The Mizen scam

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"Yeah, sure....

....Give me some facts then Christer."

I gave you six in my last post, Monty - but I can see that you are not going to put any more effort into this than the occasional unsubstantiated sniper shot. Itīs a pity.

The best,
Fishermn

[Monty]

Monty:

"Yeah, sure....

....Give me some facts then Christer."

I gave you six in my last post, Monty - but I can see that you are not going to put any more effort into this than the occasional unsubstantiated sniper shot. Itīs a pity.

The best,
Fishermn

Yes, quite a pity.

Actually, Monty, I donīt think it makes much of a useful criticism to huff and puff and tell us all how much you would like to counter it. Iīd be much impressed - and pleased! - if you took the time to actually add something of relevance, but you seem reluctant to take that step.

Apologies, I do not have a burning desire to impress you, or anyone for that matter.

You write about "facts" as if there were no such things about, but I fail to see that anybody has claimed anything but that there MAY have been alternative explanations about for all of the things we find make Lechmere interesting as a suspect. But facts CAN be listed!

Relevant to Cross as the murderer? We shall see, the first one...

Lechmere said he left home at 3.20 or 3.30, and if this was true, he should have been a long way up Hanbury Street at 3.45. Even at 3.40, he should have passed that stable door long before he was found there. And that is working from the assumption that 3.30 was the time he left, not 3.20. This is not conjecture, it is facts.

No, its conjecture. Are you aware of Cross's walking pace, ailments, intentions (other duties to perform), intended (not ultimate) location?

No, you are not. You have assumptions and personal opinion.

This isnt a fact, nor is it relevant. Not off to a good start.

The clothing was pulled down on Nicholsībody, something that was not the case with Tabram, Chapman, Eddowes. Thus the wounds to the abdomen were hidden from sight, perhaps fully but at least to a significant extent. This is not conjecture, it must be regarded as a fact.

Wow, that is a fact. However it is also irrelevant in regards to the Cross as a killer theory. What we have here is a hint that Tabram, Chapman and Eddowes were despatched by the same hand. Has no link to Cross whatsoever.

An imporvement on the last, however completely irrelevant in the establishment of Cross as Nichols killer.

Lechmere claimed to be late for work, but did not choose the quicker Old Montague Street, instead opting for Hanbury Street. This anomaly is not conjecture, it is a fact.

Hanbury Street is the natural direction for Broad Street, assuming he was heading for Broad Street. The time difference between the two is minimal.

Again you assume and do not take into account other possible reasons as to why Cross took that route. They may vary from other tasks to perform to the market and the collection of sustinance.

This fact, again, holds no refernce to Cross as Nichols killers. Why is it an anomaly?

Lechmere gave the name Cross to the police. Fact. He otherwise always called himself Lechmere when dealing with authorities, as far as we can tell - and we have around 60 examples to show for it. Fact

.

Again, completely and utterly irrelevant. He can call himself Queen Victoria if he wishes. He may have wanted to anglicise his name, use a relations name or whatever. It truly does not matter.

The bottom line is that a man known as Cross appeared at inquest and gave evidence. This evidence is supported (albeit not completely) by two other men who had also seen the man known as Cross. This, in police parlance, is the K in Advokate -Known or seen before.

The fact Mizen used Cross's name at inquest indicated known and seen before. He identifies the man. The mans name is irelevant, it is the fact he is know which is.

Mizen testified that Lechmere had claimed that another policeman awaited him in Buckīs Row. Fact. He also claimed that Lechmere had worded this in a passive mode, not giving away that Lechmere himself had found Nichols. Fact.

Lechmere himself said that he and Paul had felt Nichols hands and face for warmth, but that he had rejected to help prop her up. Fact.

I have no idea why these two facts implicate Cross as a murderer.

Maybe it is very wise to do what you do - dub the theory a dead duck. Maybe it IS a dead duck. But I fail to see that anybody has offered anything at all that goes to even hint at that.

The majority of posters on this thread disagree with the idea of Cross being Nichols murderer. If you fail to see that, and the sound reasoning, then you are guilty of what most suspect theorists do, protect your opinion at all costs despite it verging on the ridiculus.

I, nor anyone else, can account for that.

