine that horse racing is an upper class sport -but the building of that 19th century rail line to Newmarket tells us that it was to convey the masses from London to the races. Even in my childhood, my mother (from a totally working class family, with roots in the East End, and a 'nice' girl), always had a flutter on the Grand National -it was working class tradition. She stopped when she became upwardly mobile.

I think that Jack could have expected the masses to have got the racing reference at the time. You suggesting that a hoaxer, rather than a clever journalist, was reponsible for this link, supports my view.

Are you saying that everyone the police ever suspected would have come across as a ‘monster’? That doesn’t seem quite right to me, considering what we know about the named police suspects.

'Monster' was maybe a too strong a term -a 'weirdo' and not a seemingly 'normal' individual was clearly the case (athough we know today that serial killers get away with being 'serial' by not appearing overtly weird).

from memory - (I've got to go out now, and no time to check)
-Druitt -a criminal in police eyes for being a suicide, having a history of mental illness, and most probably being homosexual.
-Kosminski - Evidently mentally ill
-Bury -topped and mutilated his wife.
- Pizer -obviousy aggressive prostitute menacing bastard.
-Tumblety -foreign weirdo
-Ostrog -look at his photo ...he looks weird

I don't have time to reflect now -only constate that none of the above actually fits with what our rather broader shared knowlege of serial killers teaches us..

...that is that they 'fit' more with Lechmere/Cross than the fantasy of the killer that the police had in mind at the time..

x

[Lechmere]

Have a look across this forum - most people still prefer fantasy killers - Old Etonian clubbed cover ups, master criminals, multiple killers, fake diarists, middle class interlopers - never the humble Everyman who 9 times out of 10 is the culprit - and look at the incredible leaps of faith and implausible conjecture which pass without comment.

Ps and the overt nutters who would have been incapable of carrying out these attacks.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Lech. The Ripper murders are something very different from other serial crimes. I think all of us pick up on that on some level. There really hasn't been a series like it in the past 130 years.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

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

Briefly?

I think he took that the woman was drunk. As Cross and Paul were in disagreement as to her status, and there were no obvious signs to murder in the dark, Mizen assumed they were talking either about a drunk or a vagrant.

As to his conduct, lax I agree. This murder was early in the series and therefore there was no enforcement of emergency as we were to see later with the other murders.

If he did take it as a drunk or vargrant, it wouldnt have surprised me if he did carry on knocking up then wandered to Bucks Row in the hopes Nichols had gone. However if Cross and Paul had stated dead with some conviction, I feel he would have made a more rapid b-line to the scene.

Personally I feel there was confusion in communication, with the statement of 'drunk.....or dead' being taken by Mizen as throw away rather than with any seriousness. So he treated as such, just as he virtually admitted at inquest.

Monty

[Lechmere]

I don't think that's the case at all Tom. It was unfolded and very brutal but in my opinion it conforms with standard serial killer traits. If there can be such a thing.

[Lechmere]

Thanks for that Monty - but what of the 'wanted by a policeman' line?
Also do you think Paul also spoke to Mizen?
Presumably also this means you think the two carmen didn't really raise the alarm but more gave a rather vague story to Mizan which highlights a callous nature on their part in abandoning what they thought was an unconscious woman?

[Monty]

Indeed,

If Cross and Paul were that concerned they would have virtually drag Mizen to the scene, as Eagle did with PC Lamb in Berner St.

It seems Cross and Paul did not express a great urgency, as they were unsure if the woman was alive or dead also.

Has anyone here passed a drunk laying in the street and called a Policeman, dragging them to the scene?

Monty

[moonbegger]

Evening all

So we have Paul proclaiming in the Lloyds article that " he told Mizen she was dead " and also Cross , not only saying the same but also backing up Pauls claim ..

"There's a woman lying in Buck's-row. She looks to me as though she was dead, or drunk." The other man then said, "I believe she is dead." I don't know who this man was; he was a stranger, but appeared to me to be a carman."

So we have two independent witnesses saying the same thing !!!
but still you don't buy it because why exactly ???

Are you suggesting that working class men are incapable of telling the truth

where as Mizen was incapable of lying ?

How about you try this one .. Grab a friend and approach a London Bobby today , Then both inform him that you have just seen a womans body laying in the street and you are both of the opinion she is Dead .. How would he react ? there really is no confusion issue here , it is there in black and white . He was told by two people " a Dead woman"

Also Cross said he got to work at 4 .. but Mizen said he met the two men at 4.15 .. Whats the scoop here ?

cheers

moonbegger.

[Monty]

Moonbegger,

You chose secondary sources, I prefer primary.

Monty

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Christer

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.

With respect, Christer, if you don't believe in Tom's theory yourself then why on earth quote it in the first place? You must realise that your subsequent disclaimer significantly undermines your argument, if not your complete case.

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.

