The Mizen scam

[The Good Michael]

Christer,

For me the beautiful thing here is that a man would know the police beats so well that he could about pinpoint the time Neil would be coming upon the body and incorporate that immediately into his lie.

Why is this beautiful? Because it connects to the other murders in the same regard if this is indeed the Ripper. Stride killed exactly when she needed to be and if not for that blasted pony and cart, Eddowes still alive (maybe). Eddowes killed between the two police beats at the exact time she needed to be in order to not be caught.

If we take all these murders as a series of progression of violence, we can also see a progression of evasive tactics culminating in Kelly's death. Evasive escalation = mutilation escalation. This is a brilliant path to be upon, my friend.

I'm not saying Lechmere was the Ripper. We need to know why he stopped after Kelly... heck we need to know many things, but this is cool stuff.

Mike

[lynn cates]

part 4

Hello Christer. Thanks.

“Before he stepped out into the street to speak to Paul. It fits with the rest of his behaviour and purposes."

Do we KNOW this?

“Did an 1888 carman know that? I think not. The normal approach to a drunken person would be a propping up and a slap on the cheek.”

But he was unclear whether she were drunk or dead. He favoured the latter, if I recall.

“They did not HAVE to find him - he called in himself, I believe.”

Indeed. Would the killer do that? I certainly would not.

‘No. The Fisherman rot. Exemplified by many a killer.”

Which century?

“Ah. So "A PC awaits you in Buck´s Row" could mean "No, he´s not - silly of me"? Come on, Lynn ...”

No. But it could mean, “A PC is probably already there. And if he sees what I saw, then he’ll definitely wish to see you.”

“What is vague? Leman Street was firm enough. It ran to Old Montague Street. Dew tells us that Leman Street was Kelly´s prostitution area. So what´s vague?”

How far you are willing to accept a deviation.

“You COULD be a bit more generous, one would have thought.”

Very well then, Toppy. (Oops!)

“By Mizen? Like that? Not very credible, I´d say. He was adamant about things, and did not waver in the least.”

No. By Cross. An awkward statement.

“And YOU accuse ME of leaning on the FBI ...?”

Well, Leibniz is almost sacred.

“On the contrary. Mizen, my dear fellow, was the well, remember?”

I mean the audience.

“You DO realize, Lynn, that Swedenborg is just a fraction of a step away when leaning on Leibniz ...?”

Ah! But in which direction?

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

But in your scenario, Jon, Lechmere has already passed Paul without noticing him. Thus Paul made an effort to stay undetected, and succeeded in this. Why on earth would he give that up? It makes no sense at all.

But this is what I see when I look at your theory? As soon as Cross heard Paul he could have escaped but instead he plays bluff with both Paul and Mizen. If Paul tried to slip out of Bucks Row undetected after Cross had passed he could have walked into PC Thain or someone else walking west just as Cross was discovering the body. By turning around and making out that he was following Cross he is laughing.

We`re not sure of Lechmere`s route to work other than he passed through Bucks Row. Paul, however, was most definately en route for at least 2 murders.

Regarding Lechmere giving his fathers (an ex copper) surname and "misinforming" Mizen - that is your theory.

Fact is, we don`t if Mizen took any details when he encountered Cross and Paul - he could have been listening with half an ear while he was knocking people up, which would explain his later assuming that Cross had told him that he was wanted by another policeman, as that seems more reasonable than two guys passing him and casually saying "there`s a dead or drunk woman back there" (which they might have done)

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"He clearly places lechmere in the middle of the road .. "

Yep, he does.

"I also think that Lechmere could have easily made good his escape if indeed he needed too"

...and if he WAS the killer and bluffed his way out, then clearly he did not need to.

"Where would he have run into Annie ? I'm guessing that she wasn't just hanging about in bucks row on her own waiting to be murdered ! Did he allow extra time that morning on route to work for trawling the streets ? "

It was not Annie - it was Polly. And yes, Buck´s Row would not be a place to find unfortunates - but Whitechapel Road would! And it would not take many a minute extra. The only source we have for what time he left home that day is himself ... but even then, he was late in arriving in Buck´s Row!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Michael:

"For me the beautiful thing here is that a man would know the police beats so well that he could about pinpoint the time Neil would be coming upon the body and incorporate that immediately into his lie."

That was always on the cards - but keep in mind that he may have picked up on where Neil was by hearing him as he passed through Baker´s Row, a mere 60-70 yards from where Lechmere and Paul encountered Mizen. But equally, it may apply that he kept close track of the time, as perhaps implied by the other deeds.

