The Mizen scam

[Bridewell]

Pick and Mix

Colin?

"Lechmere thinks that the newspaper interview is more likely to be accurate than his inquest testimony."

In what respect?

His post 393 urges :

"Read paul's press interview - conducted before his version was corrupted by other people's accounts"

so presumably in every respect - there would be no logic in switching to a later version if you believe that version to have been 'corrupted by other people's accounts'.

"if the interview account is preferred, then Polly's body was "so cold that she must have been dead for some time" when Paul checked her."

Whatīs the problem? Llewellyn and Neil, a medico and a PC, both tell us that she was warm, so why would anybody put much faith in that part?

That's what I mean when I argue against taking a 'pick and mix' approach. The interview is either a reliable account or it isn't.

Mizen, another PC, tell us that Lechmere did the talking, and the latter corroborates that he spoke to the PC.

Okay, fine. The inquest testimony, as sworn evidence, is more reliable. I agree, but that means that "standing in the middle of the road" is the credible version of where Cross/Lechmere was when first seen.

You may want to look at the Evening Standard, I believe, where Lechmere is quoted as saying something like "we" looked at the body, "we" went for a PC, but "I" spoke to the PC and "I" then left and went to work. Telling, they way I read it!

The Coroner - "Did you not see that her throat was cut?"

Witness - "No; it was very dark at the time. We left together and went up Baker's row, where we met a constable. I said to him, "There is a woman in Buck's row on the broad of her back. She is dead or else drunk." the constable said he would go, and I left him and went on to work."

"We left together." We met a constable." "I said to him..." He gave evidence of what he said. Not suspicious activity. It's what the rules of evidence required him to do.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"That's fair enough...you believe your profiler, I'll believe mine..."

I donīt believe they are necessarily right, any of them. I only wanteds to point out that there is no consensus about the organized/disorganized thing.

"I inserted that particular "if" phrase to respect those who's beliefs are not restricted to the canonical five, Christer...and for no other reason...so let's, between ourselves, just accept the five...now in your view was Hazelwood off the mark or not?"

In my view, he was hopelessly off. My view is that Lechmere was the killer, and if so, the answer is a given one, right? But that does not mean that I canīt see where Hazelwoodīs coming from.

"This was not an attempt to imply outright dishonesty Christer. Perhaps as English isn't your first language, you aren't picking up on the nuances...In English we have a phrase "playing the slippery eel" - it's semi-respectful and falls short of implying sharp practice. I'm sorry if you've felt otherwise."

Iīm more durable than bachelite, Dave. I just donīt like having it said that I may be conscientiously misleading.
Thanks for the eel bit, though - I did not know that. Semi-respectful, no less!

"I'm merely observing that because the document hasn't survived we have no idea what it says, or how it was signed...for all we know it might've contained an explanation of the whole Cross/Lechmere name-change scenario..."

The bliss of ignorance, eh, Dave? My contention is that he signed as everybody else, and that he signed Cross - which is why the police believed that WAS his name.
Would have been nice to see it, though.

"OK so Paul left home at the same time as he accompanied Cross in approaching Mizen and that's ok with you? "

He walked down Buckīs Row at the same time, if we are to belive the testimony. Likewise, Thain was called at that time, and Neil found the body at that time. But all of these things take place withing the same five minute gap, and so we can be reasonably sure that 3.40 - 3.45 WAS the time when it went down. With tht, I am absolutely fine. With the suggestion that Lechmere found Nichols at 3.31, I am not fine at all. If that had been the case, Paul would not have been late for work, for example. And alal four men would not have had things centered at 3.45, they would have it centered around 3.31.

I can only say this in so many ways, Dave. If you think it could have been 3.31, feel free. I fear that you will have precious few takers, though.

"I would suggest the lower line of her clothing lay somewhere between her navel and her pubic hair..."

Thatīs that, then. Long as you can only suggest, I fear anybody elseīs fair suggestion makes for the exact same value. And my take on YOUR take is that the area you suggest is not under the abdomen but over it! Have a look at what the abdominal cavity encompasses and you will see why I think so.

"I've somehow got to you haven't I?"

You have?

"And I'm such a sweet natured guy!"

Thatīs my take on things too! You ARE!

"So, with respect, haven't you asked yourself why that might be?"

I havenīt had the urge - itīs too obvious.

"Sorry but I can't agree with that one Christer..."

So, no matter how many people we add to the scene, it does not affect the likelihood of Lecmere being the Ripper? If 3 298 had been noted in the street, that would not add to the possibility that one of these 3 298 people could have been the killer? It would not take any of the heat off Lechmere?

