The Mizen scam

[Fisherman]

Sally!

I guess what you are pointing at here is that I said that Cross could have done it, and that I rated him as a better suspect than Hutchinson? No?

Has it escaped you totally that I nowadays believe that Stride may well belong to the Ripperīs tally? I used to do so from the outset - but then I thought that the evidence involved pointed in another direction, and so I changed my mind. Then the developments surrounding Charles Lechmere came along - and suddenly there was reason to look at Stride in another way.

You see, new material is always added to the Ripper saga. If we were not to adjust to that, we would be very bad researchers and students of the case. Back in 2008 - the year you have settled on - there was not enough in it to make "Cross" a very useful bid.

Since that, the nameswop, the Mizen scam, the Cable Street address, the left out address at the inquest and loads of material concerning Lechmereīs background has been dug up. And thereīs more. That has changed my view on him. And thatīs exactly as it should be - people who do not weigh in changes and developments are total morons, the way I see things. People who criticize those who DO acknowledge the weight of adjusting and moving with added information and evidence are even worse. They are the saddest of them all, the way I see things.

See you out there, Sally!
Fisherman

PS. Iīve changed my take on Tabram too - itīs on the boards, so Iīm sure you can dig it out if you try. That too was based on added evidence. And may I remind you that you have changed YOUR mind on the Lechmere bid, going from crackpot theory to middle of the road suspect. Good on you, Sally - flexibility and an open mind, no less!

[Sally]

Gee, Fish.

You don't have to justify yourself to me.....

[c.d.]

Hello Fish,

Glad to see that you are keeping an open mind on things. You set a good example for the rest of us.

I still remember all of our long discussions back and forth regarding Stride. I will flatter myself and believe that it was my keen insight and astute observations that nudged you in the right direction. We all need an ego boost from time to time.

Stay well, my friend.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

c.d:

"Glad to see that you are keeping an open mind on things. You set a good example for the rest of us."

Good to hear, c.d. Letīs hope even the closest of minds dare follow suit - when called for.

"I still remember all of our long discussions back and forth regarding Stride. I will flatter myself and believe that it was my keen insight and astute observations that nudged you in the right direction."

Ah, c.d - but we donīt know that this IS the right direction, do we? I think you may need to postpone the celebrations til we do

"We all need an ego boost from time to time."

We do? Sound distinctly dispromising to me. Why donīt we look at it from the other angle and admit that we need to set our egos aside at times?

"Stay well, my friend."

You too, amigo. Itīs good to hear your voice again!

the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"You don't have to justify yourself to me....."

Tell me something else I did not know already, Sally?

All the best. Really!
Fisherman

[icicle]

Did his workmates know of his involvement? I don't know. I can see that it would be useful for him if they did not but i can see that it would not be crucial for him if they did. I think the crucial person that he did not want to suspect him was his wife.
Some posters have affected to not understand this point - but it is a fairly basic requirement for his activities I would say.

Have you ever noticed that some guys can talk about females in quite nasty terms when they think no women are around. I've heard them admitting to all sorts of depraved and illegal predelictions, with no idea that their buddies are a bit put off by such talk unless someone starts making fun of them (usual guy way of expressing disapproval, I think).

If Lechmere was that sort, it might have occurred to him to wonder if he had said anything suspicious at work. That is, it might not be just his wife he has to worry about.

While we are on the subject of his work - anyone know what sort of distances Lechy might have covered during working hours?

[FrankO]

Could POSSIBLY have gotten away, Frank. We donīt know.

I see no compelling reason to think why he couldn’t, Fish and that’s the bottom line for me.

"The advantage of Buck’s Row over the other sites quite clearly was that he would be able to hear someone coming from 130 yards..."

Nope. 30-40 yards, and that was it. If he was honest.

Yep. Neil’s testimony tells us that it was possible to hear someone at the Brady Street end of Buck’s Row.

"...and, quite possibly, the same would be true for someone coming from the other side, although to a lesser extent."

You lost me there, Frank - I canīt make heads or tails of that.

Sorry for not being clear enough, but I was just talking about the advantage the acoustics & layout of Buck’s Row offered over the other murder locations. But, as you say, if Cross actually was the killer, it seems that he didn’t use that advantage as shown by the appearance of Paul.

How do you feel about the medical evidence, Frank?

