The Mizen scam

[FrankO]

Mizen witnessed BEFORE Lechmere, Frank.

I’m well aware of that, Fish. That’s why I wrote that a misremembering Mizen may have got confused about what Cross had actually told him after Cross had taken the stand, as a result of Cross denying that he’d told him he was wanted by a PC.

And even if Mizen was trying to put two and two together, we may need to realize that it took 124 years for the Mizen scam to surface inbetween us Ripperologists.

Mizen was there, played a part in the case of Polly’s murder, and if he was sure about what he rememberd, it seems rather odd that he took no action now that Cross had made him look like a fool or even a liar, and more importantly, that after hearing Cross's inquest testimony he knew Cross was the actual liar, that Cross didn't know Paul and that Paul had found him standing close to the body of a murdered woman. So, he had good reason to come into action – which would greatly have enhanced the chances of ‘the Mizen scam’ to have come to light - yet, apparently, Mizen did nothing.

It has also been said many times by now, but it apparently needs to be said once more that the fact that Mizen did not take the carmen´s names and addresses down - as I believe would have been procedure - very clearly implicates that he was of the meaning that here was no need for him to do so. This, arguably, would owe to his knowledge of the other PC - the one that had spoken to the carmen and sent them on a mission to go looking for him. And this all happened BEFORE he met Neil!!!

There you have a good point and you may well be right, although I don’t think this necessarily implicates that he didn’t take any names or ask any questions because he felt there was no need anymore to do so.

For if you are correct, then Mizen would have set out with no expectations at all to find a PC in Buck´s Row, and he would have been surprised to see one.

That is not necessarily true. Mizen’s testimony leaves room for the interpretation that he was a bit absent-minded, that he didn’t really have his mind to it when he was spoken to by Cross & Paul, which would make his mind impressionable. If true, seeing Neil in place and on top of things, he may have concluded that Neil had sent the 2 men for him, and from there, that Cross had told him he was wanted by a PC.

We can think up lots of alternative scenarios as much as we wish, but the recorded evidence has and must have the upper hand.

Which is that Mizen told one thing and Cross denied what Mizen said, and I'm not denying that. To try to make sense of this one way or the other takes speculation.

All the best,
Frank

[Monty]

If Mizen didn't take names and addresses then that act supports his version.

That is 2 men came up to him and stated he was needed in Bucks Row. No mention of murder or a crime, therefore no requirement to take details.

Monty

[FrankO]

As I know you're knowledgable about police matters, I take your word for granted, so thanks for that, Monty.

[FrankO]

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...

Hi Dave,

Lechmere is right in saying that the knees weren’t bent but stretched out (when found by Neil, as stated by Dr Llewellyn). However, as Jon suggested, Paul may have caused this when trying to pull down Polly’s skirts.

Having said that, I agree that it’s not a fact that the clothing covered the abdominal wounds. For if we are to believe they were ‘raised almost up to her stomach’, we may understand this to mean that the clothes had been worked up almost to the organ of that name, of which the lowest point is located perhaps a couple of inches above the navel. If this were actually where the clothes were at, the lower portion of the abdomen and pelvis were uncovered. As Paul didn’t notice the severe cuts to the throat either, there’s no particular reason to believe that he would have noticed the abdominal wounds.

All the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Dave:

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

... and nothing at all at 3.31. That´s my point. If Lechmere came upon the body at 3.31, and Paul arrived at 3.31, then they met Mizen at around 3.36. That´s close to ten minutes BEFORE the 3.45 the men all spoke about.
The chance that they all spoke of 3.45 whereas it was in fact 3.35 is not a very large one. It is practically impossible.

" I'm not the poster who's desperately trying to suggest anything at all..."

Nope - you are instead one of the posters who deperately try to defend Lechmere, and who is ready to go as far as to throw out four mens´unanimous time estimations in doing so. Desperation comes in many forms, Dave.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Colin:

"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."

Present? Yes. Nobody is contesting that. It´s HOW CLOSE together they were that´s of interest.

"This doesn't fit your "supposition that Lechmere sent Paul in advance, taking care of Mizen himself" in any way, shape or form."

Once again, the distance between the men is what counts. Some leeway must be given when it is said that the men walked together - it does not mean that they were Siamese twins, necessarily.

THEY walked on together until THEY met a policeman, yes. How does that ensure that THEY were close together AFTER doing so? Correct - it does not.

"The opposite is true."

No - the opposite is your suggestion, nothing else. How true it is, we cannot know. The possibility is VERY open that the two men were more or less divided in Mizen´s presence.

"It indicates that both men were present with Mizen when the conversation took place."

The indication is that both men were "present" - but not that they were so "with Mizen". If all sources had said that they both were close and both spoke to Mizen, you would have had a good point. But as it stands, you have a point that does not stand up top scrutiny when having assesses all the sources.

"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?"

Yes.

"Mizen's evidence:
"When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street."

