The Mizen scam

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"The problem I have with Fish's favoured scenario ..."

Singularis? Really?

"... is that Lechmere would be coming forward to identify himself, not only as the first man to find the body (and therefore potentially the last man to be with her while she was alive)..."

He did not need to identify himself as the first man to find the body, Caz - Paul did that for him. And after that, why would he not acknowledge this? What possible use could he have of saying that PAUL was the first one? Can you see what that would have done to the picture of the carmen at the inquest?

Ah, yes, you can. So you realize what I mean, yes? A very dissatisfied coroner would get extremely wary of such a thing in no time at all. Only the thickest would employ such tactics.

"... but crucially as someone who told a blatant and provable lie to the first policeman he came across - because the truth was bound to come out and it was very different."

No, Caz. The truth was NOT bound to come out. A DISCREPANCY was what was bound to come out - and it DID come out. A perplexed juryman asked Lechmere whether he had really told Mizen about a second PC - and Lechmere cooly denied it. Ever so stylish!

So, Caz, what the coroner got on his hands was NOT the truth you speak of, was it? I say today that we can see what the truth was, but you and a whole bunch of others say that I may be wrong; Mizen may have misheard, Mizen may lie etcetera - all the usual baconsaving stuff to help Lechmere.
And you are correct - I cannot be sure! And you cannot be sure!

... which begs the question: Where is that truth you claim Lechmere knew must come out? With Paul neatly shoved to the side out of earshot, Lechmere needn´t worry about a thing. He would have known Paul and Neil would corroborate HIS version and not Mizen´s - since there had been no PC around, just like our accomodating carman told the inquest.

" I just don't believe that Mizen, or his superiors, would have left it there, had he been so deliberately and cynically lied to by such a crucial witness in this murder case"

"Crucial witness", Caz? apparently the inquest, the police and the papers did not agree. "Carman Cross" was never seen as a crucial witness, other than when it came to establishing that he had really been the one that found the body. Once he had done that, they bothered him no more. Thank you, Mr Cross - on you go now, shoosh!

Mizen, I agree, would have been consternated. But as long as he did not suspect Lechmere of foul play himself, he may very well have thought that he must have misheard "Cross", quite simply. And after having let him pass on the murder night without taking his name, maybe Mizen felt it was best not to wake any slumbering bear.

The moment any of the inquest members, the coroner or any of the policemen in place had seen through the scam - if that was what it was - it would have been another story. But not one of them did, apparently. Just like I keep saying, it was a very good scam, one that nobody seems to have commented on for 124 years. And THAT is beyond belief...

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

Caz
It has been suggested that Paul didn't hear the Lechmere- Mizen exchange as he may have been out of earshot. I wont go back through that aspect of this.

Hi Lechy,

You don't need to. I took this suggestion into account:

Imagine you bluff your way through a close call with a stranger (Paul) and then manage to get a policeman (Mizen) on his own for long enough to invent a policeman already at the scene who sent you and this other man to fetch assistance.

The point remains that Paul knew, as did PC Neil, that no copper at the scene had sent the carmen to fetch Mizen. So even if Lechmere was able to tell Mizen this lie without being overheard, he could not have banked on it saving his bacon if and when it dawned on Mizen that he'd been tricked. It could have happened in minutes if Mizen had gone straight to Buck's Row and found the woman murdered and mutilated but no copper in sight. How could Lechmere have known, when he came forward, that Mizen had not yet rumbled him and reported him, and was not just waiting to arrest him?

It seems that the discrepancy between Mizen's account of the conversation and Charles Lechmere's (in the guise of Cross) was not picked up on - innocent or guilty. I get the impression that by this stage the coroner was a little exasperated at the inconsistencies and inefficiencies exposed in the police accounts and so let it pass.

Equally, the discrepancy could have been down to hindsight colouring Mizen's recollection of what was said to him and by whom. He had taken no names and it was dark, and both Paul and Cross had claimed to speak to him about the woman. Considering he found PC Neil at the scene, who sent him for an ambulance, he probably assumed at that point that Neil must have seen the carmen and asked them to fetch him. In his mind, when looking back and trying to fit the two events together, that could have become part of the conversation with Cross.

Could Charles Lechmere have known this? No - but if he did it he would probably have been a psychopath used to unblinkingly lying and being believed.
That caz is the nature of the type of person we are probably dealing with , whether it is this suspect or another.

