The Mizen scam

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"Alas Christer, I feel there are very few 100% honest citizens...most of us hide SOMETHING from somewhere, some time?...can you honestly say you don't?"

Whoa - conscience question! I think I will skip answering it and instead tell you that I have never used any alias and that I would never dream of scamming the police in order to get in time to work. And that´s what counts here, is it not?

"What expenses did you fiddle last year?"

None. Absolutely none. In Sweden, the tax authorities send you a list of what you have earned and then you are allowed to list whatever you think should be detracted from your salary in order to reduce the tax. I always deduct - completely legally - my journeys to and from work, and I have never deducted anything else. I make enough money as it is, and I firmly believe that we all have a responsibility to contribute to society. Honest to God and on my parents graves. Sorry to disappoint you.

How about you, Dave ...?

"As a journalist what words did you (with good intentions maybe) put in anybody's mouth?"

Not a single one - you see, I handle the letters to the editor, and so I don´t write actively myself any longer.

"When you were a teenager, what did you do you might now be slightly ashamed of?"

Well, after having been a substitute for my schools (2000 pupils) soccer team, when I finally got ten minutes on the field, I scored an own goal. Still nags me, although there was little I could do about it - a shot was deflected off my cheek and I looked as if I had received a healthy slap for hours afterwards.

"Do all your family love you unconditionally? (and if not why not?)."

Dunno. Ask them.

How all of this impacts the fact that Lechmere used an alias and lied to a PC beats me, though. How it alters that he was alone with Nichols at the murder spot, I can´t tell. Why it should have any influence over the distribution of the murder sites along Lechmeres road to work? Couldn´t say. Why people are desperate to defend Lechmere against any accusation and always interpret things to his advantage, including the lies, that is the hardest riddle of all to answer.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

"I enjoyed your article, particularly the method used of going through first the innocent witness Cross & then the guilty Ripper Cross by way of comparison."

Thanks a lot, Colin! Very good to hear. I actually had two reasons for doing it that way, partly to give a useful picture of the traditional story before offering my own view, but also for people to ponder that BOTH stories comprise conjecture. The accepted "truth" not least ...

"I remain unconvinced that Cross/Lechmere was the Ripper, but concede the possibility that he could have been."

A step forward, then, the way I see things!

"I think Dave's view overall pretty much reflects my own:"My own gut-feel is that Mizen presented his slightly-modified version as a somewhat belated attempt to excuse his dilatory actions that day"

I trust you read my answer to that stance? Acknowledging that he had known about a PC wanting his help would have spelt trouble for Mizen, when he could instead have just said that the carmen had only spoken of drunken woman. In that case, who could have reprimanded him for a scant interest and slow action?

Also, just like I told Dave, Mizen knew full well that TWO carmen had been present, and logically they would contradict him and corroborate each other, so any such attempt would have been useless.

Of course, the probable thing is that only ONE of the men (Lechmere) spoke to Mizen, and for a reason: Paul was NOT intended to hear the scam.

Thanks again, Colin, and all the best!
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Hello Fisherman ,

I think that Lechmere could have easily made good his escape if indeed he needed too ..

"...and if he WAS the killer and bluffed his way out, then clearly he did not need to "

So are you suggesting that Lechmere deliberately placed himself in danger of being caught .. i am struggling to see a scenario where having killed Polly, Lechmere stood in the middle of the road and waited for Paul ( approaching from the other end of bucks row ) to catch him up When it would have been so easy to just stroll on ahead and vanish in the shadows .

If as you say , Lechmere bluffed his way out , instead of making good his escape , was he not taking a huge risk for no reason .. even if he was blessed with hindsight and knew he could fool everyone well in advance .. would it still not make more sense to simply stroll on and get out of the picture ?

Cheers ,

moonbegger .

[lynn cates]

part 7

Hello Christer. Thanks.

“Exactly so, Lynn. And that is not something people normally engage in.

But I would do similar if I wished to minimise involvement.

“ Taken together with the seemingly obvious control Lechmere had over the movement pattern of Neil, the conclusion becomes very obvious to me.”

There are many conclusions here. Sorry.

