The Mizen scam

[Fisherman]

Thought so, Observer! I am actually contemplating writing a post that roughly states that I am not saying that Lechmere MUST have been the killer, merely that I personally think that he was. That way, I can simply direct a good many posts in that direction instead of over and over again having to write this very obvious thing.


All the best, Observer! In fact, Iīll do an "Observer" and duplicate that: All the best!
Fisherman

[Sally]

Up in the cyclone he makes out the form of human beings, Red Jim McDermott battles against the wind, his Astrakhan coat flapping out behind him, not unlike Batman's cape. Ochrana members swirl around, knives at the ready, Druitt wields a cricket bat, Chapman clutches a knife in one hand, a bottle of poison in the other, Isenschmid shouts obscenities.They are all there, Bury, Cream, Tumblety, Kosminski, Cohen, Maybrick adds another entry to his dairy. Slowly they descend, and alight in Commercial street.

Druitt waves his cricket bat, Barnett has another drink, and Hutchinson has another bet on the horses..

Think I've got the hang of it..

Seriously, as Fisherman has hinted, we are not at liberty to place ourselves into the minds of people who lived over 100 years ago, and predict what they may or may not have said or thought.

Gee, Observer - Where's the fun in that?

[caz]

Caz:

"I realise you have to presume Cross was the killer in order to speculate that he needed a scam, attempted a scam and pulled it off. I get it, I really do. But I might just as well keep repeating that IF anyone else was the killer, THEN your scam speculation is all wrong and the killer succeeded in disappearing before Cross arrived."

Yes, Caz, that is absolutely true. And...? What is the relevance of telling me something I already know? Did it occur to you that I in my first post on this thread wrote "Somewhere along the line, I am sure that somebody will point out that Lechmere may simply have conned Mizen in order to be at Pickfordīs in time. Technically correct though this may be, I would suggest that we do not forget all the other parameters that point in Lechmereīs direction."

Do you realize what this means, Caz? Exactamundo, it means that much as some like to think of me as a fundamentalist who can only see things in one manner, this is actually not true. And I am growing increasingly tired, having to repeat that message and hammer it home.

Now, read this passage, Caz:
I-know-that-there-may-be-other-explanations-to-the-details-I-point-out-as-potentially-pointing-to-guilt-on-Lechmereīs-behalf.

Once more:

I-know-that-there-may-be-other-explanations-to-the-details-I-point-out-as-potentially-pointing-to-guilt-on-Lechmereīs-behalf.

Did I get it across this time (fat chance...)...?

All hot air and no substance though, Fishy. And that really is my point about all your lengthy posts and responses. Now read this very carefully because I will write this only once:

It-is-getting-you-nowhere.

My interpretation of all the parameters and details available to the Lechmere story is that THE MOST LOGICAL solution to them is that Lechmere was a sinister figure and a killer.

Yes, I get it. But YOUR interpretation of Lechmere's involvement and motivation, and YOUR opinion that THE MOST LOGICAL solution is that he and nobody else killed Nichols, won't become anyone else's the more you keep typing it out, and the more CAPITAL LETTERS you use while doing so. It really won't.

...he offered a name that he didnīt use officially otherwise, he seemingly lied to a PC to get past him, and he had the rotten luck of having all the murders in a series happening along streets modern researchers would conclude answered to the routes he would have travelled to work or to see his mother and daughter.

He had no such rotten luck throughout his life, though, and only now has the rotten luck to be long dead and too rotten to fill in the vast gaps in your knowledge about the real Lechmere, and whether he could have killed a horse fly.

Listen up: I say that IF Mizen was on the money - and I think he WAS, since he had no apparent reason to lie, and a mishearing does not seem very probable to me - then Lechmere DID feed him false information.

But you need speculation on top of speculation in order to reach your supposedly logical conclusion that Lechmere lied to Mizen because he'd just murdered the woman in Buck's Row. Firstly, Mizen would have had every reason to excuse his failure to take any details from the two men and his decision - as witnessed by Paul - to carry on knocking up before going to Buck's Row where a woman was lying possibly dead. But let's suppose your speculation here is correct, and Lechmere really did lie about a copper at the scene requiring Mizen's presence.