So as usual it all boils down to Lechmere being an "untouchable" psychopath and the police being useless tw*ts who couldn't catch a cold - or spot a barefaced liar.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I would add that although Charles Levhmere had only been living in the area for two and a half months, it was long enough - if he were a potential murderer - to have Sussed out the beats at least roughly and if he dud it ge probably passed pc Neil loitering around on Whitechapel road prior to picking ip polly.
In short he could anticipate that Neil would find the body before Mizen particularly as he did not sufficiently alert mizen to the reality of the situation and he noticed mizen continuing to knock up as he continued down Hanbury street - after Paul who seems to have avoided lingering around mizen.
This allowed him to use the cover that mizen was wanted by another policeman.
But you may prefer to conject that mizen misheard him or invented this bit of his testimony.

Well Lechy, I do find this all a bit of a stretch, compared with Mizen simply misremembering the finer points of a conversation that didn't appear to mean much to him at the time, and only took on a far greater significance in light of subsequent events.

In contrast, Lechmere should have an Olympic gold medal for 'thinking on one's feet'; a second for 'uncannily accurate foresight'; and the hat trick for 'immaculate timing', if he based his lie to Mizen (a copper with the woman requesting his assistance) on the expectation that PC Neil would be with the body in time to greet Mizen and request his assistance, but just too late to see Lechmere adjusting his victim's skirts or wiping his bloody knife.

If Lechmere really had told Mizen that he was needed by a fellow officer, that would have been the only reality for Mizen to be concerned with, and it should have 'sufficiently alerted' him to stop knocking up and go directly to Buck's Row. Yet he saw no need for speed, despite Buck's Row's dodgy reputation for gangs and the like. So isn't it more likely that he was only told that a woman was lying there (ie the truth, as Paul and Lechmere saw it) and he assumed he would find her dead drunk or sleeping rough - nothing more urgent than that?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

"... is that Lechmere would be coming forward to identify himself, not only as the first man to find the body (and therefore potentially the last man to be with her while she was alive)..."

He did not need to identify himself as the first man to find the body, Caz - Paul did that for him.

Really, Fishy? How did Paul do that without knowing the man's names or where he could be found?

And after that, why would he not acknowledge this?

Why would he, if nobody knew his name or where he could be found?

What possible use could he have of saying that PAUL was the first one?

Eh? Where did that come from? My problem is with him coming forward at all, if Mizen was bound to find out he'd lied to him, and might already know it. Identifying himself as Mizen's liar, then lying about his name and then lying about Paul being first at the scene would not seem the most sensible option, I agree. He would still have had the luck of a lottery winner to get away with two out of three.

No, Caz. The truth was NOT bound to come out. A DISCREPANCY was what was bound to come out - and it DID come out. A perplexed juryman asked Lechmere whether he had really told Mizen about a second PC - and Lechmere cooly denied it. Ever so stylish!

Yeah, and Mizen just sat there picking his nose, allowing this psychopathic carman to call him a liar, knowing the opposite was true? You're kidding me. Or are you just kidding yourself?

... which begs the question: Where is that truth you claim Lechmere knew must come out? With Paul neatly shoved to the side out of earshot, Lechmere needn´t worry about a thing. He would have known Paul and Neil would corroborate HIS version and not Mizen´s - since there had been no PC around, just like our accomodating carman told the inquest.

With the truth neatly shoved to the side you can make anything happen, Fishy. Where is the truth that Paul was neatly shoved to the side out of earshot? The truth could equally be that Paul heard everything Lechmere said, so you are just making up the truth as you go along and hoping nobody notices - a bit like you imagine Lechmere did when talking to Mizen the Moron.

"Crucial witness", Caz? apparently the inquest, the police and the papers did not agree. "Carman Cross" was never seen as a crucial witness, other than when it came to establishing that he had really been the one that found the body. Once he had done that, they bothered him no more. Thank you, Mr Cross - on you go now, shoosh!

And you don't think that was because they were able to satisfy themselves that he had given an honest and truthful account, to the best of his knowledge? He'd soon have turned into a crucial witness if he had lied to Mizen and been found out almost immediately, had Neil not been at the scene to make the lie appear (temporarily) like the truth.

Mizen, I agree, would have been consternated. But as long as he did not suspect Lechmere of foul play himself, he may very well have thought that he must have misheard "Cross", quite simply. And after having let him pass on the murder night without taking his name, maybe Mizen felt it was best not to wake any slumbering bear.

Make your mind up, Fishy. If Mizen thought he must have misheard Cross, then he could have misheard him. Quite simply. But it's more likely in my view that after finding Neil at the scene he presumed Cross had been sent to fetch him, and from there he misremembered it as part of the conversation. No big deal if he couldn't be sure either way. But your argument relies on Cross lying to Mizen about this other copper for a purpose and Mizen being taken in by it, so there is no room for him mishearing in your scenario, and Cross's denial would have pulled the wool from his eyes if nothing else.

