The Mizen scam

[Lechmere]

And so the Cross/Lechmere doubters immersed their counter claim in a blizzard of speculation, denial of evidence in favour of such things as Polly having bent knees, Lechmere using the name Cross, the timings being set by a train, selective, a claim that Polly's clothing was left fully up after all, selective weight put to 'under oath' testimony, ingenious interpreation of what Mizen migfht have meant to say, rather than accepting what he did say and so on and so on

[Cogidubnus]

And so the Cross/Lechmere doubters immersed their counter claim in a blizzard of speculation, denial of evidence in favour of such things as Polly having bent knees, Lechmere using the name Cross, the timings being set by a train, selective, a claim that Polly's clothing was left fully up after all, selective weight put to 'under oath' testimony, ingenious interpreation of what Mizen migfht have meant to say, rather than accepting what he did say and so on and so on

I can't speak for any other Cross/Lechmere doubters, but for my own part, it is not I who's choosing to disregard the Lilley testimony, it isn't I who's disregarding the clear timing discrepancies, and it isn't I who's tacitly glossing over the position of Nicholls clothes...nor am I either putting words in Mizen's mouth or claiming he was lied to...I don't deny there's doubt over the use of the name Cross, but I'm afraid, for me at least, that's about the extent of it so far...if you can come up with more, then maybe I'll agree you have a case, but I'm afraid until then....

All the best

Dave

[Lechmere]

Cog
The Lilley testimony could refer to anything.
The timing discrepancies work in favour of the Cross/Lechmere theory
You have upwardly rearranged Polly's clothes.
You are rubbing words out of Mizne's mouth.

I think you were asking wherether it is known that Mizen failed to take Paul's and Cross's name and address.
The police didn't know Paul's address and had to search to find him. His name also did not appear at the inquest until he appeared later on. Mizen admitted at the inquest that he had only learnt Cross's (fake) name on the morning of the inquest.
This ties back in with Mizen's claim that Cross had said he was wanted by a policeman in Bucks Row which absolved him of the need to take their names. But I think you have decided Mizen was confused and never actually heard Cross say this?

[Rubyretro]

Good Morning, Fish !

Now what can I get you ? Tea or coffee ?

Some Devilled Kidney, perhaps ?

Or a soft boiled egg -I could cut a few soldiers with this sharp knife ?

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"So you're quite happy to ditch some witness testimony (Lilley) and not others..."

I am quite content that the collected time estimations of four people, three of whom were serving PC:s, must take precedence over a witness testimony that - by coupling it to a train that passed at a given time (3.30) - must be accepted as not belonging to the dealings inbetween Lechmere and Paul. They were not together in Buck´s Row at 3.30.

"and you're quite happy about the time Paul left home..."

You seemingly got this wrong. 3.45 is not the time Paul left home - it is the time he says he passed up Buck´s Row, as per his interview in Lloyds Weekly: "It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market".

"the same time Neil discovered the body."

Neil says 3.45, and that means that there is a discrepancy inbetween his and Pauls testimony of the odd minute, nothing more than that. And Neil is roughly corroborated by BOTH his colleagues, Thain and Mizen!!

"you're happy that Mizen puts his encounter with the carmen at 4.15 not 3.45."

"From the inquest, as per the Daily Telegraph: "Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed..."

From the inquest, as per the Times: "Constable G. Mizen, 56 H, stated that at a quarter past 4 on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row ..."

One paper has it a quarter TO four, the other has it a quarter PAST four. Given that Llewellyn said "Henry Llewellyn, surgeon, said: "On Friday morning I was called to Buck's-row about four o'clock", which paper do you think erred?

What kind of criticism is this, Dave? Why are you accusing ME of "suspect-blindness", using a quotation from the Times that is VERY obviously in error? Don´t you see that Mizen CAN´T have met the carmen at 4.15? Don´t you realize that the Times reporter mistook "to" for "past"? How am I supposed to be able to make any sort of logically based statement about the times involved here if you cannot pick up on obvious things like these?