"I'm not saying Lechmere was the Ripper. We need to know why he stopped after Kelly... heck we need to know many things, but this is cool stuff."

Thanks, Mike! being an academic involved in practical science, my bet was that you would take to it ...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Lynn:

"Do we KNOW this?"

Do I KNOW that you are Lynn Cates?

"he was unclear whether she were drunk or dead. He favoured the latter, if I recall."

And just what damage would it cause to prop a dead woman up ...?

"Would the killer do that? I certainly would not."

What is that better proof of: you not being a killer or a killer not going to the police?

"Which century?"

How about the 20:th?

"..it could mean, “A PC is probably already there."

What a formidably rational thing to say in such a situation. You find a dead or passed out woman in an empty, silent street, you leave her and find a PC less than four minutes afterwards and you go "I guess a PC will be there when you arrive".
But heck, yes, he may have said that. He may have said "my stepfather was a police and if he was around in Buck´s Row, he´d sort things out." He could have said many things. But Mizen speaks of one thing and one thing only: he said "You are wanted in Buck´s Row", implicating that somebody was there, and went on to say "another policeman wants you there". He then said that a woman had been found there, implicating that he himself certainly was not the one who had done the finding, but instead somebody else, present in Buck´s Row. That´s three pointers, all aiming in the exact same direction.

"How far you are willing to accept a deviation."

I can´t be very exact on that score. But anyting inbetween Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street would be potentially viable, as would any adress OUTSIDE that area, as long as it did not mean a detour of many minutes. But the problem is not there - the victims ALL fit the geographical frame effortlessly.

"No. By Cross. An awkward statement."

I´d say that the more awkward, the greater the chance it sticks in your mind. And at any rate, the way it is laid down, it fits the scam.

"Ah! But in which direction?"

Up. Or down. You DO know Swedenborg?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

"As soon as Cross heard Paul he could have escaped but instead he plays bluff with both Paul and Mizen."

Succesfully so!

"If Paul tried to slip out of Bucks Row undetected after Cross had passed he could have walked into PC Thain or someone else walking west just as Cross was discovering the body. By turning around and making out that he was following Cross he is laughing."

Still sounds far-fetched to my ears.

"We`re not sure of Lechmere`s route to work other than he passed through Bucks Row. Paul, however, was most definately en route for at least 2 murders."

We DO know, of course, that he chose Hanbury Street on the 31:st, so that makes two on his account too. And we also know that Old Montague Street was the only other useful thoroughfare, offering a shorter and quicker stretch. And the murders connected to that street disqualifies Paul, who WOULD have used Hanbury Street - Old Montague Street was never an option to reach Corbett´s court, was it?

"Regarding Lechmere giving his fathers (an ex copper) surname and "misinforming" Mizen - that is your theory."

Not at all. I did not dream that up. We KNOW that he called himself Cross at the inquest. That is no "theory" of mine. Likewise, we HAVE Mizens word on Lechmere misinforming him. That is no "theory" of mine either. Both are established facts, one of which cannot be disputed and the other one a statement by a PC who stood to gain nothing from lying.

"Fact is, we don`t if Mizen took any details when he encountered Cross and Paul - he could have been listening with half an ear while he was knocking people up, which would explain his later assuming that Cross had told him that he was wanted by another policeman, as that seems more reasonable than two guys passing him and casually saying "there`s a dead or drunk woman back there" (which they might have done)"

Anybody is free to form an opinion about what the carmen said or did. But I go by the sources and change nothing. According to Mizen, "Cross" DID say that another PC wanted him in Buck´s Row. He further implicated that somebody was in that street by saying "You are wanted in Buck´s Row", just as he implicated that somebody else than himself had found Nichols by saying that "a woman has been found there". The picture is a very clear one, thus. Plus it ALL makes sense if we accept that Lechmere was the killer of Nichols! And why wouldn´t we, when the signs are there?

All the best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

part 5

Hello Christer. Thanks.

“Do I KNOW that you are Lynn Cates?”

Doubtful. To know is to have a justified, true belief. (Well, it was until 1963 when Edmund Gettier wrote his paper. Even more complicated now.) And, to date, no one has solved the problem of other minds.

Cogito ergo sum. Well and good. But how do I know YOU exist?

“And just what damage would it cause to prop a dead woman up?”

None. Nor any good—apart from using valuable time.

“What is that better proof of: you not being a killer or a killer not going to the police?”

Proof? This is inductive matter, not deductive.

“How about the 20th?”

Right. And 1888 is . . . ?

“What a formidably rational thing to say in such a situation.”

Thank you.