Just like I keep saying, it was a very good scam, one that nobody seems to have commented on for 124 years. And THAT is beyond belief...

Indeed it is. That's precisely why most of us DON'T believe it! The end result is the same if there was no scam at all, good, bad or ugly. No scam required, with the bonus that without one everything becomes so much more believable.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Hi again, Caz!

Have you realized by now that you, in your former post, stated that not the dumbest policeman on earth would miss the scam if there had been no PC in Buck´s Row as Mizen arrived there - only to have it pointeds out to you that each and every Ripperologist have had that exact scenario served to ponder over for 124 years - WITHOUT SEEING THE SCAM?

And after having taken this absolute gem of a nosedive, YOU asked ME if I saw the elephant in the room!!!

Mucho kudos, Caz!And hilariously funny!

"How did Paul do that without knowing the man's names or where he could be found? "

He knew him by sight, for starters. And if he never turned up, he would never present any alternative scenario, Caz.

"Why would he, if nobody knew his name or where he could be found? "

Same answer. Paul-knew-him-by-sight. AND Mizen.

"My problem is with him coming forward at all, if Mizen was bound to find out he'd lied to him, and might already know it."

I have no problem with that at all. It´s much harder to make you see it.

"and Mizen just sat there picking his nose, allowing this psychopathic carman to call him a liar, knowing the opposite was true? You're kidding me."

We can´t tell if he picked his nose, that´s true. But I have a sneaking feeling that if he had protested wildly, then the reporters WOULD have noticed. But you don´t think so, I believe?

Or are you saying that he sat silently through the inquest, only to tell his superiors afterwards that he had been lied to? That would not have been necessary - it had already been done.

OIr are you pressing the point that he insisted afterwards that Lechmere had lied? If so, how do we know that his superiors would buy his story - they KNEW that Lechmere was factually right; there had been no PC in Buck´s Row?

And, Caz, keep in mind that if Mizen did not suspect Lechmere of anything at all, then why would he not just let it lie?

"Where is the truth that Paul was neatly shoved to the side out of earshot? "

The other man, who went down Hanbury Street...

"And you don't think that was because they were able to satisfy themselves that he had given an honest and truthful account, to the best of his knowledge? "

They could not "satisfy" themselves in that respect. And they did not even try when it came to his name, did they Caz? Otherwise, I´m sure they believed him. It only makes sense that way, you see.

"Make your mind up, Fishy. "

Oh, I have - but I can´t make Mizen´s mind up for him, can I?

"If Mizen thought he must have misheard Cross, then he could have misheard him."

See? Useless exercise, backed by a futile hope to establish a mishearing. Bad form, bad exercise, bad Ripperology.

"it's more likely in my view that after finding Neil at the scene he presumed Cross had been sent to fetch him"

Then Mizen would have taken his name. He did not. End of story, one would hope.

"your argument relies on Cross lying to Mizen about this other copper for a purpose "

Partly, yes. And wisely so - it fits with the rest. It is as consistent as your reoccuring criticism, and a good deal brighter.

"That's precisely why most of us DON'T believe it!"

That only holds water if you had realized the possible implications without having them pointed out to you. And you did not, did you? Instead you claim that all Ripperologists are completely stupid for not seeing it - yourself included! Wow, sort of ...

Better duck next time!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Caz!

I can´t resist to bring your "elephant point" from the other thread over to this one, since it very much belongs to this particular thread, and since it so clearly shows exactly how people fall into the trap Lechmere set for Mizen.

Here goes, Caz, this is what you wrote:

"There’s just one problem - the elephant in your room. When Mizen gets there, Lechmere can only expect him to find a woman alone, with her throat slashed and innards protruding, and not a copper anywhere to be seen. And if Neil had not been there, that’s exactly what Mizen would have found.
How long would it have taken even the dimmest copper to realise that the carman had pulled a fast one, and raised the alarm? He’d have been hunted high and low and there is no way he would have come forward voluntarily under those circumstances."

So, Caz, here you are saying that if Neil had not been in place in Buck´s Row, the game would have been up - nobody, not the most dimwitted of policemen, would have failed to see that Lechmere had "pulled a fast one" as you so aptly put it.

This is your contention: The scam would not have stood a chance in hell not to be revealed with no PC in place in Buck´s Row.