You speak bout "facts" using quotation marks, and confidently lead on that it all needs to be shot down. So letīs see what it is you have to offer, Monty! Surely, a man with such high demands on substantiation must have a lot of tangible evidence to substantiate your own take on things?

You stated there are facts condeming Cross as a murderer. I merely question if they are facts or acts of deception that dress Cross up as the killer.

I am not accusing Cross of murder. This Cornwellian approach of picking a suspect and fitting them up is unproductive and lazy.

And I have nothing to offer Christer, its about evidence. And it relation to Cross being a killer, there isnt one piece of it at all.

Moreover, I have always held you very high in regard when it comes to knowledge of the case and fair assessments, so I suppose you must have something to offer here, other than what others have already put on display.

I for one canīt wait to see it.

Please, false pandering never held sway with me. It may fire up others, not I.

Monty

[Lechmere]

Abberline made sense if the timings by using Neil as his base line - which puts more timings out than using Paul - who was in any case more likely to be accurate.
The Pickfords depot was actually just to the west of that map - there was a goods station and a passenger station at Broad Street and the goods station is mostly cut off - I think you can see a bit of it on that map.
I have walked quickly those routes and made timings with a stop watch.
Cross/Lechmere could not have been in work by 4.

[FrankO]

I tend to agree about Paul. He does not waver in the least, but fixes the time at EXACTLY 3.45 as he passed up Buckīs Row. So you see, even if this is wrong - which it could be, of course - it still applies that Lechmere is absolutely correct in stating that "these timings" predispose that if Lechmere (the carman) was innocent and walked at a reasonable pace, then he must have left home at around 3.38 in order to reach the murder spot at around 3.45.

Placing your bets on Paul would make 2 PC’s (Neil & Thain) off on their timings, Christer, and would more or less ignore the 2 official reports I mentioned. These reports were no doubt written as a result of interviews held with/statements taken from the people involved. I think you’re putting too much faith in Paul.

If Paul was 5 minutes off and so was Cross, which is perfectly feasible, then they would have met around 3.40 am and Neil would have stumbled on Nichols’ body at about 3.45 am, both of which are supported by the official documents.

If you work from your own scenario, yes. If you accept that Paul was correct on the time, it does not function in the same manner.

It would work just the same if they were a few minutes later, as far as I'm concerned. It is physically possible that they walked 7 km or 4.35 miles an hour. Walking at that speed it would take Cross some 17 minutes to cover 2000 or 2185 yards. So, he would be in at about 4:03 am.

And thatīs fine - itīs your prerogative, and in the end, we all know that we will not be able to find a perfect fit for all the timings given by the various actors.

I agree with you there, Fish.

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

Cross/Lechmere could not have been in work by 4.

Why, if guilty, would he be lying about this time? It was checkable all around. Furtheremore, he may very well have said '4 o'clock' when in fact it was a couple of minutes after when he reached the goods depot (which was not on Broad Street) - if that's where he went, while the Broad Street Station clock showed 4 o'clock when he passed it. I really don't see the problem and I bet you wouldn't be so tenacious if Paul had stated a similar thing.

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"Apologies, I do not have a burning desire to impress you, or anyone for that matter."

My suggestion is that you couldnīt if you wanted to. But we shall see!

"No, its conjecture. Are you aware of Cross's walking pace, ailments, intentions (other duties to perform), intended (not ultimate) location?"

No. But that does not mean that it is conjecture that a normal walking pace would take you way past Buckīs Row with the timings offered by Lechmere. And that was the point I was making. And apparently Lechmere was able to keep up with Paul, just as he set of a time for his walk to job that would request normal walking pace.

"Wow, that is a fact."

There you go.

"However it is also irrelevant in regards to the Cross as a killer theory. What we have here is a hint that Tabram, Chapman and Eddowes were despatched by the same hand. Has no link to Cross whatsoever."

Geographically they potentially have, since they fell prey along routes Lechmere had good reason to use.

"Hanbury Street is the natural direction for Broad Street, assuming he was heading for Broad Street. The time difference between the two is minimal."

It is small, but in favour of Old Montague Street, I would say. And any time gain is useful when being late.

"Again you assume and do not take into account other possible reasons as to why Cross took that route. They may vary from other tasks to perform to the market and the collection of sustinance. "

That is correct. But these alternative possibilities will always be around. It does not change, however, the basic fact that Old Montague Street would have saved him time if no other parameters were involved. And as long as we have no sign of any such other parameter on record, that is of relevance.