Now you need to speculate about Lechmere's reasoning behind the lie, and if he was the killer he presumably fashioned it out of a quiet desperation to get away without being detained, questioned or searched by Mizen. That really would have proved fatal - to one or other of them. So how lucky did Lechy have to be then, that it was Mizen he encountered, and that it worked like a charm on him, when any other policeman might not have been nearly so trusting or so casual?

You see, the result would have been exactly the same if the motivation was quite different, and if a white lie was fashioned instead to get Mizen to the woman post haste, so Lechy could get to work in reasonable time and with a clear conscience that he had done his best for the poor dear. What better authority could he have used to make sure Mizen went to her aid, than a fellow copper requesting his assistance?

I lack evidence that Lechmere attempted a scam? I have Mizen saying at the inquest that Lechmere told him that there was another PC awaiting him in Buckīs Row, and you claim that I lack evidence that a scam was attempted??

As I say, yours is but one possible interpretation of the discrepancies left to us by Mizen's and Lechmere's recorded testimony - requiring hefty dollops of speculation to glue it all together and make Mizen emerge pure as the driven snow and Lechy the very devil. We just don't know what the authorities made of the differences in their accounts, but we certainly can't presume they didn't notice them or considered them unimportant. As you say, this would have been tangible evidence of a rather blatant fib on Lechy's part - unless they were able to resolve it to their satisfaction. Maybe a quiet word with Mizen off the record, to get at the truth?

Why do you think the police did not regard it as suspicious that he used the wrong name, Caz? Why do you think that they were not suspicious about Mizen being scammed? Why were they not suspicious of all the killings happening at his doorstep? Should they not have been?

The police didn't know that he used the 'wrong' name, but then neither do you. It may be because they never questioned the name Cross (luckily for him), or it may be that he used that name at work and there was therefore nothing suspicious about giving it to the police for identification purposes. They were probably not suspicious about Mizen being 'scammed' because he wasn't scammed and they found a satisfactory explanation for his version of what he was told. How many other men's doorsteps were close to all the murders? And how many serial killers who do their thing outdoors do it on their own doorstep?

Love,

Caz
X

[Rubyretro]

"Lechmere is an anglicised name. The family name is as old as the Norman Conquest. There is a saying that when there are no more Lechmere in Worcestershire, there will be no more apples in Worcestershire"

APPLES ! Would you Adam 'N' Eve it

Moonbegger.

[/QUOTE]

Moonbegger -I will tell you frankly, that the irony had not escaped me...

[Rubyretro]

Moonbegger -I will tell you frankly, that the irony had not escaped me...

[/QUOTE]

In fact this discussion has become rather fruity -what with apples everywhere, and Observer evoking the currrant cast of Eastenders...

Sorry -just rhubarb..

(yes, I do know that rhubarb's not actually a fruit.....)

[Rubyretro]

Maybe a quiet word with Mizen off the record, to get at the truth?

Caz -I am sure that even at my worst moments of 'Hutch' mania, I managed to hold back from this turkey ..."off the record" ? Purleeeese.

Next, you'll be telling us that Lechmere/Cross must surely have been investigated and innocented but those records were conveniently bombed/stolen/destroyed during the Blitz/ ? Or modernisation ? It's only the records that have Lechmere signing himself as Lechmere that survived (all 60 of them) -by luck ?

I honestly thought that you were far above this sort of argumentation.

x

[moonbegger]

Hello Fisherman ,

" I am actually contemplating writing a post that roughly states that I am not saying that Lechmere MUST have been the killer, merely that I personally think that he was "

I can only speak for myself here fish , but if you had posted that at the very beginning , without all the conjecture dressed up as fact's , you would not have received half the flak you received . In your defence i will add that your pit team may well have been responsible for a few of those [ it's a known fact he lied ] or [ its a fact he was only known as Lechmere] that only added fuel to the fire ! Which i guess was the whole point .