“You find a dead or passed out woman in an empty, silent street, you leave her and find a PC less than four minutes afterwards and you go "I guess a PC will be there when you arrive".
But heck, yes, he may have said that. He may have said "my stepfather was a police and if he was around in Buck´s Row, he´d sort things out." He could have said many things. But Mizen speaks of one thing and one thing only: he said "You are wanted in Buck´s Row", implicating that somebody was there, and went on to say "another policeman wants you there". He then said that a woman had been found there, implicating that he himself certainly was not the one who had done the finding, but instead somebody else, present in Buck´s Row. That´s three pointers, all aiming in the exact same direction. “

Why does it imply to use passive voice?

“I can´t be very exact on that score. But anything in between Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street would be potentially viable, as would any address OUTSIDE that area, as long as it did not mean a detour of many minutes. But the problem is not there - the victims ALL fit the geographical frame effortlessly.”

Indeed. But PRECISELY this same notion—geography—is what has allured so many researchers down the “lone serial killer” cul-de-sac.

“I´d say that the more awkward, the greater the chance it sticks in your mind. And at any rate, the way it is laid down, it fits the scam.”

If it IS a scam.

“Up. Or down. You DO know Swedenborg?”

Yes. And if I recall properly, I had one professor who rather liked him. I prefer the good old German who proclaimed, “The predicate is contained in the subject.” Leaves no room for guesswork.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Lynn Cates:

"Cogito ergo sum. Well and good. But how do I know YOU exist?"

With no "cogito", you mean ...?

"Right. And 1888 is . . . ?"

People are the same, more or less, Lynn. Always.

"Why does it imply to use passive voice?"

Why did he not say "I (or we) found a woman there?

"PRECISELY this same notion—geography—is what has allured so many researchers down the “lone serial killer” cul-de-sac."

Like I said, people will be the same always. Goes for you too ...!

"If it IS a scam."

...it fits.

"Yes. And if I recall properly, I had one professor who rather liked him. I prefer the good old German who proclaimed, “The predicate is contained in the subject.” Leaves no room for guesswork."

Just like Mizens words, then!

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Fish,

Your article felt like a Part 1. When I got to the end, I didn't feel finished. It was like putting a book back on the shelf half-read. Some things I would have enjoyed seeing you explore were the differing accounts given by Robert Paul to the press, police, and inquest, and if/how this might have been influenced by Cross, or what it might tell us about the Cross/Paul/Mizen encounter. Robert Paul is known to have been a hostile inquest witness, due to the low wages they pay. Is this possibly because he's been an inquest witness PRIOR to this? If he per chance was associated with another murder or death, that would be worth knowing about.

Also, where were the maps showing us Cross' routes to and from work, and your dissertation on what all this means in terms of his complicity with the murders? You talked about this on the threads but there was nothing in the finished piece.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott:

"Your article felt like a Part 1."

It´s more like part 10, actually, following up on all the other bits and pieces already found out about Lechmere. I did not venture to give the full picture, but instead concentrated on the exchange between Lechmere and Mizen, since I think it holds the key to the whole case. The lie Lechmere served Mizen was absolutely tailormade to allow himself to stay unsearched and unasked about the events in Buck´s Row. And nobody has seen that before!

"When I got to the end, I didn't feel finished."

It´s not you I am trying to finish. It´s the Ripper. If it had been you, you would have been done for by now... Nah, just joking, Tom - the scam was what I was after.

" Some things I would have enjoyed seeing you explore were the differing accounts given by Robert Paul to the press, police, and inquest, and if/how this might have been influenced by Cross, or what it might tell us about the Cross/Paul/Mizen encounter."

Aha. Well, I did not want anything to get in the way of the scam, to be honest. It has been shoved out into the periphery for far too long, and therefore I wanted to put it in the absolute centre. Speculating away on the issue you mention here would have taken that focus away, or at least that is how I reasoned.

"Robert Paul is known to have been a hostile inquest witness, due to the low wages they pay. Is this possibly because he's been an inquest witness PRIOR to this? If he per chance was associated with another murder or death, that would be worth knowing about. "

Absolutely. My picture of Paul, though, is that he was a very minor figure with a major wish not to be recognized as such a figure. He was totally dominated by Lechmere as far as I can tell, and the paper interview with him was a farce, as given away by Mizen at the inquest.
By the way, Pauls´own testimony at the inquest does not show any hostility towards the police or coroner, as you will no doubt have noticed. What that tells me is that he was willing to criticize authorities from a safe distance, but a lot meeker when faced with them.

"Also, where were the maps showing us Cross' routes to and from work, and your dissertation on what all this means in terms of his complicity with the murders?"