Yes? And, Colin? Where in all of this does it say that Paul was ever very close to Mizen?
Mizen would have seen the two men arriving together, accepting that the two men travelled in company. He even said that he believed that they were co-workers. But it does NOT say that Paul stood one, two, three, five or forty yards away from Lechmere!
When I travelled to Funchal this summer, I was accompanied by my wife - but there was the odd inch inbetween us at times. The expression is open for a lot of interpretation, and more than one source implicate that the two men were not that close together at the Mizen encounter.
Plus "both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street" does not have to mean that they did so together initially. If Paul left at 3.46 and Lechmere at 9.30, they would actually still "both" be leaving by Hanbury Street" and it would on both cases be "afterwards".

"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."

The Star does not say that Lechmere did NOT go down Hanbury Street, and we KNOW that he did. But when the Star says that there was another man in Lechmere´s company, who went down Hanbury Street, then that is a good indicator that he went FIRST, that is BEFORE Lechmere did. And that means that the suggestion that Lechmere said "Hey, here´s a PC, I´ll talk to him and you just go on ahead" becomes a very viable one, tallying very well with the evidence.

It´s anybody´s choice. But the choice to claim that there is no viable substantiation for my take on things is effectively not around.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

When I travelled to Funchal this summer, I was accompanied by my wife - but there was the odd inch inbetween us at times.

I'm pretty amazed that you didn't put the odd foot between you sometimes and sneak off to an internet café, in view of your assiduity in defending your article, here.

Were you afraid that your wife would cite Polly as the 'other woman' ?

[Fisherman]

Frank:

"I’m well aware of that, Fish. That’s why I wrote that a misremembering Mizen may have got confused about what Cross had actually told him after Cross had taken the stand, as a result of Cross denying that he’d told him he was wanted by a PC."

I´m sorry, Frank, but I don´t see what you are after here? Do you mean that he became so confused that he did not push the issue further?

"Mizen was there, played a part in the case of Polly’s murder, and if he was sure about what he rememberd, it seems rather odd that he took no action now that Cross had made him look like a fool or even a liar, and more importantly, that after hearing Cross's inquest testimony he knew Cross was the actual liar, that Cross didn't know Paul and that Paul had found him standing close to the body of a murdered woman. So, he had good reason to come into action – which would greatly have enhanced the chances of ‘the Mizen scam’ to have come to light - yet, apparently, Mizen did nothing."

I think that is wrong. I think he did a lot - of thinking, that is. He must have asked himself what was going on. But that does not mean that he must have arrived at the solution I arrive at! Maybe he simply thought it very odd and started believeing that he may have misheard or misinterpreted Lechmere. It´s an impossible call to make. And the fact that he knew that Lechmere did not know Paul was always a possibility - none of the carmen said that they were aquintances, it was a guess wholly on behalf of Mizen himself.

"There you have a good point and you may well be right, although I don’t think this necessarily implicates that he didn’t take any names or ask any questions because he felt there was no need anymore to do so."

If not, then it applies that he had been informed about a woman lying in the street, quite possibly dead, without taking notes of the men that reported it. That version of events is much less credible, I find.

My words:

"For if you are correct, then Mizen would have set out with no expectations at all to find a PC in Buck´s Row, and he would have been surprised to see one."

Your answer:

"That is not necessarily true."

But it IS true, frank. If the carmen did not speak of any PC at all in place in Buck´s Row, then Mizen must have set out with no expectations to find one there. Unless, that is, he cooked up a belief of his own that he HAD been told about a PC BEFORE he even got to Buck´s Row and found Neil there.

"Mizen’s testimony leaves room for the interpretation that he was a bit absent-minded, that he didn’t really have his mind to it when he was spoken to by Cross & Paul, which would make his mind impressionable. If true, seeing Neil in place and on top of things, he may have concluded that Neil had sent the 2 men for him, and from there, that Cross had told him he was wanted by a PC."

I see how you reason. But it STILL applies that Mizen would have left Baker´s Row with no expectations to find a PC in Buck´s Row. And it EQUALLY applies that when he did so, he would have been surprised by it. And suggesting that it would have him thinking "Oh - the carmen must have told me about this PC" is nothing but loose theorizing, unsupported by the fact that Mizen did not take the names down in the first place - which procedurewise VERY much implicates that he was of the meaning that this would have been done already by his fake colleague.

"Which is that Mizen told one thing and Cross denied what Mizen said, and I'm not denying that. To try to make sense of this one way or the other takes speculation."

It does. And it is the quality of the speculation, and how it suits the material recorded, that governs how useful that speculation is. Therefore, the suggestion that Lechmere bluffed his way past Mizen is a very good one, since the lie he used if this was the case was shaped in the best way possible in all parts to enable him to reach his goal. It also applies that Mizen stood to gain nothing by lying, since the testimony he gave only served to make himself look worse.
All in all, this still only means that I am suggesting a scenario - but that scenario fits all the way through.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"If Mizen didn't take names and addresses then that act supports his version.

That is 2 men came up to him and stated he was needed in Bucks Row. No mention of murder or a crime, therefore no requirement to take details."