Conjecture is a proposition that is neither proven, nor unproven. Basically, it is an opinion. It could be an educated opinion, but it isn't something that can be defined concretely. This doesn't diminish the importance of conjecturing, but it limits the ability to offer finite solutions to a problem that is very complex.

Like i have always said Fish , its a great theory and i do wish you well in finding out , and digging up some solid evidence , but until you do , i'm afraid it will remain in the fiction isle , alongside many other Ripper suspect books , no matter how many unsubstantiated facts you may try to sneek in.

cheers

moonbegger .

( Three Blind Mice , Three Blind Mice , see how they run )

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"Now read this very carefully because I will write this only once"

How refreshing!

"It-is-getting-you-nowhere."

I-am-already-where-I-want-to-be, Caz.

" I get it. But YOUR interpretation of Lechmere's involvement and motivation, and YOUR opinion that THE MOST LOGICAL solution is that he and nobody else killed Nichols, won't become anyone else's the more you keep typing it out"

Do we know that? And do we know that it is some sort of goal of mine, to begin with? Could it not be that I simply have the exact same right to hold an opinion - and defend it (which is ridiculously easy, by the way).

Incidentally, what would you have me do? Say that those who disagree are probably right - when they are probably not? Thatīs not gonna happen until they (and you) have something to show for it.

"He had no such rotten luck throughout his life, though, and only now has the rotten luck to be long dead and too rotten to fill in the vast gaps in your knowledge about the real Lechmere, and whether he could have killed a horse fly."

Mmm - but YOU are having that problem to, right? The lack of absolute proof, I mean. And I donīt see that wwe did not know this beforehand. Do you?

"But you need speculation on top of speculation in order to reach your supposedly logical conclusion that Lechmere lied to Mizen because he'd just murdered the woman in Buck's Row."

I DO...?

"Firstly, Mizen would have had every reason to excuse his failure to take any details from the two men and his decision - as witnessed by Paul - to carry on knocking up before going to Buck's Row where a woman was lying possibly dead."

And how would saying that Lechmere had told him about a second PC in any way excuse that? Keep in mind that you are going to need speculation on speculation to come up with some sort of answer here, Caz!

"But let's suppose your speculation here is correct, and Lechmere really did lie about a copper at the scene requiring Mizen's presence."

Oh-oh! You now want to pretend that it is "speculation" on my behalf that this went down. But it is no such thing - it is recorded very clearly in the evidence that Mizen - under oath, and he was a PC - stated that this was so. Now, Caz, how does this make it "speculation" on my behalf?

But letīs see where your train of thought takes you, if it leaves on time, follows a useful track, etcetera (I have my doubts).

"Now you need to speculate about Lechmere's reasoning behind the lie, and if he was the killer he presumably fashioned it out of a quiet desperation to get away without being detained, questioned or searched by Mizen. "

Yes, absolutely - at this stage I can only speculate. Train in time and on track, Caz. Good job!

" That really would have proved fatal - to one or other of them. So how lucky did Lechy have to be then, that it was Mizen he encountered, and that it worked like a charm on him, when any other policeman might not have been nearly so trusting or so casual? "

No, no, no - that is not the kind of approach you need to use, Caz. You must instead ask yourself another question: If Lechmere tagged along with Paul under the pretense of wanting to find a PC, what kind of ruse would be the absolutely best if that goal (finding a PC) would be reached?
In such a situation, I would say that the ruse Lechmere presented was an absolute masterpiece.
I would even go so far as to suggest that no matter WHICH policeman he met, that PC would have worked from the belief that Lechmere was truthful. It takes one hell of a stretch to imagine that a man that approaches you, being a police, in the street is a killer, running the completely unnecessary risk to get caught.
That would be the lines along which any PC would reason. But, of course, they would not know that Lechmere was more or less obliged to do so, since that was part of the deal with Paul. He needed to keep him happy and unsuspicious too.