You claim that accepting Lilley will reconcile the time estimations with the facts, but that is not so. The only "fact" that would reconcile anything with is that it would lend some sort of credibility to your suggestion that Lechmere left home around 3.25 and arrived in Buck´s Row at the approximate time that the train Lilley speaks of passed by. Accepting this would, however, fly in the face of all the timings given by all the participators involved in the Lechmere drama - it went down at around 3.45. If it had gone down at 3.30, how do you explain that Thain, who ran for Llewellyn, took half an hour to reach his residence...? How do you explain that Neil sent Thain to Llewellyn, after which he waited patiently for more than half an hour, at which time Mizen would have arrived, before sending anybody for an ambulance? And, interestingly, as Mizen would have been on his quest to fetch that ambulance, Mrs Greens son was washing away the blood on the pavement where Nichols had lain ...? I mean ... wow, sort of!

Far from accepting any mumbo-jumbo on your behalf about me being "suspect-blind", I would suggest that you are employing some very strange and obviously faulty timings to bolster that accusation. I hope that you can be unbiased enough to admit that, and that we may move on without any further posts of yours of this very lacking quality.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Good Morning, Fish !

Now what can I get you ? Tea or coffee ?"

Tea! Black tea, with a squish of milk, please. I only move on to coffee later in the day.

"Some Devilled Kidney, perhaps ?"

I think I will pass on that, if you don´t much mind. Fried, is it?

"Or a soft boiled egg"

Yes please. And that´s a FIVE minute dip, not a ten to fifteen one, mind you. If we get the timings wrong, we end up with bad eggs.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Well, I will take some repartée with a spoonful of sugar...I only become nasty after work..

[Lechmere]

When constructing a theory in this field I think you are on shakey ground if you ignore or contradict actual evidence from the time.
In this case we have first hand participatory evidence about the events surrounding the discovery of the body from Cross, Paul, Mizen and Neil.
The trouble is in trying to decide what happened when they contradict each other.
Who is to be believed?

If the case being made is that Cross is the culprit then suggesting he may be the one lying or bending facts is straightforward.
But what if a witness contradicts themselves - as Paul does between his newspaper interview and his inquest testimony?
In such circumstances you have to apply a little common sense and enage in literary criticism to see if it can be devined what may have influenced the witness (in this case Paul) to make whatever remark he made.

Mizen's statements are internally consistent. He dawdled in getting round to the crime scene (although he denied for understandable reasons the extent to which he continued to knock up) and failed to get Cross's or Paul's details, in essence because he was told there was a woman down who may just be drunk and that there was another policeman at the scene already.

Neil's statements are internally consistent.

Paul's are not - why? Undoubtedly because he was influenced by the first press reports he read (he was easily impressionable) and didn't want to look foolish. Also he 'bigged up' his own role in the press interview as he was a braggart. He also wanted to avoid looking callous and self centred in only being interested in getting to work. I think he clearly was callous and self centred - he was also a bit of a wimp (being scared of Cross's approach) and he was anti -police. His self-centredeness was also almost certainly a factor in his failure to come forward until dragged out of bed. It didn't directly concern him so he wasn't bothered by it. His second press interview is all about 'poor me, poor me'.
He was the ideal person from Cross's perspective to catch him in the act - lucky indeed.
These factors should be bourne in mind when assessing Paul's testimony at the inquest viz-a-viz for example his placing of Cross in the street.
In the first press interview he put Cross by the body.
In the inquest, following Cross's testimony, he put Cross in the middle of the road - which would actually only be literally a few feet from a location that could be described as 'over the body' - a minor discrepancy.
The case can clearly be made that by the time Paul appeared at the inquest he was influenced by Cross's statement and did not want to prolong his stand in the witness box by raising any potentially controversial issues.

Cross's statements are not internally consistent.
His timings are out. It is one thing for people to have different estimations for what the time is at any given moment, but quite another for someone's own timings to be out all along the line.
He showed concern over a prone female body and drew Paul to have a look and to prod her to see if she was alive. Then he showed lack of concern by just leaving her there - supposedly unsure whether she was alive or not - instead of alerting a neighbour or a near by night watchman of which there were several. Instead he went on his way to work.
He claims he was late for work yet went a longer route.
He claims he went to find and alert a policeman yet failed to properly alert Mizen.
He gave a name other than that which he is known to have always used when dealing with officialdom.

