The Mizen scam

[Mr Lucky]

You are the Brit, I am the Swede, of course, but I have had confirmation from another Brit that I make the correct interpretation here. Also, you are the ex-copper and I am not - so maybe you have something going for you in this errand, Colin. I would like others to chime in, who have specific knowledge, at any rate.

Hi Fisherman,

Thanks for the answers you gave earlier. I just thought it's worth saying I'm backing you 100 percent on this,- Mizen not knowing Paul or Cross's name I mean, that's actually what the essay I mentioned ages ago is all about!!

Best wishes

[Bridewell]

Appearances

So, this person only LOOKED like a carman...? Why would Mizen say this if he KNEW that the man was a carman?

Because at that stage, when he first saw him, he formed the opinion that the man looked like a carman. This was subsequently found to be a correct interpretation of the man's appearance. Had he said, in evidence, "I saw a carman", he would have been factually (& evidentially) incorrect because, at that stage, on first viewing, he had simply formed the opinion that the man was a carman.

That is strange prose, is it not?

I don't find it so, but others will probably disagree as you do.

You are the Brit, I am the Swede

Your English is every bit as good as that of anyone else on these boards. In fact it was some months before I realised that English wasn't your first language. I would describe you as ambilingual. My intention was only to make a minor point about police terminology specifically. If that came across as a criticism of your command of the English language, I must apologise because that was not the intention.

I would like others to chime in, who have specific knowledge, at any rate.

So would I, Fish.

Best Wishes, Bridewell.

[moonbegger]

Moonbegger:

"I Think that if i was aware of the local bobby's beat , as you suggest he was, i would most definitely navigate my way around it . "

You are mistaking different beats here - Lechmere would have had Neils beat under control, but NO the surrounding ones, arguably.

"If Lechmere killed Polly , and was fully aware of the local police beats, he would have also been aware of the approaching Paul , and would have been clean out of sight before paul even reached the spot where Polly's body lay."

Wherever did you get that from? Why would he be aware of the approaching Paul, late to work?

"For me , the mind of the Ripper was more that of a cold calculating assassin , as opposed to that of a schoolboy prankster looking to get his kicks , or a couple trying to spice up their shenanigans ."

And?

"If Paul had caught him off gaurd and red handed , i could see how your scenario could play out , And he would have no other choice but to play his hand the way you suggest . But he didn't catch him doing anything other than standing in the middle of the street. "

And Lechmere would have known this how? Just how could he be certain of what Paul had seen? Maybe we sho8uld weigh that in too?

"HE WASN'T PRIVY TO THE KNOWLAGE THAT NO ONE WAS WATCHING .. and could have possibly pointed the finger at him as being the killer ...."

He was not, no. And so he had to take his chances in that department. Maybe he simply felt that if somebody was watching him, cutting a woman up, that somebody would have yelled for the police. He WAS a risktaker any way we cut things, Moonbegger. If he was afraid of being seen from a window, he would not have killed. Nobody forced him to.

"And of all the things the Killer was , a fool i think is not one of them .. "

Do you think the man I describe is a fool? Is that it? Myself, I think I am describing a risktaker with a very quck mind, able to bluff himself out of severe difficulties.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman ,

"And Lechmere would have known this how? Just how could he be certain of what Paul had seen? Maybe we sho8uld weigh that in too?"

When animal instincts kick in and take over the human persona we find heightened senses , Adrenalin and awareness also become more active ..
Like a deer in the forest aware of the slightest footstep or twig snap . Survival instincts are the strongest instincts we possess and for that reason i believe the Killer of Polly would have been so in tune with his surroundings , He would have been aware of anyone approaching well before they was aware of him .

"He WAS a risktaker any way we cut things, Moonbegger. If he was afraid of being seen from a window, he would not have killed. Nobody forced him to"

There is a difference between a controlled risk , and an uncontrolled risk ..
ie .. Killing and fleeing , having a hand in your own fate , as opposed to Killing and trying to bluff your way out of it . Relying on others to say exactly what needs to be said in order for you to slip through the net . its all about playing the odds , weights and measures .

And i dont think he was too concerned about being seen ( within reason ) it was clearly a risk he was willing to take .. but there is a huge difference between the Modus operandi of Kill and Flee and Kill and blend in ..
Like i mentioned earlier Fisherman , If , and only If Paul had caught him in the act , red handed ,could your scenario possibly play out ..

HE WASN'T PRIVY TO THE KNOWLEDGE THAT NO ONE WAS WATCHING .. and could have possibly pointed the finger at him as being the killer... so why stick around to find out , when there was no need to ?
This for me is the one hurdle that is too high to jump .

Very enjoyable reading none the less Fisherman ..


Cheers .

Moonbegger

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE=moonbegger;225935]Hi Fisherman ,

"And Lechmere would have known this how? Just how could he be certain of what Paul had seen? Maybe we sho8uld weigh that in too?"

When animal instincts kick in and take over the human persona we find heightened senses , Adrenalin and awareness also become more active ..
Like a deer in the forest aware of the slightest footstep or twig snap . Survival instincts are the strongest instincts we possess and for that reason i believe the Killer of Polly would have been so in tune with his surroundings , He would have been aware of anyone approaching well before they was aware of him .