And still, we have all, each and everybody of us, have had this exact scenario to work from. We ALL know that there was no PC in Buck´s Row, we ALL know what Mizen claimed that Lechmere had said. That there WAS a PC there, and so Lechmere has pulled a fast one on ALL of us - with none of us realizing it until 124 years after he did it.

Millions of Ripperologists and Ripper-interested people have failed to understand that a fast one was pulled on them. Millions! Which makes your assertion that ANYBODY would easily see through the ruse a very comical assertion. A true epic, as it were, Caz!

... and a VERY useful reminder of how well Lechmere´s scam worked, if it was a scam.

I for one bank on it.

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

Hi again, Caz!

Have you realized by now that you, in your former post, stated that not the dumbest policeman on earth would miss the scam if there had been no PC in Buck´s Row as Mizen arrived there - only to have it pointeds out to you that each and every Ripperologist have had that exact scenario served to ponder over for 124 years - WITHOUT SEEING THE SCAM?

And after having taken this absolute gem of a nosedive, YOU asked ME if I saw the elephant in the room!!!

Mucho kudos, Caz!And hilariously funny!

This is backwards, Fishy.

If (note this well: I said 'If') Cross told Mizen this lie, then Mizen would have been pretty bloody clueless not to realise he had just been conned, if (another 'if') he had arrived in Buck's Row to find no policeman waiting for him as promised, and only the woman's body, alone and horribly murdered.

We have no way of knowing today whether Cross told Mizen this lie or not; all we know is that Neil was there when Mizen arrived, which Cross did not know would be the case.

"and Mizen just sat there picking his nose, allowing this psychopathic carman to call him a liar, knowing the opposite was true? You're kidding me."

We can´t tell if he picked his nose, that´s true. But I have a sneaking feeling that if he had protested wildly, then the reporters WOULD have noticed. But you don´t think so, I believe?

Again, this is backwards. The fact that Mizen doesn't appear to have protested, wildly or mildly, when Cross effectively called him a liar, fits with Mizen realising he was probably mistaken, or had misremembered the conversation (understandable in light of events when he reached Buck's Row), or knew Cross's denial was sound, so kept his head down and didn't make a fuss. We know that Cross's denial was not considered suspicious, so again, that would fit with an assumption that Mizen had spoken in error, not that Cross had told a rather inexplicable lie.

You are the one who needs all the conjecture here, to explain why nobody, not even Mizen, picked up on the fact that he had been lied to, within minutes of the murder, by the man who had first been seen with the dead woman. All you have is your backwards argument that the lie must have been a clever one because it fooled EVERYONE for 124 years. You are still no nearer showing that Cross actually lied in the first place and fooled anyone at all.

And, Caz, keep in mind that if Mizen did not suspect Lechmere of anything at all, then why would he not just let it lie?

The fact that Mizen did just 'let it lie' indicates that he accepted Cross's denial and there was nothing for him to be suspicious about. Don't you think he would have smelled a great big rat if he knew Cross had mentioned, while out of Paul's earshot, this other copper who had not actually existed, and therefore knew Cross's denial was a second bare-faced lie?

"If Mizen thought he must have misheard Cross, then he could have misheard him."

See? Useless exercise, backed by a futile hope to establish a mishearing. Bad form, bad exercise, bad Ripperology.

No, just stating the bleedin' obvious, using the laws of physics and biology. How can you judge it impossible for Mizen to have misheard Cross, if you concede that Mizen himself may have thought it possible? That makes no sense.

"it's more likely in my view that after finding Neil at the scene he presumed Cross had been sent to fetch him"

Then Mizen would have taken his name. He did not. End of story, one would hope.

Eh? Why would Mizen necessarily have taken either of the men's names, if he was given the impression that the woman was merely drunk, so carried on knocking up for a while before going to check on her?

Instead you claim that all Ripperologists are completely stupid for not seeing it - yourself included! Wow, sort of ...

Not at all. I'm claiming there was nothing to see - all the while you, Lechy and Lucky have failed to demonstrate otherwise. Three against many.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Millions of Ripperologists and Ripper-interested people have failed to understand that a fast one was pulled on them. Millions! Which makes your assertion that ANYBODY would easily see through the ruse a very comical assertion. A true epic, as it were, Caz!

... and a VERY useful reminder of how well Lechmere´s scam worked, if it was a scam.

I for one bank on it.

The best,
Fisherman

And if it wasn't a scam, no fast one was pulled on anyone.

You go on convincing yourself, Fish. I suppose one (or three at most) out of millions is slightly better than none.

Love,

Caz
X

[moonbegger]

Hello Fish and all ,

a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying.