They belong to the complete accusation act against Lechmere, and not to a short dissertation aimed at putting it beyond doubt that Lechmere effectively lied his way past the police. And to that accusation act other things belong too, like the Pinchin Street torso, Lechmere´s attendance to the inquest in working clothes, his background with a wealthy family of landowners etcetera. What I was after was what I achieved - I pointed out the correlation between regarding Lechmere as the killer and a piece of evidence that has had all major authors discarding it without recognizing the completely explosive evidence value built into it.

So what do you say, Tom? Has the time come for you to regard Lechmere as a suspect ...?

All the best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

part 6

Hello Christer. Thanks.

“With no "cogito", you mean ...?”

Right. How can I be certain that cogitas?

“People are the same, more or less, Lynn. Always.”

I agree that human nature does not change, nor yet its behaviour. How it DOES change is in its exemplification. I am informed that chaps from the upper Paleolithic bopped one another on the head on account of females (the fools!); today, one may employ an AK47. Same driving force, different exemplification.

“Why did he not say "I (or we) found a woman there?”

Well, it seems to lessen his involvement and make him less important. Hence, less later obligation at the police station or inquest. (As an aside, a few years ago, when contracts were slow, I taught mathematics and physical science at a private academy. In a report, it was required to say, “HCl was poured from the Ehrlenmyer flask into the beaker. One pellet of NaOH was added. The reaction was as follows.” Note passive voice.)

“Like I said, people will be the same always. Goes for you too ...!"

I thank you.

“...it fits.”

Indeed. As does a plethora of other scenarios.

“Just like Mizen’s words, then!”

Um, parting shot? Nice try!

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Lynn Cates:

"Well, it seems to lessen his involvement and make him less important."

Exactly so, Lynn. And that is not something people normally engage in. Taken together with the seemingly obvious control Lechmere had over the movement pattern of Neil, the conclusion becomes very obvious to me.

"As an aside, a few years ago, when contracts were slow, I taught mathematics and physical science at a private academy. In a report, it was required to say, “HCl was poured from the Ehrlenmyer flask into the beaker. One pellet of NaOH was added. The reaction was as follows.” Note passive voice."

Haha! Well, I recognize THAT very well, Lynn, since all my wife´s work reports look the exact same. She is a PhD in chemistry, by the way.
What I can tell you, however, is that when I ask her what she has done when she returns from her work, she dos NOT say "Lactic acid was added to a batch containing 200 millilitres of..." That is STRICTLY scientific mumbojumbo. She instead says "Well, if you really want to know, I did some work on that lactic acid thing..."
So not even close this time, Lynn - and NO cigar, I´m afraid. VERY far from it!
What do you call out to your wife from bed? "You are wanted in the bedroom"?

"As does a plethora of other scenarios."

Not at all. The only half reasonable suggestion so far (made, incidentally, by myself, tongue in cheek) is that he was late for work and wanted to bypass Mizen for that reason, but it tallies poorly with his insight into Neils beat, just as it would have been a very risky and unexpected thing to do for a law-abiding citizen. Plus, he was ALREADY late, and a minute or two extra would arguably not change things at all.

At any rate, honest citizens don´t lie and scheme their way out of their societal responsibilities, just like they don´t use aliases!

The best, Lynn!
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

At any rate, honest citizens don´t lie and scheme their way out of their societal responsibilities, just like they don´t use aliases!

Alas Christer, I feel there are very few 100% honest citizens...most of us hide SOMETHING from somewhere, some time?...can you honestly say you don't?

It mayn't be something directly relevant, but it may well affect our reactions to questioning...do you not think?

What expenses did you fiddle last year?

As a journalist what words did you (with good intentions maybe) put in anybody's mouth?

When you were a teenager, what did you do you might now be slightly ashamed of?

Do all your family love you unconditionally? (and if not why not?).

No...don't answer...everybody, to some extent or another, lies (or is economic of the truth) or modifies their testimony to reflect such inhibitions...

All the best

Dave

[Bridewell]

Hi Christer,

I enjoyed your article, particularly the method used of going through first the innocent witness Cross & then the guilty Ripper Cross by way of comparison.

I remain unconvinced that Cross/Lechmere was the Ripper, but concede the possibility that he could have been.

I think Dave's view overall pretty much reflects my own:

My own gut-feel is that Mizen presented his slightly-modified version as a somewhat belated attempt to excuse his dilatory actions that day: "There was already a policeman there, so it was okay to complete my knocking-up operations before responding"...so how much did Mizen make (outside of his police pay) from knocking up?
Dave

I look forward to reading about any further detail which you may turn up in your research.

Regards, Colin.