If a PC, incredibly, would suspect a man who delivered a message such as the one Lechmere delivered, then I would say that this wouold be a lot more credible to happen in a scenario with just the one messenger. In such a case, the PC could perhaps get suspicious and think that the messenger was perhaps some sort of nutcase - and the killer himself. A very long stretch, but not totally out of the question, I guess. But when Lechmere arrived with Paul, they were two seemingly normal men travelling in company. There would not have been a PC in London who had regarded them as potential killers. The scam was a very safe one in that respect - and most other respects too.

" the result would have been exactly the same if the motivation was quite different, and if a white lie was fashioned instead to get Mizen to the woman post haste, so Lechy could get to work in reasonable time and with a clear conscience that he had done his best for the poor dear. What better authority could he have used to make sure Mizen went to her aid, than a fellow copper requesting his assistance? "

I agree! It was the perfect scam, almost guaranteed to work. And it would have worked admirably to get him to job in time too. But then tehre are the OTHER ingredients, Caz. If Lechmere did NOT slay Nichols, then why was he so incredibly unlucky as to have the OTHER slayings happen on his job route? Why did they not occur in Victoria Park, Parfett Street, Sheppy Yard, Buxton Street and Hunt Court, all places within walking reach for our man - but none of them along his work route or the route to his mom. How come they ALL fell along them routes? Why was that, Caz? There were hundreds and hundreds of other streets, yards and courts frequented by prostitutes in the general area, but no - the killing ALL had to take place in settings that are reasonable to tie to Charles Lechmereīs pattern of everyday movements. Unlucky, is it not?
It is equally unlucky that he by hs own admission would have had ten, fifteen, perhaps twenty minutes to kill that morning, before arriving at Browns Stable yard. Just think how much better it would have been if he had said "I left home at around 3.40"! But he didnīt, did he?
And think what a relief it would have been to those who want to defend him if he had done what he always did otherwise on this day too - namely tell the authorities that his name was Lechmere. But no - in order to draw all of these unwarranted suspicions upon his head, he simply hat to say "Cross" instead.
Etcetera.
Etcetera.
Etcetera.

Donīt try and isolate the details, Caz. They MUST be seen in combination with each other. I suspect the man because no matter WHAT potentially sinister detail - times, lies, inconsistencies - I look at, I always find that the details surrounding them do not detract from the viability of guilt. They add to it.

" yours is but one possible interpretation of the discrepancies left to us by Mizen's and Lechmere's recorded testimony - requiring hefty dollops of speculation to glue it all together and make Mizen emerge pure as the driven snow and Lechy the very devil."

It takes LESS speculation to convict him than to clear him. That is enough for me. The pattern is there, piece by piece, and it offers a very consistent line. And frankly, many of the suggestions to clear him have been as laughable as they have been ridiculous. I sense desperation on that score. But each to his own. Thereīs Casebook and thereīs Cazbook, I guess.

" We just don't know what the authorities made of the differences in their accounts, but we certainly can't presume they didn't notice them or considered them unimportant."

Wrong, Iīm afraid. The fact that the autorities never blew the "Cross" cover tells us that the anomalies WERE considered too unimportant to warrant a thorough look at the man. Thatīs a given, more or less.

"As you say, this would have been tangible evidence of a rather blatant fib on Lechy's part - unless they were able to resolve it to their satisfaction. Maybe a quiet word with Mizen off the record, to get at the truth? "

That cannot be ruled out. But if this happened, it was not set of in any shape or form. Plus it would not change the OTHER parameters speaking of guilt in Lechmereīs case.
You must understand, Caz, that as I dug into the man, I did so from a position where I thought he was a very interesting character and possibly a very good bid for the Ripper. Then I found the scam. In that situation, it did not come across as anything but a confirmation of my suspicions. I have turned it inside out innumerable times since then, looking at it from every possible angle. It remains a very heavy burden for his case, roaring of culpability. It fit the jigsaw puzzle perfectly. It still does.

Your suggestion can be true, yes. But it is totally conjecture. Thatīs all Iīm saying: totally conjecture. You need a lot more to suggest such a thing with any true weight.

"The police didn't know that he used the 'wrong' name, but then neither do you. "

What? AGAIN??? Of course I know he used the wrong name. His name was Charles Allen Lechmere. All other suggestions are wrong.