"Again, completely and utterly irrelevant. He can call himself Queen Victoria if he wishes."

Yes he can - but people who use other names than their real ones will impress the police unfavourably, and I think we both know why. It would have been far better for him to use the name Lechmere - since that would have detracted against the case that can be made against him.
Now, saying that your name is Smith when it in fact is Brown is no implication whatsoever that you are a killer - but is IS an implication that you have chosen to hide your true name from the police, and that is not something that comes across as honesty.

"The fact Mizen used Cross's name at inquest indicated known and seen before. He identifies the man. The mans name is irelevant, it is the fact he is know which is. "

That is simply wrong. It is of relevance if somebody gives the wrong name to the authorities. Exactly WHAT relevance, we cannot say with any certainty, but when it one ingredient of many that lends itself to an interpretation of guilt on Lechmereīs behalf, Iīm afraid I am totally unwilling to take your word for this. And Mizen only got to know his name after the Friday morning encounter, judging by the Echo.

"I have no idea why these two facts implicate Cross as a murderer."

Oh I think you have - you just donīt agree. But the fact of the matter is that he apparently lied to Mizen in a fashion that tallies perfectly with what somebody who wanted to stay away from being searched may have done. To me, that is something that is very interesting and quite possibly an indicator of guilt.

The same thing applies for the refused propping up business - it is extremely easy to see how this would suit somebody who was interested in having a fellow carman witness that there would have been a reason for Lechmere to have blood on him - but who did NOT want it to be revealed that Nichols had been murdered.

Just like all the other details, it may be that there were other reasons than sinister ones. Equally, the reasons MAY have been sinister. And in the overall picture that emerges, I am of the meaning that the latter guess is the much better one.

"The majority of posters on this thread disagree with the idea of Cross being Nichols murderer. If you fail to see that, and the sound reasoning, then you are guilty of what most suspect theorists do, protect your opinion at all costs despite it verging on the ridiculus. "

Whoops - you just put your foot in it, Monty. After all that chit-chat about how things should not be interpreted as sinister, you suddenly make the decision that the disagreement some others - many or not - afford the Lechmere theory must mean that it is "verging on the ridiculous".

So, if more people disagree than the ones who agree, the theory must be wrong, is that it? Like Galilei, for example?

You really should know better than this, Monty. I have had other posters point out at thimes that my theories on different matters are not "popular". I have always told them that popularity is not what I strive after. I leave that to others.

"I am not accusing Cross of murder. This Cornwellian approach of picking a suspect and fitting them up is unproductive and lazy."

How productive it is cannot be judged by you, Monty - it all rests on the outcome, of which you are not the sole judge, though you may mistakenly believe so. I actually think you are the lazy one around here, since it has taken you some time to even bother to produce some sort of criticism apart from disparaging, unsubstantiated grunts.

" I have nothing to offer Christer, its about evidence. And it relation to Cross being a killer, there isnt one piece of it at all. "

On the contrary - there is more practical evidence relating to him than to any other suspect. It is all a question about what relevance you award it, as always. Proof, however - no. And that goes for all the suspects, as you will have noticed. Plus Iīm fine with you not agreeing, as long as you respect that others may BOTH disagre with you and be something else that lazy and ridiculous.

It would, by the way, seem that you speak for a stance where no suspect at all can be really seriously brought up. And thatīs fine by me. I would not call it lazyness, nor would I lead on that there are so many out here that think that useful suspects CAN be named, that we must regard your stance as bordering on the ridiculous.

Bue then again, we are all different, are we not? In the end, that will benefit the boards, if I am not much mistaken.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Frank:

"Placing your bets on Paul would make 2 PC’s (Neil & Thain) off on their timings, Christer, and would more or less ignore the 2 official reports I mentioned. These reports were no doubt written as a result of interviews held with/statements taken from the people involved. I think you’re putting too much faith in Paul."

Official reports tend to lean against official sources. Have a look at the Palme investigation in Sweden and you will see how the commission made it their business to "adjust" the times to suit the official, police-supported line. Unpleasant connotations were swept under the carpet.