Secondary witnesses such as Lilley are much more problematical. She is inferior as a witness to people like Long or Lawende as all she claims to have done is heard some rather vague noises at a certain time. I am sceptical about all non participatory 'eye-witnesses' as they are notoriously unreliable - including Long and Lawende - but even morer so about a belated 'ear-witness' such as Lilley.
By 'non participatory eye witness' I mean someone who merely observed some event as they went about their business - rather than people such as Cross and Paul who were actively involved in an event they described.

As has been said before - the Cross/Lechmere case is the only one in 'Ripperology' where a suspect's crime scene behaviour can be discussed in detail. (Although Hutchinson's can in a minor way.)
All the crime scene evidence can be made to point to Cross as the culprit in realistic ways - i.e. based on observable human responses.
For example, the 'should I stay or should I go' issue. Some have tried rather fatuously to claim that no one would ever 'stay'. This flies so much against know human responses to such situations as to almost render it not worth discussing. It is almost like a milky sugary coffee drinker saying no one would ever drink coffee without sugar or milk. How do you argue with that?

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lechmere

As has been said before - the Cross/Lechmere case is the only one in 'Ripperology' where a suspect's crime scene behaviour can be discussed in detail. (Although Hutchinson's can in a minor way.)

John "Pipeman" Richardson in Hanbury St ?

[Lechmere]

Is there any detailed discussion about Richardson? Is a detailed discusion about Richardson possible? Did anyone see him at the step - we only have his words.
Pizer was also briefly thought of as a likely suspect at the time, but like Richardson was cleared.

[Fisherman]

Since it has been thrown forward on the thread that the abdomen is situated some inches over the navel (!), I thought it would be a good idea to sober up on that score:

"The abdomen (also called the belly), in vertebrates such as mammals, constitutes the part of the body between the thorax (chest) and pelvis. The region enclosed by the abdomen is termed the abdominal cavity. In arthropods it is the posterior tagma of the body; it follows the thorax or cephalothorax ... Anatomically, the abdomen stretches from the thorax at the thoracic diaphragm to the pelvis at the pelvic brim."

And it of course follows that "just below the abdomen" can easiest be described as just below the pelvic brim, if - IF that is - we need to be anatomically precise. I think we must give some leeway to carmen not being very well read up on the finer points of human anatomy.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Quite Fisherman.
This 'Ripperological' revisionism whereby it is suggested that Polly's abdominal wounds may have been on show and even her legs apart and bend up at the knee (without any evidence for this whatsoever) is getting absurd.
Why was reference made to the dress being raised to below the stomach?
Because the dress was raised and not down to her feet as would be the case if it hadn't been raised at all.
Also because the major wounds were to her stomach area and the dress raised to below her stomach was an explanation as to why the abdominal wounds wer not visible and hence the status (alive or dead) was not so obvious.
There is no reference anywhere that I am aware of to her private parts being on show. However it is blatently obvious that her clothing was covering her wounds (certainly the major wounds) which is unlike any other victim who had abdominal wounds.
That is how it was. An obvious explanation for this is that the culprit was disturbed and wished to obscure the situation. Some people find this very hard to accept for some reason.

[Jon Guy]

Is there any detailed discussion about Richardson? .

Yes

Is a detailed discusion about Richardson possible?

Yes

Did anyone see him at the step - we only have his words..

No-one saw him, yet he placed himself at the crime scene with a knife at the Doctor`s estimate of TOD

Pizer was also briefly thought of as a likely suspect at the time, but like Richardson was cleared.

Richardson, like Cross, was an early starter who had a link to the crime scene, but nothing like Pizer who was a general suspect

P.S.
Notice Bale really is injured this time.

[Lechmere]

Jon
I have no doubt that a tale can be woven around Richardson, as has been done with respect to Kidney, Mann or Barnett for example, but you cannot engage in any sort of detailed crime scene discussion with respect to him as we only have his own account. That is the point I was making.

[Jon Guy]

Lechmere

Jon
I have no doubt that a tale can be woven around Richardson, as has been done with respect to Kidney, Mann or Barnett for example, but you cannot engage in any sort of detailed crime scene discussion with respect to him as we only have his own account. That is the point I was making.

Okay, but I reckon most "readers" would give a stronger case to John Richardson being the killer than Cross.