I don’t know, Christer, but I think it would be very tricky to try and make a call based on the medical evidence combined with what you found on the internet. What if Nichols was actually strangled or at least partly? I think that could have had influence on the time it would take to bleed out. I do believe we can safely say that Nichols’ throat was cut within minutes before Paul saw Cross, but whether it was Cross who did the cutting, or someone just before Cross, I think we just can’t tell - unfortunately.

The best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Frank:

"I see no compelling reason to think why he couldn’t, Fish and that’s the bottom line for me."

Then weīre in the same ballcourt - maybe he COULD have - and maybe he couldnīt. The same options must have been clear to him.

"Yep. Neil’s testimony tells us that it was possible to hear someone at the Brady Street end of Buck’s Row."

And nope again - Lechmere clearly did not notice Paul until he was 30-40 yards away. But he SAID that he would have noticed if anybody was by the body and left as he came in from Brady Street ...?
Of course, ANYBODY with a normal sense of hearing would be able to hear steps against the stones of the street or pavement, especially if the one producing them was hurrying along - like, for example, Robert Paul.

And Paul would equally have been able to hear Lechmere walking a short stretch in front of HIM as HE came down Buckīs Row. Moreover, he would have been a comparatively short stretch behind Lechmere as the latter passed under the shining gas lamp up at Brady Street - without noticing him ...? It adds up very poorly.

The riddle why neither hear anything until Lechmereīs very late reaction answers itself, in my opinion: Lechmere had been at the same spot for some time as Paul came down to the stable yard door.

"I think it would be very tricky to try and make a call based on the medical evidence combined with what you found on the internet."

Canīt quibble with that! But the fingers I have found all point in the same direction.

"What if Nichols was actually strangled or at least partly? "

Then the heart could still beat for a minute or two, actually. And pump the blood out. And even if it did NOT beat, the position of Nichols, lying down, would ensure that Newton had his way. But I aim to get better information on it. My own guess, though, is that we have a very important clue here, and I think itīs a very fair bet that another cutter than Lechmere MUST have been very close in time.

All the best,
Fisherman

[FrankO]

Then weīre in the same ballcourt - maybe he COULD have - and maybe he couldnīt. The same options must have been clear to him.

I’m glad we see eye to eye on this one then, Fish, because it seemed as though you were of the opinion that it’s more likely that he couldn’t.

And nope again -

I see that’s a moot point as I was talking about the advantage of Buck’s Row over the other locations in general. Like I already acknowledged, if you place Cross and Paul in it, it seems that Cross as killer didn’t use this advantage.

Lechmere clearly did not notice Paul until he was 30-40 yards away.

Since he wasn’t further questioned on that point, can we be sure that he was accurate, it being as dark as it was, Fish? The newspapers have him state that he heard Paul about 40 yards off, so how accurate would an estimate based on just hearing be? Can we even be sure he may not have meant that he only distinguished him well when he was at that distance, and so, that he heard him before he could actually see him? I expect you to be inclined to say ‘yes, because that’s what the papers say’. But if so, I beg to differ.

Furthermore, an innocent Cross had no particular need to listen for footsteps behind him. In fact, he may well have been caught up in his own thoughts until he noticed the figure lying across the street. That combined with the fact that his own footsteps were louder than someone’s some distance behind him, he may just not have noticed them until he realised what the figure was.

And Paul would equally have been able to hear Lechmere walking a short stretch in front of HIM as HE came down Buckīs Row.

As to Paul, it’s a pity he wasn’t asked if he heard any footsteps and at what point he actually saw Cross. Like with Cross, his own footsteps would have sounded louder than those of someone walking some distance in front him. But regardless of that, if Paul didn’t hear any footsteps but his own, it seems that he didn’t find it odd or suspicious not to have heard any when walking down Buck's Row before discerning Cross.

Moreover, he would have been a comparatively short stretch behind Lechmere as the latter passed under the shining gas lamp up at Brady Street - without noticing him ...?

I’m assuming you mean the lamp at the corner of Buck’s Row and Brady Street. In that case, I don’t think that would be true, Christer. If Paul wanted to see Cross under that lamp, he would have to have walked no more than some 20 yards behind him. Otherwise, he would still be in Bath Street and Bath Street was situated some 10 yards more to the north than Buck’s Row. Only just before he reached Bray Street, he would have been able to see that lamp post.

But I aim to get better information on it.

I hope you do.

