Tweet
Hi everybody!
Having returned from a weeks outdoors living - fishing included! - I am anxious to hear what you all think about what I refer to as the Mizen scam. The theme is presented in my article in Ripperologist 126, in the article "Two murders in Buckīs Row".
Much has been said already about whether I have made my mind up that Charles Lechmere was the Ripper, and those who have taken the time to read my article will know by now that I confess to that exact belief. And it is the Mizen scam that pushed me over the edge, so to speak.
For those unfamiliar with it, I will make a short presentation of the scam.The fewest do, actually - when reading books by Sugden, Evans, Begg and Rumbelow, for example, it quickly becomes clear that the very detail that I belive gives away the Ripper, remains untouched upon in these books.
It all lies in what Mizen claimed "Cross" had told him on the evening of the murder. Mizen says that Cross was the one who spoke to him (apparently pointing to Paul not being involved in the conversation, at least not to any significant degree), and stated in his words to Mizen: "You are wanted in Buckīs Row" (he said Bakerīs Row, but he of course meant Buckīs ditto), and "Another policeman wants you there". "Cross" then proceeded to point out that a woman "had been found there", lying flat on her back, being either dead or drunk.
This has always been the source of much consternation. Lechmere himself witnessed after Mizen at the inquest, and was asked whether he had really told Mizen that another PC waited for im in Buckīs Row. He denied that he had done so, pointing out that there had been no other PC in Buckīs Row.
The situation that was crated at the inquest was thus one that seemingly entailed a question that needed to be settled: Had there been a PC in Buckīs Row as Lechmere and Paul were there, or had there not? The ones that championed the different views were on the one hand Mizen, who argued that there HAD been a PC there, and on the other hand Lechmere, who claimed that this had not been so. And Lechmere came out on top, Paul and Neil supplying corroboration of his version.
This was all a game of smoke and mirrors, though. For the truth of the matter was that BOTH views originated with Lechmere! He was the one who had claimed that there had been a PC in place (when speaking to Mizen) and he was ALSO the one who claimed that there had NOT been a PC in place (when witnessing at the inquest).
But the REAL question should have been another one: Did Lechmere tell Mizen that there was a PC in Buckīs Row, waiting for assistance, or did he NOT do so? THAT is the pertinent question, and in this case, there is no Paul and Neil to corroborate Lechmere!!
So who told the truth, Mizen or Lechmere? Well, when we accept that Lechmere was the truthful party, we end up with a testimony on behalf of Mizen that makes no sense, which is what Sugden, Evans, Begg and Rumbelow all noticed, conveniently leaving the "strange" testimony aside.
But look what happens if we instead accept that Mizen, a serving PC, was the one who told the truth! We can suddenly see how Lechmere fabricated a tailormade lie, shaped in the EXACT manner he needed to have it to ensure that Mizen would not search him, ask him any questions or bring him along back to the murder spot:
-He claimed that a PC was waiting for assistance in Buckīs Row, meaning that Mizen could rely on this colleague of his having already done whatever checking out needed visavi Lechmere and Paul.
-He claimed that a woman "had been found there", effectively obscuring the fact that he himself had been the one who found her.
-He omitted to mention that the woman was the victim of either murder or suicide; IF ther had truly been a PC in place who had sent Lechmere and Paul looking for a fellow PC, then he would have done so after having noticed the cut throat, and thus the two carmen would have known that murder or suicide was the case. Mizen made that exact remark at the inquest, according to the press, obviously consternated by the leaving out of this important fact. But of course, Lechmere had every reason to play down what had happened, since he needed to slip through the net!
The Mizen scam thus held the EXACT parameters it needed to have to allow Lechmere to slip away unsearched. It can even be questioned whether Jonas Mizen even bothered to take the menīs names. After all, why would he? If that fellow PC had already spoken to the carmen, then he would have noted their names according to regulation.
My suggestion is that Lechmere was very much aware of PC Neilīs beat as he killed Nichols. When Paul turned up, he had a limited time window to come up with a way to leave the spot, and he did so by claiming that he was ALSO late for work, just like Paul. And when the carmen reached Mizen in Hanbury street, Lechmere either chanced that Neil would have had the time to come up via Bakerīs Row, turn right into Buckīs Row and find Nichols, or he was actually sure that this would be the case; the distance inbetween the little group Mizen/Lechmere/Paul and Neil, coming up Bakerīs Row, would perhaps be a mere 50-60 yards or so, and therefore Lechmere may very well have heard Neil walking his beat, and thus he may actually have known that Neil would find the body.
At any rate, we all know that the scam worked in every detail: when Mizen arrived in Buckīs Row, that PC (Neil) WAS there, just like he had been told. And as he ran off for an ambulance, he would not have suspected foul play for a second, having had the carmanīs ("Cross") prediction come true. The only thing that he thought strange was that the carman had omitted to mention the seriousness of the errand. A sound enough reflection, but one that has been left unattended to for 124 years.
Charles Allen Lechmere lied his way past Mizen on the 31 of August 1888. We know this, since Mizen testified about it. To my mind, he unknowingly pointed out the Ripper by doing so - and generations of Ripperologists opted for believing that he was a total crackpot, getting it all wrong...
There you go; this is why my mind is made up. 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. My conviction is that we are not dealing with an inventive carman, late for work, but instead with what has often been described as classical sociopathy - somebody who would never panic although he was in very serious trouble, but who instead in the blink of an eye came up with useful solutions to every problem along his way, perhaps even without the ability to feel fear. Or remorse, for that matter.
Thoughts, anybody?