If there is a cat in a garden with a dead bird on the lawn, he is not necessarily the killer? Correct - itīs not proven.

And if there are ninetynine cats in it, it does not take some of the heat off cat number one?

Letīs agree to disagree on that one.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Colin:

"His post 393 urges :

"Read paul's press interview - conducted before his version was corrupted by other people's accounts""

Ah - the "over the body" thing again..? Iīll just quickly sidestep that one! You know my take on it.

""We left together." We met a constable." "I said to him..." He gave evidence of what he said. Not suspicious activity. It's what the rules of evidence required him to do."

It however implies that he and Paul did not leave Mizen together, which I find interesting. The Star says that Mizen claims that Paul went up Hanbury Street, whereas Mizen does not say this about Lechmere. It fits very well with my supposition that Lechmere sent Paul in advance, taking care of Mizen himself.

Nighty-night, Colin - Iīm off to bed!

The best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

Cool cats

If there is a cat in a garden with a dead bird on the lawn, he is not necessarily the killer? Correct - itīs not proven.

And if there are ninetynine cats in it, it does not take some of the heat off cat number one?

Letīs agree to disagree on that one.

I've eight cats Christer (formerly ten) so I know the answer to that one...and it still could've very easily been next-doors cat!

I'll come back to you soon on the rest of the posting, but that caught my eye!

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

I donīt believe they are necessarily right, any of them. I only wanteds to point out that there is no consensus about the organized/disorganized thing.

In my view, he was hopelessly off. My view is that Lechmere was the killer, and if so, the answer is a given one, right? But that does not mean that I canīt see where Hazelwoodīs coming from.

I think they have their limitations Christer, but to me (and perhaps it's a personal thing) Hazelwood generally seems to talk good sense...

Iīm more durable than bachelite, Dave. I just donīt like having it said that I may be conscientiously misleading. Thanks for the eel bit, though - I did not know that. Semi-respectful, no less!

Only semi-respectful - don't get carried away!

The bliss of ignorance, eh, Dave? My contention is that he signed as everybody else, and that he signed Cross - which is why the police believed that WAS his name. Would have been nice to see it, though.

We don't know what he signed or how he signed it...and yes that's (as you very cleverly put it) the bliss of ignorance...

"OK so Paul left home at the same time as he accompanied Cross in approaching Mizen and that's ok with you? "

He walked down Buckīs Row at the same time, if we are to belive the testimony. Likewise, Thain was called at that time, and Neil found the body at that time. But all of these things take place withing the same five minute gap, and so we can be reasonably sure that 3.40 - 3.45 WAS the time when it went down. With tht, I am absolutely fine. With the suggestion that Lechmere found Nichols at 3.31, I am not fine at all. If that had been the case, Paul would not have been late for work, for example. And alal four men would not have had things centered at 3.45, they would have it centered around 3.31.

There is simply too much going on at 3.45...I'm sorry but this is truly the case...

"I would suggest the lower line of her clothing lay somewhere between her navel and her pubic hair..."

Thatīs that, then. Long as you can only suggest, I fear anybody elseīs fair suggestion makes for the exact same value. And my take on YOUR take is that the area you suggest is not under the abdomen but over it! Have a look at what the abdominal cavity encompasses and you will see why I think so.

I'm not that hugely fussed Christer...but thereagain I'm not the poster who's desperately trying to suggest anything at all...

"I've somehow got to you haven't I?"

You have?

"And I'm such a sweet natured guy!"

Thatīs my take on things too! You ARE!

It would seem so...

"So, with respect, haven't you asked yourself why that might be?"

I havenīt had the urge - itīs too obvious.

Of course....

So, no matter how many people we add to the scene, it does not affect the likelihood of Lecmere being the Ripper? If 3 298 had been noted in the street, that would not add to the possibility that one of these 3 298 people could have been the killer? It would not take any of the heat off Lechmere?

If there is a cat in a garden with a dead bird on the lawn, he is not necessarily the killer? Correct - itīs not proven.

And if there are ninetynine cats in it, it does not take some of the heat off cat number one?

Letīs agree to disagree on that one.

I've already made my views on this particular gem known...cat number six did it...so where are you now? The hawk swooping from next doors chimney did it?...again...so where are you now?

Best wishes

Dave

[Bridewell]

Sources

Colin:

"His post 393 urges :

"Read paul's press interview - conducted before his version was corrupted by other people's accounts""

Ah - the "over the body" thing again..? Iīll just quickly sidestep that one! You know my take on it.

