The Mizen scam

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fisherman,

I look forward to your explanatory timetable.

Regards,

Simon

[Rubyretro]

Moonbegger -as much as I've enjoyed skirmishing with you over some other posts..I don't find this sort of analogy amusing at all.

I can't see the link between the Concentration Camp guards, the Colorado newspaper quote, and a Casebook sparring match.

"ponder the fact that much as I pulled the trigger, you and the rest who have argued against the Lechmere proposition, are the ones who supplied the powder and the bullets"

Sounds alot like the excuse the SS concentration camp officers gave to the World in 1945 ..

Rest assured that I spent most of last year, and probably the year before being savaged, and insulting, in my turn, Lechmere and Fisherman (over Hutch & Toppy). Don't you think that Fisherman had his tongue in cheek, when he talked about 'powder & bullets' ? It was a figure of speech. That's all.

If you want a wartime analogy, when I joke with Fisherman about breakfast, it is the equivalent of a football match in No man's land on Christmas Day. It is a jokey metaphore -that's all -He'll be sniping at me again before long, don't worry - I'll enjoy it (as I did before).

It is a real insult and a serious thing to me to compare Fish to an SS Concentration Camp officer. I'm sure that I got far worse flak over time than you have ever done..and I never even contemplated such a heinous suggestion back. I normally can have a sense of humour about everything -but it deserts me here. there is no basis for it, and it isn't funny.

Or to quote a leading Colorado newspaper .. " all we need is another trigger happy fool pointing his gun at innocent people "

But when you enter into a debate here, you aren't an 'innocent person' , you are the adversary, and it's war -but it isn't personal. It might get 'personal' against 'Moonbegger' -but 'Moonbegger' is just a psuedonym...it isn't 'you'.

I'm still not convinced you should even have a gun licence

I guess that he has a 'fishing license' rather...watch out, he will reel you in ! Robert Shaw in Jaws ...only I don't think that you are Jaws...

[Fisherman]

Simon!

I´m sure you can produce a useful timetable yourself. But you cannot make all things happen at 3.45 - that is impossible. A timetable that allows for the scenario to play out roughly as implicated by the participants is a piece of cake to make, however.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Hello Fish ,

"ponder the fact that much as I pulled the trigger, you and the rest who have argued against the Lechmere proposition, are the ones who supplied the powder and the bullets"

It was you fish , who used the analogy of a man firing bullets at a (so far unproven) guilty target .. And then saying in the same sentence ( i am not directly responsible for the carnage )

I have no desire to pull up SS Nazi war crime testimony on these boards fish , but i can assure you , they use the same argument ..

I meant no personal comparison fish , and i apologize if you took it personally .. but i know how you like facts !


moonbegger .

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fisherman,

You're the one who's attempting to put a noose around the neck of an innocent man, so I'm far more interested in your piece of cake.

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"It was you fish , who used the analogy"

I´ve had lots of **** thrown at me, Moonbegger, and so I have developed a resistancy. The point I am trying to make, however, is that when one says what you said, one may want to rethink it. Moreover, one may need to apoligize, since that would make the other posters see that one is perhaps not as immature and badly equipped to conduct a reasonable discussion as it seems.

Myself, I don´t need any apology. So you can forget about that. But you may want to apologize on the whole to the community for having been very careless. It will help you in the future, if I am not much mistaken.

All the best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Hello Retro ,

"But when you enter into a debate here, you aren't an 'innocent person' , you are the adversary, and it's war -but it isn't personal. It might get 'personal' against 'Moonbegger' -but 'Moonbegger' is just a psuedonym...it isn't 'you' "

It is not me who is the target he talks of shooting (although i'm guessing his aim may be shifting towards me now but i am thinking it's ( the possibly innocent CrossMere ) a fellow East Ender , who i will continue to defend until it can be proven ( He lied about his name ) . Until proof arises that no one knew him as Cross at either work or socially .. Then it cannot be assumed for the sake of a good story that he LIED !

But it is as you rightly point out Ruby , nothing personal towards Fish.

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

Simon:

"You're the one who's attempting to put a noose around the neck of an innocent man, so I'm far more interested in your piece of cake."

Okay, Simon - your wish is my labour.

Let´s fix 3.46.30 as the point when Thain saw the signal, then. That would mean that Neil came upon the body at, say, 3.46.

Let´s say that Mizen spoke to Lechmere at 3.46 too. Paul says that the whole thing, from finding Nichols to finding Mizen took no more than four minutes. Then the carmen found Nichols (joint effort, sort of, as Swanson said ...) at 3.42.
After the conversation with Lechmere - but not with Paul - Mizen rushed off to Buck´s Row, but not until having knocked a customer or two up. Let´s say that it took him three minutes, justaboutish. That would bring us to 3.49.
Thain had seen the signal at 3.46.30. He takes off to help Neil, and is in place at 3.47. After having been informed about what has happened, he leaves at 3.47.30 to fetch Llewellyn. One and a half minute later, Mizen arrives, after having seen Neils lantern and responding to it during his way down Buck´s Row.