"They were probably not suspicious about Mizen being 'scammed' because he wasn't scammed and they found a satisfactory explanation for his version of what he was told. "

And then they lived merrily for ever after!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:;

"Like i have always said Fish , its a great theory "

Why do people persist to tell me things I already know...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

In your defence i will add that your pit team may well have been responsible for a few of those [ it's a known fact he lied ] or [ its a fact he was only known as Lechmere] that only added fuel to the fire ! Which i guess was the whole point .

And just who is this "pit team"", pray, Moonbegger ? I can tell you that I refuse to be held responsible for Fisherman -I wouldn't know the difference between a jig, or a spoon or a spinner, for one thing...Also, it it is Lechmere's
research and Fisherman's Article, so I think that they have a joint theory, about which I'm merely totally enthusiastic.

Conjecture is a proposition that is neither proven, nor unproven. Basically, it is an opinion. It could be an educated opinion, but it isn't something that can be defined concretely. This doesn't diminish the importance of conjecturing, but it limits the ability to offer finite solutions to a problem that is very complex.

An eminently sensible comment -have you been soul searching ? lying awake, self questioning ?

[moonbegger]

Holy Cow !

check out This Lie of Lechmere proportions

[ Police today have arrested two suspicious characters who were loitering beneath Big Ben in London ]

Did you get it ? We all Know that it is not officially called Big Ben right ?

it is officially Called Saint Stephens Tower ..

So why would the Police lie to us ?

Is there perhaps the slightest of possibilities that they didn't lie to us ?

Just maybe they was using a name that a lot more people would be familiar with, rather than the Official name that it is registered under..

Ring any Bells yet

moonbegger ..

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"Ring any Bells yet"

Yes. But Moonbegger, Big Ben has been ringing itīs bells for 153 years.

No wonder you are late catching on ...

The best
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Steady on Fish ,

Don't make me call on the old Guard to smack your bottom again

So for 153 years it has been officially recorded as St Stephens Tower ..

Not Big Ben !

Yet still the man on the street knows it as Big Ben .

moonbegger

[Cogidubnus]

I just can not understand why Fisherman and Lechmere (poster) are being almost vilified for the idea of Cross/Lechmere as Nichols' killer. To me, it is a very legitimate proposition.

As far as I can see nobody is vifying, (or even almost vilifying) Fisherman and Lechmere (poster) for the idea...far from it...what posters are attacking is (a) the air of certainty with which the theories (and that's all they are) have been propounded and (b) the way quite innocent events have been twisted to ostensibly support the theories.

Speaking for my own part I've already said that if Fisherman/Lechmere can come up with something more factual to back up their case, I'll quite happily reconsider my personal view...I can't say fairer than that can I?

" I am actually contemplating writing a post that roughly states that I am not saying that Lechmere MUST have been the killer, merely that I personally think that he was "

I can only speak for myself here fish , but if you had posted that at the very beginning , without all the conjecture dressed up as fact's , you would not have received half the flak you received . In your defence i will add that your pit team may well have been responsible for a few of those [ it's a known fact he lied ] or [ its a fact he was only known as Lechmere] that only added fuel to the fire ! Which i guess was the whole point .

In view of what I've previously suggested Moonbegger, I couldn't agree more...

Conjecture is a proposition that is neither proven, nor unproven. Basically, it is an opinion. It could be an educated opinion, but it isn't something that can be defined concretely. This doesn't diminish the importance of conjecturing, but it limits the ability to offer finite solutions to a problem that is very complex.

Like i have always said Fish , its a great theory and i do wish you well in finding out

Again, hear hear Moonbegger...

All the best

Dave

[Rubyretro]

Steady on Fish ,

Don't make me call on the old Guard to smack your bottom again

So for 153 years it has been officially recorded as St Stephens Tower ..

Not Big Ben !

Yet still the man on the street knows it as Big Ben .

moonbegger

Oh. You have got a sense of humour ! (That was an amusing little aside). Thank's for the information (it may come in handy for a 'pub quiz').