Fair enough.

""We left together." We met a constable." "I said to him..." He gave evidence of what he said. Not suspicious activity. It's what the rules of evidence required him to do."

It however implies that he and Paul did not leave Mizen together, which I find interesting.

I don't see that it implies anything at all. (See below re Star & The Times).

The Star says that Mizen claims that Paul went up Hanbury Street, whereas Mizen does not say this about Lechmere.

See below re Star & The Times

It fits very well with my supposition that Lechmere sent Paul in advance, taking care of Mizen himself.

Robert Paul:
"Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen".
Rules of evidence again. Paul cannot give evidence of what someone else has done and said in his absence. Both men were present - must have been for that evidence to be admissible from Robert Paul. This doesn't fit your "supposition that Lechmere sent Paul in advance, taking care of Mizen himself" in any way, shape or form. The opposite is true. It indicates that both men were present with Mizen when the conversation took place. This thread, entitled "The Mizen Scam" is based on the premise that Cross/Lechmere pulled a fast one - that he conned Mizen. If Mizen is the good guy, then we accept his evidence, yes?
Mizen's evidence:
"When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street."

The Star's account may not say that Cross/Lechmere went down Hanbury Street but that in the Times specifically states that both men did so.

Nighty-night, Colin - Iīm off to bed!

The best,
Fisherman

Sleep well.

Best Wishes, Bridewell.

[Lechmere]

Cog
There is no contradiction in a calculating killer baulking at striking an able bodied man. It actually fits the usual behavioural pattern of such serial killers

The issue of whether Polly’s ‘private parts’ were exposed is actually quite irrelevant. The only relevant aspect is that the clothing was dropped back over the abdominal wounds. This can be interpreted as a deliberate act – on the basis that the abdominal wounds on the other victims were left exposed – seemingly as part of the ritual. The deliberate act can only have been to hide the wounds.
Or you may prefer to believe that the clothing was merely causally dropped back and just happened top lie where they fell.

Thane and Mizen would not have seen Tomkins or Mulshaw because, as you will no doubt be aware, their beats didn’t go in the vicinities you mentioned...

By the way the daily events in the coroners court were reported in the press.

Moonshine
I do believe that the first person to raise the possibility that Cross/Lechmere originally signed on as Cross at Pickfords around 1868 was... me! It was in another thread some months ago.
I believe in setting all likely possibilities out even when they do not necessarily help my case you see.
However at that time I was under the mistaken impression that Mizen took his details and that Cross/Lechmere may have been in ‘work mode’ at that moment. We now know that Cross/Lechmere bluffed his way past Mizen and appeared at a police station almost certainly in response to Paul’s newspaper story appearing on the Sunday. This makes the use of the name Cross more perplexing.
Having said that I do not believe Cross/Lechmere kept his involvement in the inquest a secret from his work colleagues as he will have to have booked a day off to attend. The whole reason for the name swap and for attending the inquest in his work clothes was to avert his wife’s potential suspicions.
He took a risk in giving a false name, but it was not a massive risk and rather obviously it most certainly was not as risky as using a name to which he had no connection (Brown, Jones etc) – even though some people are now contending that this would have been the case.

On the timing issue - where a tine of 4.15 was given – this is at variance with other newspaper reports and was I think a mistake made by the journalist concerned.

Fisherman
I support Tottenham as well! Spooky! But I know a lot of Scandinavians support Tottenham.

[Lechmere]

Bridewell

Paul's first press interview offers a very useful insight into the type of man Paul was.
I have discussed this before.
He bigs himself up - maximising his role. He is clearly influenced by the press stories that were already in circulation by the time he made the statement.
But it would be foolish to merely disregard it completely. That would be like saying that any docyumnet regarding the riooer case that had internal inaccuracies within it should be rejected in total. After all we mustn't 'pick and mix'. But wait - if we did that we would have virtually no documents to refer to!
Take a few moments to mentally go through the various documents and work out whether or not this is the case.
I don't put faith in any inquest testimony as people - including policemen - are just as likley to lie for a whole variety of reason under oath or not.

It clear that Cross and Paul went to work and while on their way happened to bump into Mizne and once they met Mizne they did not report having found a dead body. They did not go in search of a policeman in fact at all.
They could have knocked on any door in the street they were in instead of wandering off.