My own guess, though, is that we have a very important clue here, and I think itīs a very fair bet that another cutter than Lechmere MUST have been very close in time.

A fair bet indeed, Fish.

All the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Frank:

"I’m glad we see eye to eye on this one then, Fish, because it seemed as though you were of the opinion that it’s more likely that he couldn’t."

There would be no way in the world that he could be sure, would there, Frank? After that, itīs up to the psychology of the man.

"Since he wasn’t further questioned on that point, can we be sure that he was accurate, it being as dark as it was, Fish? The newspapers have him state that he heard Paul about 40 yards off, so how accurate would an estimate based on just hearing be?"

Not a hundred per cent accurate - but he said 30-40 yards, so we are reasonably not dealing with a larger distance than 40 yards if he was slightly off. And he could not have been going on sound only - he must have made out the approaching shape of Paul to some extent. And since Paul would have approached Lechmere with a lit gaslamp behind him, that would perhaps have helped Lechmere to see him!

"Can we even be sure he may not have meant that he only distinguished him well when he was at that distance, and so, that he heard him before he could actually see him? I expect you to be inclined to say ‘yes, because that’s what the papers say’. But if so, I beg to differ. "

Nobody can be sure of anything as such. But what we have is what we must deal with and accept as the best bid. My own take is - as you will know - that he DID hear Paul from much further away than 30-40 yards, so I pretty much agree that he said one thing and meant another ...

As an aside, if we are to always accept that he could have meant something else than he said, that he was misinterpreted, that he was misheard etcetera, my recommendation is that we sooner or later make a sharp halt and ask ourselves how much "bad luck" we are going to allow for before we start looking at it from another angle.

"an innocent Cross had no particular need to listen for footsteps behind him. In fact, he may well have been caught up in his own thoughts until he noticed the figure lying across the street"

In a bubble, sort of? Of course he would not have had any particular reason to listen for steps if he was innocent. But the street was tiny, and lined with buildings, making for an accoustic tunnel. Not hearing Paul would be a little bit like walking inside the same room as another man without noticing him.

"That combined with the fact that his own footsteps were louder than someone’s some distance behind him, he may just not have noticed them until he realised what the figure was."

Thatīs a better point, to my mind. To some extent, his own steps could have obscured the steps of Paul, and vice versa. But unless they walked at a perfectly synchronized pace, they would arguably have heard each other quite well. A blind drummer may not notice another drummer drumming away beside him if the latter is synchronized - but once he is not ...

"regardless of that, if Paul didn’t hear any footsteps but his own, it seems that he didn’t find it odd or suspicious not to have heard any when walking down Buck's Row before discerning Cross."

Why would he? He was not the one claiming a dividing distance of 30-40 yards - as far as he was concerned, he probably thought Lechmere had stood where he stood for some time. And the inquest never saw the potential discrepancy in this regard, did they?

"I’m assuming you mean the lamp at the corner of Buck’s Row and Brady Street. In that case, I don’t think that would be true, Christer. If Paul wanted to see Cross under that lamp, he would have to have walked no more than some 20 yards behind him. Otherwise, he would still be in Bath Street and Bath Street was situated some 10 yards more to the north than Buck’s Row. Only just before he reached Bray Street, he would have been able to see that lamp post."

If a lamp did not throw itīs light more than 20 yards, then you would be right. I canīt tell - the lamps were of very varying quality, it seems. But if you accept that Neil could see the lamp from Browns Stable Yard, then you must also accept that this was because the light travelled 130 yards (and yes, I know - with diminishing strength as the distance grew, but anyhow!)
At any rate, I think - but cannot prove - that Lechmere ALSO came via Bath Street, since he never said that he walked along Brady Street - he explicitly said he "crossed it into Buckīs Row". And no other street than the comparatively well lit Bath Street tallies with that description...

Be seeing you, Frank!
Fisherman

[icicle]

Jenni Shelden:

His grandfather squandered the family fortune, however, by the looks of things, and his father ended up in the East End, followed by his son.
The name Lechmere was something to be proud of, thus.

The best,
Fisherman

Whenever I have met a psychopath and been in a position to know the family, I've noticed psychopathy seems highly heritable. Has anyone looked for signs of it among ancestors and descendants?

[icicle]

Curious:


"It was a painful moan - two or three faint gasps - and then it passed away. It was dark, but a luggage train went by as I heard the sounds. There was, too, a sound as of whispers underneath the window."