Let´s see now, how much off does this make people? It makes Paul three minutes off, it makes Neil a minute off, Mizen a minute off and Thain one minute and a half off. It allows for Lechmere and Paul to have passed Thomas Street and turned into Baker´s Row before Neil came into the very same street if the carmen were up there at, say, 3.44.30 and if Neil came into Buck´s Row at the approximate same time, leaving him a minute and a half to find Nichols.

I´m sure that we may need to move these times around somewhat, but the thing is that there IS a very clear possibility to cover everything, and to center it around 3.45. I have not locked myself to any exact schedule, since we don´t really know who was a bit off and who was not. I merely look at the overall picture and realize that it all can be fit into the story as it was told.

Please don´t hesitate to post any objections you may have, and then we can start reshuffling the deck. Maybe we can pass all the night away, who knows?

All the best, Simon!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"It is not me who is the target he talks of shooting "

The target I am speaking of is the pile of thought-up alternative explanations to Lechmere´s actions.

Just saying!

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

[

But when you enter into a debate here, you aren't an 'innocent person' , you are the adversary, and it's war -but it isn't personal. It might get 'personal' against 'Moonbegger' -but 'Moonbegger' is just a psuedonym...it isn't 'you'.

Ok -I have stopped 'frothing' and got that you think that it was Crossmere -the 'innocent' -but this is only a debate about a long dead person -and I think that Trevor Mariott once posted that a descendant of Crossmere approached him at a Whitechapel Society lecture and suggested herself that her ancestor may have been the Ripper. So I don't think that it is out of order towards the Lechmeres to propose this theory. Take a step back, Moonbegger.

ps You should apologise, I agree.

[Rubyretro]

Oh,for Gawd's sake Moonbegger -hurry up and stop messing with smilies -I want to go out...

[moonbegger]

Evening all

" We must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law "

We must NEVER let this happen again ! we must all be willing to speak up for the under trodden , the face without a voice , no matter how many accusers are assembled , we should not pass judgement until ALL the facts are known .

My Father , Grandfather, and forefathers , like many on these boards have shed blood on many a battlefield for the right of freedom of speech .. That same freedom of speech that allows you fisherman, to tie a guilty rope around an innocent mans neck .. So before you pull that leaver and leave an innocent man swinging from your carefully woven thread ... I'll be damned if i just sit there and watch , without asking you to prove your case , no matter how much it upsets you , or how tedious you may find it .

And Ruby ;
i already did .

God bless us , each and every one of us

moonbegger

[moonbegger]

Oh,for Gawd's sake Moonbegger -hurry up and stop messing with smilies -I want to go out...

very good

"a descendant of Crossmere approached him at a Whitechapel Society lecture and suggested herself that her ancestor may have been the Ripper. So I don't think that it is out of order towards the Lechmeres to propose this theory"

MAY HAVE BEEN .. NOT .." IT IS A KNOWN FACT " huge difference ..

my main beef is keeping it real ..

If we cut an apple in half , and we find a worm tunnel in half that apple, but no worm ! we can deduce with a degree of certainty that a worm had been in that apple at some time !

And if we examine the other half of the apple , and it is clean we would once again be confident in knowing there was no worm in that half .

But with only half an apple in our possession .. it would no doubt be a tad foolish to make the claim " We know for a fact that the whole apple was riddled with worms "

Yes Retro .. i need to get out too

moonbegger.

[Lechmere]

Where did this nonsense come from about trying to make an innocent man guilty? What do you think the suspects section is about? Can only convicted murderers be discussed?

One other thing about the name swap.
It is clear that he gave the name Cross but was more usually called Lechmere - even if he was called Cross at work. So if the police came knocking he would potentially have drawn attention to himself if innocent by not telling them he as also called Lechmere - and we know he did not tell them that.
That was silly for an innocent man - he could have drawn suspicion on his head for no reason.

And if Neil was having a cuppa with the butchers and Thain - what was to stop Cross/Lechmere killing Polly? Nothing.

[moonbegger]

Where did this nonsense come from about trying to make an innocent man guilty? What do you think the suspects section is about? Can only convicted murderers be discussed?

One other thing about the name swap.
It is clear that he gave the name Cross but was more usually called Lechmere - even if he was called Cross at work. So if the police came knocking he would potentially have drawn attention to himself if innocent by not telling them he as also called Lechmere - and we know he did not tell them that.
That was foist for an innocent man - he could have drawn suspicion on his head for no reason.

And if Neil was having a cuppa with the butchers and Thain - what was to stop Cross/Lechmere killing Polly? Nothing.

Hello Lech ,

"It is clear that he gave the name Cross but was more usually called Lechmere - even if he was called Cross at work"

OK .. So progress . He was known by both names ! So infact he didn't lie about his name after all ..

Moonbegger