Could this not be just a simple misunderstanding between CrossMere and Mizen ?

CrossMere informs Mizen he is wanted in Bucks Row ( by someone , not necessarily a Policeman ) . At this point both Crossmere and Paul were unaware and did not know for certain if polly was either drunk, dead, or alive and in need of assistance !

When Mizen arrives at the Row and finds PC Neil there , he automatically assumes that PC Neil is the person who required his assistance , and gives his testimony accordingly .

After Mizen's testimony ,CrossMere gives his testimony and Deni's telling Mizen about a Policeman requiring his assistance ..

Surely this is the moment that Mizen realizes his own misinterpretation of what Crossmere had referred to on the morn of the 31st .

I am sure that such a petty misunderstanding would have been questioned , confirmed and burried without no drama's

The interesting bit for me in CrossMere's testimony is ..

Just then they heard a policeman coming.

Maybe what they actually herd was the Killer dropping a shoulder (making his exit)

And another thing that doesn't gel too well is this from PC Neil ..

police-constable, 97J, said: Yesterday morning I was proceeding down Buck's-row, Whitechapel, going towards Brady-street. There was not a soul about. I had been round there half an hour previously, and I saw no one then. I was on the right-hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street. It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row. I went across and found deceased lying outside a gateway,

Across where ? he said he was on the right hand side of the street walking towards Brady street ? I know , i Know its the whole left and right side of the street malarkey again , and it is of no real importance , but it is a little peculiar dont ya think ?

Ahhh sand between my toes again

cheers ,

moonbegger

[Mr Lucky]

Across where ? he said he was on the right hand side of the street walking towards Brady street ? I know , i Know its the whole left and right side of the street malarkey again , and it is of no real importance , but it is a little peculiar dont ya think ?

Hi Moon,

I have spent some time looking at this too, and I agree it is far from clear, however I think Neil means that he is near the middle of the road but just on the right hand side of the middle, ie between the middle of the road and the kerb on the right hand side and from there has to move 'across' to the pavement/ gateway where Nichols lay. (personally I think this is of enormous importance, btw)

Just then they heard a policeman coming

At best, I think this may be a interjection by the Coroner, he has been asked did he hear a policeman coming and Cross has said no, and one reporter has misheard and thought he said yes.
It doesn't fit with anything else that has been said by any of the people involved and it's only in one paper, so it is likely somekind of error.

Could this not be just a simple misunderstanding between CrossMere and Mizen ?

That's a very plausible suggestion.

[Mr Lucky]

Not at all. I'm claiming there was nothing to see - all the while you, Lechy and Lucky have failed to demonstrate otherwise. Three against many.

Hi Caz

I don't even agree with the other two over this!
I have my own explanation in regards to Mizen, Paul and Cross and their meeting, thanks very much, and my demonstrations are only just beginning...

[Lechmere]

What we would have is Cross/Lechmere lying to Mizen about there being a policeman waiting for him in Bucks Row as an immediate expedient to get past him unscathed at the corner of Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street.

Luckily for Cross/Lechmere there was indeed a policeman at Bucks Row.
But then he wasn’t really that lucky given the nature of the beats which he would probably have been roughly aware of and given that he may well have seen Neil loitering around on Whitechapel Road and so known he would be along in the not too distant future.

So what of Mizen being annoyed at being flatly contradicted by Cross/Lechmere at the inquest about this?
I suppose Mizen was more relieved that he was not hauled over the coals for not going expeditiously to Bucks Row – which he should have done even given the garbled account of what had happened that had been told him by Cross/Lechmere.
Hence Mizen did not cause a fuss.

But I repeat, when Cross/Lechmere told Mizen the lie, the aim would have been to solve an immediate problem. That was - how to get past Mizen without giving any details, without being taken back to the crime scene and without being searched.

The next problem arose when Paul gave his press interview but Cross? Lechmere could not have predicted this at the time. And that was in the future.

Cross/Lechmere was responding to events (dear boy), events.

[Abby Normal]

Hey fish
I saw the other thread got closed before I could respond to your last post about lechs mom.

She was a dress maker and then a cats meat seller? That in itself is weird.
I suddenly had visions of lech dressing up horse parts in women's clothes.

Could you post that map that had lechs home, pickfords and his moms house all labelled on it?

[Lechmere]

I'll try and sort a map out soon.
Recent information leads me to think Charles Lechmere as also involved in the cat's meat selling business.

[Abby Normal]

I'll try and sort a map out soon.
Recent information leads me to think Charles Lechmere as also involved in the cat's meat selling business.

Thanks lech
How old was his mom in 1888?