Also, Frank, if we accept that Neil was the one who was correct, then it follows that he informed Thain very quickly after that, since we know that he was nowhere to be seen as Mizen arrived.
That would mean that Thain covered the 300 yards or so to Dr Llewellynīs practice in fifteen minutes, justaboutish. This sounds very strange to my ears.

If Paul was on the money, on the other hand, then we may take a number of minutes off that score, and we end up with a much more useful time.


All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Frank:

"he may very well have said '4 o'clock' when in fact it was a couple of minutes after when he reached the goods depot "

I agree that we may have to allow for some slack in that department. I also donīt think that it is much of an issue. The timings in the other end of the drama are much more crucial. And there we KNOW that somebody must have given the wrong time.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Monty:

"Apologies, I do not have a burning desire to impress you, or anyone for that matter."

My suggestion is that you couldnīt if you wanted to. But we shall see!

"No, its conjecture. Are you aware of Cross's walking pace, ailments, intentions (other duties to perform), intended (not ultimate) location?"

No. But that does not mean that it is conjecture that a normal walking pace would take you way past Buckīs Row with the timings offered by Lechmere. And that was the point I was making. And apparently Lechmere was able to keep up with Paul, just as he set of a time for his walk to job that would request normal walking pace.

"Wow, that is a fact."

There you go.

"However it is also irrelevant in regards to the Cross as a killer theory. What we have here is a hint that Tabram, Chapman and Eddowes were despatched by the same hand. Has no link to Cross whatsoever."

Geographically they potentially have, since they fell prey along routes Lechmere had good reason to use.

"Hanbury Street is the natural direction for Broad Street, assuming he was heading for Broad Street. The time difference between the two is minimal."

It is small, but in favour of Old Montague Street, I would say. And any time gain is useful when being late.

"Again you assume and do not take into account other possible reasons as to why Cross took that route. They may vary from other tasks to perform to the market and the collection of sustinance. "

That is correct. But these alternative possibilities will always be around. It does not change, however, the basic fact that Old Montague Street would have saved him time if no other parameters were involved. And as long as we have no sign of any such other parameter on record, that is of relevance.

"Again, completely and utterly irrelevant. He can call himself Queen Victoria if he wishes."

Yes he can - but people who use other names than their real ones will impress the police unfavourably, and I think we both know why. It would have been far better for him to use the name Lechmere - since that would have detracted against the case that can be made against him.
Now, saying that your name is Smith when it in fact is Brown is no implication whatsoever that you are a killer - but is IS an implication that you have chosen to hide your true name from the police, and that is not something that comes across as honesty.

"The fact Mizen used Cross's name at inquest indicated known and seen before. He identifies the man. The mans name is irelevant, it is the fact he is know which is. "

That is simply wrong. It is of relevance if somebody gives the wrong name to the authorities. Exactly WHAT relevance, we cannot say with any certainty, but when it one ingredient of many that lends itself to an interpretation of guilt on Lechmereīs behalf, Iīm afraid I am totally unwilling to take your word for this. And Mizen only got to know his name after the Friday morning encounter, judging by the Echo.

"I have no idea why these two facts implicate Cross as a murderer."

Oh I think you have - you just donīt agree. But the fact of the matter is that he apparently lied to Mizen in a fashion that tallies perfectly with what somebody who wanted to stay away from being searched may have done. To me, that is something that is very interesting and quite possibly an indicator of guilt.

The same thing applies for the refused propping up business - it is extremely easy to see how this would suit somebody who was interested in having a fellow carman witness that there would have been a reason for Lechmere to have blood on him - but who did NOT want it to be revealed that Nichols had been murdered.

Just like all the other details, it may be that there were other reasons than sinister ones. Equally, the reasons MAY have been sinister. And in the overall picture that emerges, I am of the meaning that the latter guess is the much better one.

"The majority of posters on this thread disagree with the idea of Cross being Nichols murderer. If you fail to see that, and the sound reasoning, then you are guilty of what most suspect theorists do, protect your opinion at all costs despite it verging on the ridiculus. "

Whoops - you just put your foot in it, Monty. After all that chit-chat about how things should not be interpreted as sinister, you suddenly make the decision that the disagreement some others - many or not - afford the Lechmere theory must mean that it is "verging on the ridiculous".