Only "if" Christer...you are contributing a classic circular argument here...In the absence of any proven facts I'm happy to listen to the views of the real experts and form an educated opinion.

I suggested "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".

You replied 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.

JtR (if the canonical limits are observed) was active only from the end of August 1888 to the beginning of November 1888...there is NO early, middle or late stage...he was there...then he was gone...

All far too soon (in, for example Sutcliffe or Zodiac terms) to run out of luck and be discovered (unless of course Jonathan H, as a lone voice in the wilderness, is correct - and frankly it's not something I'd dismiss out of hand)

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.

Here we go again...muddling the argument to conceal the weakness of your stance...My "convenience" had to do with a considerably different aspect of the case, (viz the Will of the Wisp or otherwise qualities of the killer I posit, rather than yours). Kindly return to my original posting and argue on the grounds I posited, rather than your substitution...You're well named Fisherman...just like a slippery eel!

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!

No you're not misunderstanding me at all Christer. I've taken a more mature look at my ancestor's activities, reconsidered the recorded evidence about him, and concluded he was, indeed, probably a total twister...such is life! He clearly wrote his varied names into criminal history (his use of a false identity on his marriage certificate says that much alone)...so rest assured nothing you say will offend me...unless of course you contend Cross/Lechmere was the same! (Heh Heh as Lynn would say)...This was the difference I was referring to ... In fact I begin to think Crossmere using the same name consistently on all written records is indicative of a general honesty...vice my ancestor...

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.

Reading up on it and actually trying it are two different things Christer...Are you not even prepared to devote a couple of hours to prove/disprove your theory? Doesn't say much for it then...especially seeing the original statements seem to indicate a positive surfeit of activity at 3.45 am...one short experiment plus a couple of "control" exercises might help prove your point...why are you so averse to trying this? Afraid you'll be 10 minutes out?

"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.

You misunderstand...totally...possibly deliberately...You claim effectively Polly's abdomen wasn't exposed like the classic JtR victims (because, totally without proof, you think Cross might've pulled her clothes down during Paul's approach)...the fact is, Paul openly admitted to pausing at the side of the body and pulling down the clothing to restore her decency. Why would he openly admit to touching the body if he didn't? So Polly was typically Ripper posed...until Paul messed with her...no query...no question...cold evidence...

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.

What? Enough at the time of C1 to cut off an escape? Sorry Fish but you're shot away...

All the best

Dave

[Rubyretro]

Has anyone here passed a drunk laying in the street and called a Policeman, dragging them to the scene?

As it happens, Yes !

[Monty]

As it happens, Yes !

How often?

Monty

[Rubyretro]

How often?

Monty

Once. It wasn't the same thing at all, though -I'll admit. it was in the middle of the day, and it was bloke lying half on and half off the pavement, in a terribly narrow street. I was very shocked because pedestrians were just stepping over him, and a line of cars were edging around him, inches from his feet, and not one single person would agree to help me lift him onto the pavement -and some bad driver in a hurry would have finished by crushing his toes and zooming off. So I did fetch the Police -luckily we still have plenty patrolling the town here. So I do know that people are revoltingly callous today -but I don't think that they were when I was younger, half as much. I don't think that they would have taken the same attitude towards a drunken woman, either -they were probably afraid that the bloke would wake up and become aggressive. He was filthy dirty too, and smelt, so maybe peope just didn't want to touch him ?

Polly was a woman, and Paul didn't mind touching her apparently. Further more, it is interesting that Cross (if he were innocent) didn't just continue on his way, when he saw that she wasn't a tarpaulin. He even felt concerned enough to stop Paul and show him the body, and spend more time there. So it is rather strange that after showing that concern, he wouldn't call for a policeman and drag him to the scene...caring one minute but callous the next ?

[Monty]

Without wishing to labour the point Ruby, but was this in the East End?

I ask because anyone who traverses the area today will still see drunks collasped in doorways and not bat an eyelid.

It was, and is, a common sight. Too common a sight for a PC to deal with in any great urgency.

Monty

[Rubyretro]

It was, and is, a common sight. Too common a sight for a PC to deal with in any great urgency.

Of course it wasn't the East End -anyway, my problem isn't with Mizen continuing knocking up. I have never been one of those people who have criticised Mizen for finishing knocking up, and have accused him of dereliction of duty or insinuated that he lied at the inquest or even of laziness or being more interested in the knocking up money (poor Mizen ! what alot of mud has been chucked at him !).

He could hardly have forseen that Polly would go down in history as a victim of Jack the Ripper and sober, living, people were relying on him to get to their jobs on time ! he had taken on a duty to them, and he fullfilled it.

My queries are more about the switch in attitude by Cross on finding Polly
(if he were an innocent witness), where he was concerned enough to stop Paul and linger, and then his offhand attitude and apparent lack of concern, when he met Mizen. As Fisherman points out, Mizen was tricked into not taking down details, and thinking that the problem was already being dealt with.