Cog
We can safely say that Cross/Lechmere signed as Cross. The police always recorded alternative names in their internal reports - it is as simple as that. Cross/Lechmere is always listed as Cross - even as late as October which is the last report still in existance to mention him. If the police still thought he was just called Cross in October it is not credible to suggest that they found out he was really called Lechmere after this date. He rapidly dropped from their consciousness - as shown by Dew not even being able to remember his name in his memoirs.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Lech

The issue of whether Polly’s ‘private parts’ were exposed is actually quite irrelevant. The only relevant aspect is that the clothing was dropped back over the abdominal wounds.

You think so? My own view is that the legs apart, knees raised. exposed and mutilated genitalia are a key part (if not THE key part) of the Ripper phenomenon...it's what he's about...

And it was Paul (not Cross, you'll notice) who adjusted Nicholls clothing to cover this...

Thane and Mizen would not have seen Tomkins or Mulshaw because, as you will no doubt be aware, their beats didn’t go in the vicinities you mentioned...

You're quite right...and like the guy from Hogan's Heroes they all know nothing...

By the way the daily events in the coroners court were reported in the press.

I'm well aware of that (and do note the significance) but thank you anyway

All the best

Dave

[Jon Guy]

Lechmere

In answer to another point raised earlier - I think the abdominal wounds may well have been performed prior to the throat cut - this is what Llewelyn initially thought. It is based on the almost total lack of blood from the neck and the considerable amount of blood that soaked into Polly's clothes like a spong.

The body was dragged or moved after the throat was cut (like Kelly) which is why there is no pooling of blood by her cut throat and her back was soaked in blood.

[Lechmere]

Cog
Paul adjusted Polly's dress further - it was already covering the wounds.
Polly's knees weren't bent either - she wasn't posed unlike the others. Good point.

Jon - I don't know where you got that from - there was no sign of dragging - unless you mean she was dragged onto the ambulance?

[Jon Guy]

Lechmere

Jon - I don't know where you got that from - there was no sign of dragging - unless you mean she was dragged onto the ambulance?

You pointed out that there was little blood by the neck yet her back was soaked. I therefore, noted that she had been moved slightly after her throat was cut because the pooling of the blood by her neck was now under her back.


Also, we don`t know if the body was "posed" by the killer because Cross and Paul later messed around with the body. They had trouble pulling her skirts down so may have straightened her legs trying.

[Rubyretro]

Lechmere



The body was dragged or moved after the throat was cut (like Kelly) which is why there is no pooling of blood by her cut throat and her back was soaked in blood.

How do you know that, Jon ? I'm not saying that you're wrong, only I'm interested on where you got your information.

I have not totally dismissed Mrs Lilley from my mind. I agree with Lechmere that her timing by the train for 3.30 is too early, and yet the two whispering voices have to be Chas & Bob, which leads me to think that she recreated her memory after she knew the details of the murder (a supposition supported by the fact that the police evidently didn't invite her to the second sitting of the inquest, so couldn't have taken her seriously).

And yet, and yet....there is always that 'but what if she were right ?' question. I might not believe in occular witnesses - moving through the streets, intent on getting somewhere, passing an unknown couple in seconds, obviously having no knowledge of a forthcoming murder, and then supposedly being able to remember descriptions. But that someone should remember noises coming out of the silence, in the night, near their window -that, I think is a whole different ball game. Mrs Lilley was the static person here, and I think that she might subconciously strain to hear what was going on at that hour, so close to her house..

Well, obviously if Polly had had her windpipe cut, she couldn't have been doing any loud groaning. On the other hand, if she had been half strangled and then was wrenched back to life by the pain of being cut open alive, then she might well have expired with some very loud groans indeed. The Ripper
may even have cut her throat to shut her up -he might even have evolved his MO to making sure that he cut his victims' throat's first in future, so that they wouldn't do any groaning whilst he mutilated.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Ruby

How do you know that, Jon ? I'm not saying that you're wrong, only I'm interested on where you got your information.

Dr Llewellyn noted that " there was little blood round the neck", and the Policemen who lifted the body onto the ambulance noted that Nichol`s back was soaked with blood.

The blood could have pooled under her due to gravity, running down from her neck under her body, or the killer may have slightly shifted the body.

[Rubyretro]

Dave -I found this document on another thread, a few weeks ago..

(DF]
The Jack the Ripper murders: a modus operandi and signature ...
angela1simpson.galeon.com/jack.pdf

(copy & paste it -you can download the pdf)

I think that it is stated somewhere that this analysis would be admissible in a court of law in the States.

It clearly has Jack down as 'organised'. It seems pretty on the button to me.