So, if more people disagree than the ones who agree, the theory must be wrong, is that it? Like Galilei, for example?

You really should know better than this, Monty. I have had other posters point out at thimes that my theories on different matters are not "popular". I have always told them that popularity is not what I strive after. I leave that to others.

"I am not accusing Cross of murder. This Cornwellian approach of picking a suspect and fitting them up is unproductive and lazy."

How productive it is cannot be judged by you, Monty - it all rests on the outcome, of which you are not the sole judge, though you may mistakenly believe so. I actually think you are the lazy one around here, since it has taken you some time to even bother to produce some sort of criticism apart from disparaging, unsubstantiated grunts.

" I have nothing to offer Christer, its about evidence. And it relation to Cross being a killer, there isnt one piece of it at all. "

On the contrary - there is more practical evidence relating to him than to any other suspect. It is all a question about what relevance you award it, as always. Proof, however - no. And that goes for all the suspects, as you will have noticed. Plus Iīm fine with you not agreeing, as long as you respect that others may BOTH disagre with you and be something else that lazy and ridiculous.

It would, by the way, seem that you speak for a stance where no suspect at all can be really seriously brought up. And thatīs fine by me. I would not call it lazyness, nor would I lead on that there are so many out here that think that useful suspects CAN be named, that we must regard your stance as bordering on the ridiculous.

Bue then again, we are all different, are we not? In the end, that will benefit the boards, if I am not much mistaken.

The best,
Fisherman

How productive it is cannot be judged by you, Monty - it all rests on the outcome, of which you are not the sole judge, though you may mistakenly believe so. I actually think you are the lazy one around here, since it has taken you some time to even bother to produce some sort of criticism apart from disparaging, unsubstantiated grunts.

Oh dear, is that what this is about? Ive not paid you enough attention?


I have stood on a freezing cold January taking photos of a pipe in Swallow Gardens. The pipe behind which some monies were found after Coles. This was one of the first ever photos of that location and I shared that here on the boards.

I have also spent hundreds of pounds travelling to and from London to conduct reasearch which has been shared on Casebook and Ripperologist as well as other mediums.

I have answered all Emails and PMs best I can with information requested by fellow researchers.

I have also provided advice on documentaries, books and articles.

I have also provided advice to the City of London Poilice Museum.

I have also provided images for various articles and go out of my way to obtain them if requested.

I have travelled to Yorkshire to get images for Don Souden.

I have held up steel fencing so Rob Clack can obtain a clear photo of a bollard for a fellow researchers curiosity.

I have spent money on obtaining information for the benefit of myself yet shared them with others, free of charge, because they have done the same to me.

All that on top of the battle I (along with Rob) had to undertake with regards the latest article in the upcoming Ripperologist magazine, which Im sure Adam Wood, Paul Begg Don Rumbelow and Keith Skinner will testify - as they were party to said struggle.


Call me grumpy, argumentative, miserable, old brigade, cabalist, whatever you fecking well wish.....but dont you ever call me lazy.


And that is the reason I rarely take full part in threads anymore. Circular bollocks made by the ignorant based on personal opinion (which is fine) passed off as ascertained fact (which is not fine).

You made the dung heap.....go wallow in it

Monty

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"Oh dear, is that what this is about? Ive not paid you enough attention?"

You' d wish, Monty!

As for the efforts and money you have put into your interest, you may be well adviced to realize that others - who are perhaps not as keen to paint themselves out as the heroes of Ripperology - have done the exact same.

And that in the end means that if YOU donīt want ME to call you lazy, then you had better avoid doing so about me.

In the end, it is just ridiculous to pick a fight the way you do. I have nothing but respect for your contributions to the field. If you gave me the opportunity to couple that with respect for your way of debating with your fellow Ripperologists, I would take that opportunity with no hesitation.

The best,
Fisherman

[Roy Corduroy]

The Pickfords depot was actually just to the west of that map - there was a goods station and a passenger station at Broad Street and the goods station is mostly cut off - I think you can see a bit of it on that map.

Yes here it is. Eldon Street was the address.





The Goods Yard photographed before it was taken down.

Abberline made sense if the timings by using Neil as his base line - which puts more timings out than using Paul - who was in any case more likely to be accurate.