The best,
Fisherman
Having returned from a weeks outdoors living - fishing included! - I am anxious to hear what you all think about what I refer to as the Mizen scam. The theme is presented in my article in Ripperologist 126, in the article "Two murders in Buckīs Row".
Much has been said already about whether I have made my mind up that Charles Lechmere was the Ripper, and those who have taken the time to read my article will know by now that I confess to that exact belief. And it is the Mizen scam that pushed me over the edge, so to speak.
For those unfamiliar with it, I will make a short presentation of the scam.The fewest do, actually - when reading books by Sugden, Evans, Begg and Rumbelow, for example, it quickly becomes clear that the very detail that I belive gives away the Ripper, remains untouched upon in these books.
It all lies in what Mizen claimed "Cross" had told him on the evening of the murder. Mizen says that Cross was the one who spoke to him (apparently pointing to Paul not being involved in the conversation, at least not to any significant degree), and stated in his words to Mizen: "You are wanted in Buckīs Row" (he said Bakerīs Row, but he of course meant Buckīs ditto), and "Another policeman wants you there". "Cross" then proceeded to point out that a woman "had been found there", lying flat on her back, being either dead or drunk.
This has always been the source of much consternation. Lechmere himself witnessed after Mizen at the inquest, and was asked whether he had really told Mizen that another PC waited for im in Buckīs Row. He denied that he had done so, pointing out that there had been no other PC in Buckīs Row.
The situation that was crated at the inquest was thus one that seemingly entailed a question that needed to be settled: Had there been a PC in Buckīs Row as Lechmere and Paul were there, or had there not? The ones that championed the different views were on the one hand Mizen, who argued that there HAD been a PC there, and on the other hand Lechmere, who claimed that this had not been so. And Lechmere came out on top, Paul and Neil supplying corroboration of his version.
This was all a game of smoke and mirrors, though. For the truth of the matter was that BOTH views originated with Lechmere! He was the one who had claimed that there had been a PC in place (when speaking to Mizen) and he was ALSO the one who claimed that there had NOT been a PC in place (when witnessing at the inquest).
But the REAL question should have been another one: Did Lechmere tell Mizen that there was a PC in Buckīs Row, waiting for assistance, or did he NOT do so? THAT is the pertinent question, and in this case, there is no Paul and Neil to corroborate Lechmere!!
So who told the truth, Mizen or Lechmere? Well, when we accept that Lechmere was the truthful party, we end up with a testimony on behalf of Mizen that makes no sense, which is what Sugden, Evans, Begg and Rumbelow all noticed, conveniently leaving the "strange" testimony aside.
But look what happens if we instead accept that Mizen, a serving PC, was the one who told the truth! We can suddenly see how Lechmere fabricated a tailormade lie, shaped in the EXACT manner he needed to have it to ensure that Mizen would not search him, ask him any questions or bring him along back to the murder spot:
-He claimed that a PC was waiting for assistance in Buckīs Row, meaning that Mizen could rely on this colleague of his having already done whatever checking out needed visavi Lechmere and Paul.
-He claimed that a woman "had been found there", effectively obscuring the fact that he himself had been the one who found her.
-He omitted to mention that the woman was the victim of either murder or suicide; IF ther had truly been a PC in place who had sent Lechmere and Paul looking for a fellow PC, then he would have done so after having noticed the cut throat, and thus the two carmen would have known that murder or suicide was the case. Mizen made that exact remark at the inquest, according to the press, obviously consternated by the leaving out of this important fact. But of course, Lechmere had every reason to play down what had happened, since he needed to slip through the net!
The Mizen scam thus held the EXACT parameters it needed to have to allow Lechmere to slip away unsearched. It can even be questioned whether Jonas Mizen even bothered to take the menīs names. After all, why would he? If that fellow PC had already spoken to the carmen, then he would have noted their names according to regulation.
My suggestion is that Lechmere was very much aware of PC Neilīs beat as he killed Nichols. When Paul turned up, he had a limited time window to come up with a way to leave the spot, and he did so by claiming that he was ALSO late for work, just like Paul. And when the carmen reached Mizen in Hanbury street, Lechmere either chanced that Neil would have had the time to come up via Bakerīs Row, turn right into Buckīs Row and find Nichols, or he was actually sure that this would be the case; the distance inbetween the little group Mizen/Lechmere/Paul and Neil, coming up Bakerīs Row, would perhaps be a mere 50-60 yards or so, and therefore Lechmere may very well have heard Neil walking his beat, and thus he may actually have known that Neil would find the body.
At any rate, we all know that the scam worked in every detail: when Mizen arrived in Buckīs Row, that PC (Neil) WAS there, just like he had been told. And as he ran off for an ambulance, he would not have suspected foul play for a second, having had the carmanīs ("Cross") prediction come true. The only thing that he thought strange was that the carman had omitted to mention the seriousness of the errand. A sound enough reflection, but one that has been left unattended to for 124 years.
Charles Allen Lechmere lied his way past Mizen on the 31 of August 1888. We know this, since Mizen testified about it. To my mind, he unknowingly pointed out the Ripper by doing so - and generations of Ripperologists opted for believing that he was a total crackpot, getting it all wrong...
There you go; this is why my mind is made up. 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. My conviction is that we are not dealing with an inventive carman, late for work, but instead with what has often been described as classical sociopathy - somebody who would never panic although he was in very serious trouble, but who instead in the blink of an eye came up with useful solutions to every problem along his way, perhaps even without the ability to feel fear. Or remorse, for that matter.
Thoughts, anybody?
The best,
Fisherman
Comment