Would you not say that the assertion that a PC awaited him in Buck´s Row would have been the true clincher, enabling him to omitt to take the names down? Before that knowledge, he was still faced with the opportunity that he had a crime on his hands. Dead people lying around on pavements require explanations, and Mizen would have known that. He could not have banked on that woman not being the victim of foul play. But he COULD bank on his fellow PC having made sure what it was all about and having taken the necessary precautions - including the names of the carmen - if THAT had been deemed necessary by his fake colleague.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"I'm pretty amazed that you didn't put the odd foot between you sometimes and sneak off to an internet café, in view of your assiduity in defending your article, here."

It was bliss not to.

"Were you afraid that your wife would cite Polly as the 'other woman' ?"

Nah - she knows that the only other women in my life have scales on their bodies. And we are NOT talking mermaids.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

"I'm pretty amazed that you didn't put the odd foot between you sometimes and sneak off to an internet café, in view of your assiduity in defending your article, here."

It was bliss not to

.

An helpess addict, are you ?

[Fisherman]

To my wife? So she tells me.

The best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

Moving On

Yes? And, Colin? Where in all of this does it say that Paul was ever very close to Mizen?

Hi Fisherman,

Where does it say that he wasn't? Sometimes we are left to use our common sense. The two men were together when they found a policeman:

"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".

I won't try and dissuade you. You are convinced that Cross is the killer and perfectly entitled to be so. I think it's time to exercise my right to disagree and simply move on.

Best Wishes, Bridewell.

[moonbegger]

Moonbegger:

"And is there such a big difference in how a policeman reacts to being told " a woman is dead " as opposed to " murdered " is a dead woman not such a big deal as a murdered woman ? "

Please, please, PLEASE, Moonbegger - READ THE MATERIAL!!! When (or if) you should ever get around to doing so, you will see that the carmen said that the woman was dead OR DRUNK! And yes, the difference between murdred and dead is at any rate monumental! Not for the victim, but for the ones who are to deal with the case afterwards.

Read, Moonbegger. It helps immensely!

Fisherman

Hello Fisherman ,

DEAD or drunk , from Crossmere .. " i think she IS DEAD " from Paul ..

Can we spot the common denominator here , the KEY word ,

Especially if you are a policeman walking a beat in an area where two other women were also found DEAD ..

"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!'

Actually i was referring to Pauls Claim in Lloyds that polly had been murdered

And It was the morning of the 31st was it not ? now who is confusing who here ?

Maybe it is you who should read more fisherman .

I can understand how frustrating it must be for you and the Leech , to feel that you have finally made progress , only for everyone to pull the rug from under your feet , To quash your celebrations .. to see through your carefully camouflaged words ..

But seeing as both you and Leech are Tottenham fans .. I guess you are more than used to that by now

( PS .. Cliff Jones , was my P.E teacher )

MoonGooner

[Fisherman]

Colin:

"Where does it say that he wasn't?"

It does not say EITHER way, Colin. And that´s the point I am making. The material, however, opens up very much for an interpretation that the two carmen did NOT speak to Mizen together.

Mizen, as per the Echo:

"By the Coroner - There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness. The other man, who went down Hanbury-street, appeared to be working with Cross."

The two men seem not to have left Mizen together. Maybe they both went up to him first, whereas Paul left him at a stage previous to Lechmere. Or he had been sent in advance.

The Evening News:

"Police-constable Mizen, of the H Division, said on Friday last, about a quarter to four, he was in Baker's-row, at the end of Campbell-street. A man who had the appearance of a carman passed him and said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row.""

"A" man. Not two men. Where is Paul? Why does he not say that TWO men passed him, and one of them said ...?

The Evening Standard:

"I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when some one who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row). The man appeared to be a carman. (The man, whose name is George Cross, was brought in and the witness identified him as the man who spoke to him on the morning in question.)"

And Paul is where...?

Mizen does not for a split second imply that Paul ever said a single word to him. The only one who claims that this was so is Lechmere. Of course, Paul in his famed 2:nd of September interview claims the he ran the whole show, but Mizen makes it very clear that this was not so. And, in fact, we may see at the inquest that Paul does NOT say that he told Mizen anything. In the Daily Telegraph, Paul says that they met a PC in Baker´s Row, and in the Times he says that they walked up to Baker´s Row where they told a policeman - but he says not who did the telling!

This is what it looks like in the papers, Colin. They note that Lechmere and Paul travelled together, and we know that this was so. But not one single paper tells us that the carmen were close together AS MIZEN WAS INFORMED. The only man to claim - at the inquest - that Paul talked to Mizen is, guess who ...? Yes, Lechmere, who says that Paul informed Mizen that he thought that Nichols was dead. But Mizen does NOT recognize this at the inquest. He is adamant that it was ONE man that passed him by and told him of Buck´s Row, and that this man was Lechmere.

"Sometimes we are left to use our common sense."

I just did. And common sense is not all that common, by the bye.

" The two men were together when they found a policeman"

Absolutely. They WERE together. And me and my wife were together in Funchal.

"You are convinced that Cross is the killer"

I am not fully convinced, no. But I think that the evidence points clearly in that direction, and I am much more inclined to vote guilty than innocent.

" I think it's time to exercise my right to disagree"

Time? Have you done anything else throughout the thread? You are perfectly right to think what you will. But others will have a say when it comes to your interpretation of common sense! That´s how it goes, Colin.

The best,
Fisherman