I have walked quickly those routes and made timings with a stop watch. Cross/Lechmere could not have been in work by 4.

Lechmere, I can't weigh in on this. Read Fisherman's article, but it still doesn't click with me, he killed anyone. But I learned something. Saying he worked at Pickfords Broad Street, it means the station. So thank you both.

Roy

[Monty]

Nope, no wish at all to be honest.


You do not have to tell me others have done the same Christer. I know, I speak to the majority of them on a regular basis.

I was merely listing off my work. You stated I was lazy, I pointed out what I have done.

Where's your list, what have you done? Don't be shy.

Not fight picking, stating it as it is. You seem to think respect weighs with me. It does not. I do not care if I am respected or not. Others opinions on that front, good or bad, mean nothing to me. I don't do it for praise. I to it for progression.

My style may not suit everyone, however I remain ban free since I joined in 1999. Have you?

Monty

[Ally]

I just want to say that I totally agree with Fisherman. The amount of energy he and I expend in just arguing our own hot air and BS on a message board is TOTALLY more exhausting and a better expenditure of energy than all those people out there who go out and actually do research.

[FrankO]

Yes here it is. Eldon Street was the address.
...
The Goods Yard photographed before it was taken down.

Thanks for sharing the additions, Roy!

[sleekviper]

Tried to be productive with reasons and logic surrounding Cross/Lechmere, and can only say that I can not see his guilt. I possibly have missed something, but here goes. The first thought was marriage; not just his, but the children of him. Times have changed, so what was the legal status of a man in that situation of multiple names in 1888? Well, after 1835, I believe, and until 1908, it appears that there are roughly 30 classes of people that Cross/Lechmere, and probably his children, can not become involved with for reasons of incest. It looks pretty close to 30 to me from simplified list 23 from this site when using both Cross/Lechmere.

http://www.genetic-genealogy.co.uk/Toc115570145.html

Then went to others that would have changed names, and the most noteworthy off the bat was James Macie. It seems that some held to the thought that the person that was part of ones creation, also helped define the man. As it states here,"Yet, this is not the whole story. Even within England, naming was not straightforward. While children of legitimate marriages were given their father’s name (to reflect that they too were his property), illegitimate children- that is those born outside of marriage- took their mother’s name."

http://womenshistorynetwork.org/blog/?p=30

That was James Macie, except he, like others I suppose, changed to the name of the man that was part of his creation when he was 22. Problem is, the new name did not register in upper circles in England, and he was shunned. That did not settle well, and he became an avid fan of a country that he never visited, nor had family in;The United States. He decided that what he wanted to do in England, he would do in America, and he willed that his dream would be created in the United States, and it was. James Macie had become the unknown James Smithson, and James Smithson gave the United States The Smithsonian. Smithson is buried in Italy, and the gravesite, although funded by money from the Smithsonian, falls into disrepair. Another name changer is anything but happy about it, and The United States agrees. So The United States, and the name changer, go to Italy, and bring back the remains to rest in the Smithsonian, where they are today. That name changer was Alexander Graham Bell, he did not seem to like being named after grandfather and father, so altered his name. So I see history and motive for name alteration, and further motive for Cross/Lechmere with law enforcement as a root to his life. I would be truly surprised if the issue of who he could or could not be married to never came up in his formative years, as well as who his future children could be involved with because of incest laws. I can not question his logic for doing things as he decided to do, only find reason to do anything at all, and he had it.
Next, I took a pair of knives with 8 inch blades, ran water on the blades, and attempted to conceal them somehow. I used a broad blade and a thin carving blade since the surface area was vastly different. I am 5 foot 10 inches, so I figured 8 inch blades would be about close. Giving it seconds to re-act to the situation, I could not come close to having a completely concealed location, or bobble around trying to do it without water going somewhere. Water was to take the place of blood. Blade is too long for the sleeve, bulky for the leg since the handle tends to show a bulge when crouching, and water gets me no matter what I do. Two points hit me thus; why not leave it in the days before fingerprints, and if blood drips are coming from concealing it, how does he not want to touch the body as much as possible to have a reason for blood being on him? Confidence in having Paul stuck to him like a Siamese twin, and speaking to any member of the police force have me boggled if guilty. If this was winter, a possible coat solution could help, but in August? Just me, but can not see this guy being the killer.