Not "later", not "after that" but "too". There were the moans and gasps and there were the whispers TOO.

Sounds like it went down in one sequence alright.

I can see why you would say that, and literally, that is what she is saying, but there are class differences in the way language is used. "A luggage train went by as I heard the sounds" might be translated into middle class speech as "A goods train went by as I was listening to the sounds". That is, 1) she was listening to the sounds 2) then a train went by.

More likely what happened is a journalist condensed her speech to make her sound more eloquent, yet didn't want to remove her character by sprucing it up too much.

Perhaps the actual interview went something like this..

"I 'ears it I did an' I ears them moans an' gasps an' 'orrible it was an I 'ears a luggage an' I wakes up our 'erbert didn' I 'erbet 'an there was this wisperin'."

"What time was this?"

"'bout har parst three wannit."

"How could you have seen your clock in the dark?"

"Ah didn' need no clock wot wiv the three oh seven luggage frarm New Crorss!"


I see it in my own sister's speech. She says "hearing" when she means "listening".

The use of "too" to mean not "simultaneous" but "furthermore" is archaic now, but would have been understood at the time, and is a bit too posh for Harriet, I suspect.

I don't see including Harriet changes things greatly. And as I said before, that train set off late frequently.

[Fisherman]

Hi icicle.

I can only say that the journalist that wrote the pice would have wanted to convey what he thought Lilley was telling him. If he paint a picture where it all goes down in one sequence, then that will be because that was what he believed Lilley was telling him.

He may have gotten it right, and he may have gotten it wrong, but thatīs the gist of the matter.

I also think that if the train set off late on the day in question and passed Buckīs Row at a time the police thought corresponded with the murder, then they would in all probability have listened more carefully to what Harriet Lilley had to say. The fact that they take no interest in her and that the coroner leaves her out of the inquest implies to me that the train was on schedule on the morning in question.

All the best,
Fisherman

[icicle]

And I have very little confidence in the police. Today, yesterday, a hundred years ago.

As an example, when I'm not housewifing, I'm currently bollocking the metropolitan police. I have a screenshot from a friend where someone who raped her confesses to it via text message. The police have this, have her statement, have her clothes etc. the rapist's phone number and address. It happened in Whitchapel too.

They have had this evidence for six months although they did fail to retrieve the video he made which is still on his laptop as far as we know - and not done one thing with them. They are supposed to ask for 'early advice' on how to proceed in the investigation from the CPS (prosecutor) as rape is investigated under different guidelines from other crimes. They are yet to lift up the phone. The rapist is still out there doing what he does best not even knowing he has been accused, the clothes are yet to be sent to forensics.

Six months.

I would not accuse the metropolitan police of doing anything like working for a living. They get paid whether they do their jobs or not, and mostly, it would appear to be 'not'.

[Fisherman]

How about this scenario for Mizen:

-He meets the carmen, and speaks to one of them.
-He goes to Buckīs Row, sees Neil there and has had the carmanīs story confirmed - or so he thinks.
-He leaves the scene and goes home with the perception that Neil had spoken to the carmen.
-He makes the (logical) assumption that the carmen belong to the official material gathered, since he knew that Neil had spoken to them.
-He is left out of the investigation until Sunday, when the Paul interview surfaces and alerts the police to the need of checking with him and Thain if they had seen the carmen.
-Instead of asking whether Mizen had seen the carmen, his superiors instead ask him, in a generalized manner, whether he had seen any suspicious men leaving Buckīs Row.
-Mizen answers in the negative. But he does so being convinced that he need not speak of the two men who he thinks must already be included in the investigation material; he thinks that he is being asked for any OTHER man, somebody who had ran off or sneaked away. After all, why would his superiors ask him about the two men whosī existance had already been established?
-He then catches wind of the serious questioning of Neil, and realizes that Neil claims never to have seen the carmen.
-He approaches his superiors and tells them about the men.
-At around the same time, Lechmere goes to the police and tells his tory, clinching the truth of the rumour about the carmen.

As an alternative, the police may have approached Mizen a second time, after having had Lechmere arrive, in order to find out whether Mizenīs denial of having seen any suspicious men really was all there was to say about the errand.

This is a scenario that puts Mizen in the clear totally, and I cannot see why it would not be a feasible scenario.

Comments, anybody?

The best,
Fisherman