“Haha! Well, I recognize THAT very well, Lynn, since all my wife´s work reports look the exact same. She is a PhD in chemistry, by the way.
What I can tell you, however, is that when I ask her what she has done when she returns from her work, she dos NOT say "Lactic acid was added to a batch containing 200 millilitres of..." That is STRICTLY scientific mumbojumbo. She instead says "Well, if you really want to know, I did some work on that lactic acid thing..."
So not even close this time, Lynn - and NO cigar, I´m afraid. VERY far from it!”

Passive voice is not entirely uncommon to educated people. Do you not claim that Cross was a bit ahead of the pack upstairs?

“What do you call out to your wife from bed? "You are wanted in the bedroom"?”

What the devil would prompt that? (heh-heh)

“Not at all. The only half reasonable suggestion so far (made, incidentally, by myself, tongue in cheek) is that he was late for work and wanted to bypass Mizen for that reason, but it tallies poorly with his insight into Neil’s beat, . . .”

But Neill’s beat was right on his route—Buck’s row.

“ . . . just as it would have been a very risky and unexpected thing to do for a law-abiding citizen.”

Why risky?

“ Plus, he was ALREADY late, and a minute or two extra would arguably not change things at all.”

But how would he know that it would be a minute or two? Some people have a habit of “holding forth.” Try this. “Oh, a dead lady was found? Right. Well, you lads come with me back to the scene. I’ll want detailed statements from you both.”

“At any rate, honest citizens don´t lie and scheme. . . “

Naughty! Petitio principii!

“ . . . their way out of their societal responsibilities . . .”

Indeed? Well, I can’t serve on that jury because . . .”

“ . . . just like they don´t use aliases!”

Disagree. An alias is no sure sign of criminality.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

"What expenses did you fiddle last year?"

None. Absolutely none. In Sweden, the tax authorities send you a list of what you have earned and then you are allowed to list whatever you think should be detracted from your salary in order to reduce the tax. I always deduct - completely legally - my journeys to and from work, and I have never deducted anything else. I make enough money as it is, and I firmly believe that we all have a responsibility to contribute to society. Honest to God and on my parents graves. Sorry to disappoint you.

How about you, Dave ...?

You are, then, that rare thing...an honest man!

Kidding apart, in the UK, journalists have the reputation of fiddling their expenses on an amazing scale...comparable only to MPs!

As regards myself I am unable to claim most expenses... I do get free travel to and from work...but only because I work for a bus company!

My employer will in fact only refund any out-of-the ordinary expense which has been previously agreed...ie Hotel/travelling expenses if I'm required to be anywhere other than my usual location...this rarely arises.

Dave

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"So are you suggesting that Lechmere deliberately placed himself in danger of being caught"

On the contrary. I am suggesting a scenario in which Lechmere made sure that he was NOT caught. Paul certainly would not catch him. There was no PC in Buck´s Row. Lechmere had plenty of time to plan his escape once he realized that Paul had seen nothing, and Paul became his pawn of the way out. What figure do you yourself think would have been looked at with suspicion; the man who runs away alone from a street where a murder has been committed, or a working man walking to his job in the company of another working man, seemingly completely calm? Tha man who runs from the police, or the man who actually contacts the police with an apparent wish to help?

"If as you say , Lechmere bluffed his way out , instead of making good his escape , was he not taking a huge risk for no reason"

Killing a woman in the open street, Moonbegger, is taking a huge risk. The Ripper, whoever he was, was anything but opposed to taking huge risks! He may even have liked that part of the whole thing, in much the same way that some lovers do it in places where they risk detection. Some people LIKE risks. Some climb facades with no safety net under them and speak of the kick afterwards. It takes all kinds, I´m afraid.

And maybe he simply did not wish to take the risk that Paul saw the blood and sounded the alarm as he reached the schoolhouse corner, gathering a number of PC:s to that spot. Much better, then, to bluff it out, lying and scheming away and potentially liking it, perhaps getting a kick out of it.

And in the end, if he WAS the killer - and I am very much inclined to think so - me oh my, did he succeed!!

The best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

I always deduct - completely legally - my journeys to and from work

This is tax deductable? I'm thinking of moving to Sweden if that's the case!

Regards, Bridewell.

[Fisherman]

Lynn Cates:

"But I would do similar if I wished to minimise involvement."

Lie about your name to the cops, regardless of the potential consequences? Concoct a devious lie and serve it to them in order not t miss a job, a meeting ...? Aha. Well, I would not and my gut feeling is that most wouldn´t.

"Passive voice is not entirely uncommon to educated people. Do you not claim that Cross was a bit ahead of the pack upstairs?"

I do! But not to the degree that he would use passive voice. Not a chance. Not even Victoria went that far: "We are not amused" instead of "Somebody is not happy". If he had said "You are NEEDED in Buck´s Row, it would have been a slightly different story - up to the point when he added "another policeman wants you there" ...

"But Neill’s beat was right on his route—Buck’s row."

Yes, but surely you are not suggesting that he had clocked the PC and that Neil always arrived on an exact schedule ...?


"Why risky?"

Because the police were investigating a murder and any obvious lie would provoke interest on their behalf.

"But how would he know that it would be a minute or two?"

Maybe he wouldn´t. But I say he would still have tried it that way, instead of doing it à la Moriarty.

" An alias is no sure sign of criminality."

Nope. It is just a pointer in that direction.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"You are, then, that rare thing...an honest man!"

I never said that. You just happened to stumble over a couple of things where my conscience is clean!

"Kidding apart, in the UK, journalists have the reputation of fiddling their expenses on an amazing scale...comparable only to MPs!"

Ouch! In Sweden, we are instead all looked upon as leftist conspirateurs. Tough call, that!

"As regards myself I am unable to claim most expenses... I do get free travel to and from work...but only because I work for a bus company!

My employer will in fact only refund any out-of-the ordinary expense which has been previously agreed...ie Hotel/travelling expenses if I'm required to be anywhere other than my usual location...this rarely arises."

So, forced into honesty, then? Tough luck!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

"This is tax deductable? I'm thinking of moving to Sweden if that's the case!"

It is, so you can buy the ticket tomorrow! I´ll put an extra plate on the table for you, free of charge!

Then again, maybe I should remind you that Sweden is one of the heaviest tax-burdened countries. A comedian, Hasse Alfredson, said it best back in the seventies, commenting on how the tax authorities forms ought to look:
1. How much did you make last year?
2. How much have you got left?
3. Send it in.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

It´s past midnight here now, so I´ll turn in. Back tomorrow, though!

The best, all!
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

Hi Christer,

Thanks for the invitation!

We have Pay As You Earn (PAYE) taxation over here. Supposedly easier, but what it actually means is that the taxman takes what he wants and then gives you the rest!

Quick questions relevant to the thread:

Who took Cross & Paul's personal details? If the answer is P.c. Mizen, why did he need to do that if he believed that another officer had already spoken to them, and that they had seen nothing?

If not, P.c. Mizen, who else?

Regards, Bridewell.

[lynn cates]

part 8

Hello Christer. Thanks.

“Lie about your name to the cops, regardless of the potential consequences?”

Once more, WHY is it a lie? If I were to use my middle and last name (rather than first and last) and it was once off to avoid a nosy neighbour, how is that lying?

“Concoct a devious lie . . .”

Now it’s devious? What’s next, heinous? Egregious? (heh-heh)

“ . . . and serve it to them in order not t miss a job, a meeting ...? Aha. Well, I would not. . .”

Have you not chastised me for adverting to my own case?

“ . . . and my gut feeling is that most wouldn´t.”

Can’t answer for others. And not sure how reliable my gut is.

“I do! But not to the degree that he would use passive voice. Not a chance. Not even Victoria went that far: "We are not amused" instead of "Somebody is not happy". If he had said "You are NEEDED in Buck´s Row, it would have been a slightly different story - up to the point when he added "another policeman wants you there" ...”

Well, I use passive voice at times. Of course, I cannot extrapolate from my case. Suffice it to say that all I see is someone being a bit evasive—possibly to keep from getting involved.

“Yes, but surely you are not suggesting that he had clocked the PC and that Neil always arrived on an exact schedule ...?”

Not at all. Cross may have had a vague awareness of times. That would follow from travelling the same route often

“Because the police were investigating a murder and any obvious lie would provoke interest on their behalf.”

Haven’t seen a lie, let alone an obvious one.

“Maybe he wouldn´t. But I say he would still have tried it that way, instead of doing it à la Moriarty.”

I don’t see it. Sorry. Try an example. My wife’s telling of a tale may take 3-4 times as long as my version. If I wish not to have a long conversation (which is often) and my wife is asked a question—realising, of course, the potential time that will be involved—it is not uncommon for me to discreetly jump in ahead with my truncated version.

“Nope. It is just a pointer in that direction.”

Like Mrs. Long?

Cheers.
LC

[moonbegger]

Moonbegger:

"So are you suggesting that Lechmere deliberately placed himself in danger of being caught"

On the contrary. I am suggesting a scenario in which Lechmere made sure that he was NOT caught. Paul certainly would not catch him. There was no PC in Buck´s Row. Lechmere had plenty of time to plan his escape once he realized that Paul had seen nothing, and Paul became his pawn of the way out. What figure do you yourself think would have been looked at with suspicion; the man who runs away alone from a street where a murder has been committed, or a working man walking to his job in the company of another working man, seemingly completely calm? Tha man who runs from the police, or the man who actually contacts the police with an apparent wish to help?

"If as you say , Lechmere bluffed his way out , instead of making good his escape , was he not taking a huge risk for no reason"

Killing a woman in the open street, Moonbegger, is taking a huge risk. The Ripper, whoever he was, was anything but opposed to taking huge risks! He may even have liked that part of the whole thing, in much the same way that some lovers do it in places where they risk detection. Some people LIKE risks. Some climb facades with no safety net under them and speak of the kick afterwards. It takes all kinds, I´m afraid.

And maybe he simply did not wish to take the risk that Paul saw the blood and sounded the alarm as he reached the schoolhouse corner, gathering a number of PC:s to that spot. Much better, then, to bluff it out, lying and scheming away and potentially liking it, perhaps getting a kick out of it.

And in the end, if he WAS the killer - and I am very much inclined to think so - me oh my, did he succeed!!

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

" What figure do you yourself think would have been looked at with suspicion; the man who runs away alone from a street where a murder has been committed, or a working man walking to his job in the company of another working man"

"My suggestion is that Lechmere was very much aware of PC Neil´s beat as he killed Nichols"

I Think that if i was aware of the local bobby's beat , as you suggest he was, i would most definitely navigate my way around it . Why risk opening up a Pandora's box of unknown scenarios , questions and answers when the job was already done .

If Lechmere killed Polly , and was fully aware of the local police beats, he would have also been aware of the approaching Paul , and would have been clean out of sight before paul even reached the spot where Polly's body lay.

" whoever he was, was anything but opposed to taking huge risks! He may even have liked that part of the whole thing, in much the same way that some lovers do it in places where they risk detection. Some people LIKE risks. Some climb facades with no safety net under them and speak of the kick afterwards. It takes all kinds"

For me , the mind of the Ripper was more that of a cold calculating assassin , as opposed to that of a schoolboy prankster looking to get his kicks , or a couple trying to spice up their shenanigans .

If Paul had caught him off gaurd and red handed , i could see how your scenario could play out , And he would have no other choice but to play his hand the way you suggest . But he didn't catch him doing anything other than standing in the middle of the street.

And how does that work ? He kills her in a semi blind spot .. then steps out into the middle of the street for all to see .. and just stands there , Not knowing even if someone had been watching from a window in new cottage or directly across the street in the Essex wharf building .
HE WASN'T PRIVY TO THE KNOWLAGE THAT NO ONE WAS WATCHING .. and could have possibly pointed the finger at him as being the killer ....
For me that is a major reason that IF he was the killer he would not have stuck around unnecessarily and chanced himself getting fingered by a would be witness as soon as the police showed up.
There is getting your kicks , and there is getting Nicked .. and only a fool dosent see the dividing line , especially when your neck's on the line ( i'm a poet and didn't know it )
And of all the things the Killer was , a fool i think is not one of them ..

cheers ,

moonbegger .

[Abby Normal]

Hi fish
Could be nothing more than the machinations of a man that is trying to get to work or the misremembering of a flustered policeman .

Anyway I must admit. Good stuff I will need to think about it.