"He WAS a risktaker any way we cut things, Moonbegger. If he was afraid of being seen from a window, he would not have killed. Nobody forced him to"

There is a difference between a controlled risk , and an uncontrolled risk ..
ie .. Killing and fleeing , having a hand in your own fate , as opposed to Killing and trying to bluff your way out of it . Relying on others to say exactly what needs to be said in order for you to slip through the net . its all about playing the odds , weights and measures .

And i dont think he was too concerned about being seen ( within reason ) it was clearly a risk he was willing to take .. but there is a huge difference between the Modus operandi of Kill and Flee and Kill and blend in ..
Like i mentioned earlier Fisherman , If , and only If Paul had caught him in the act , red handed ,could your scenario possibly play out ..

HE WASN'T PRIVY TO THE KNOWLEDGE THAT NO ONE WAS WATCHING .. and could have possibly pointed the finger at him as being the killer... so why stick around to find out , when there was no need to ?
This for me is the one hurdle that is too high to jump .

Very enjoyable reading none the less Fisherman ..

I will have to say, Moonbegger, that Lechmere/Cross sticking around after the
death of poor Polly makes sense to Me :

If he had heightened senses during the 'act', and a sense of self preservation, he would have had half an eye on those dark windows and have known that no one was watching.

In the end it's down to individual personalities whether someone (in Lechmere-as-Ripper mode) would scarper or brazen it out with Paul.

I feel very personally that I am someone who would prefer to brazen things
out, and in that light I can understand that Lechmere/Cross did.

As an aside, I will also say that I felt a bit miffed for Mizen, when Dave suggested that he continued 'knocking up' for money (in an earlier post).

What about concientiousness ?

I'm pretty certain that in similar circumstances I would be more concerned about the living and able getting to work , than worried about the dead (who had time to wait) or the drunk (who were probably feckless and self indulgent).

But as I say, that is an aside....

[Lechmere]

My apologies if this has already been said... but Cross will have presented himself to the police after he read Pul's newspaper interview on Sunday evening. He will have been worried that Paul's side of the story - placing him (Cross) over the body etc. would have set the agenda otherwise. Cross will also not have known whether Paul was attending the inquest at that stage. Paul didn't attend then as he avoided contact with the Police and was later raided, almost certainly as a result of the Chapman murder.
Also if Cross was so concerned about having his pay docked for being late, why did he attend the inquest as he will have lost a whole days pay. We know that thanks to the helpful press moaning of Paul.
We know that Mizen didn't take either fo their names or addresses, we know that Cross failed to report a murder. We know that Cross misled Mizen by suggesting that he and Paul had been sent by a policeman from Bucks Row. Neil was even questioned about this on the Saturday at the inquest no doubt as Paul's first newspaper interview got leaked.
We know that Cross gave his name as Cross (instead of Lechmere) not to Mizen but to a desk Serjeant somewhere almost certainly on the Sunday night. Why did he do that - was he worried about being late for work on Sunday night?
Why did he then go to the inquest in his work clothes?

Incidentally nearly every point raised in objection here has been dealt with already on other threads but may I congratulate the patient Fisherman for fending them off so well!

[Monty]

The majority of the points raised have not received satisfactory answers...that's why they keep being raised.

The fail in all this is the need to come forward.

There was no need.

The theory is flimsy and relies on assumption. The scenarios and explainations are beyond reasoned doubt, and yes, have been mentioned many times. My apologies if that sounds brutal however its the reality.

You can call a Giraffe a cow as many times as you wish, its still has a long neck and don't go moo.

Monty

[moonbegger]

Hello Rubyretro ,

"If he had heightened senses during the 'act', and a sense of self preservation, he would have had half an eye on those dark windows and have known that no one was watching"

I said that he may well have been operating with heightened senses ..
Not that he was Superman ..

cheers

moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

Frank:

"Like I said, Fish, there’s nothing in the evidence that suggests Cross could or would have known where Neil was as exactly at what moment, that he could or would have calculated when Neil would arrive at the crime spot."

Once again and with respect, Frank, the very fact that Lechmere said that there was a PC in Buckīs Row, and had it confirmed by Mizen IS evidence pointing in that very direction! Apart from that, nothing in the evidence tells us that Lechmere kept time or heard footsteps or so, but why on earth would Lechmere disclose this at the inquest if he was the killer?

" Therefore, based on the evidence, it's fair to conclude it was rather lucky that Mizen found Neil in place at the crime spot and on top of things."

Itīs either or, Frank. At any rate, we can easily see that the lie Lechmere served Mizen would have worked any way - his main intention would have been to bypass Mizen, and if he did so using only luck or whether there was skill involved, we cannot tell.

One interesting thing is the passage from the inquest recording in the Daily Telegraph:
"Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her. Just then they heard a policeman coming. Witness did not notice that her throat was cut, the night being very dark. He and the other man left the deceased"

They heard a policeman coming ...? This is a very strange wording, and it has had me thinking at some stages that maybe they heard Neil going up Woodīs Edge or Court Street and returning down to Whitechapel Row - and if so, this may have helped Lechmere to realize where on the beat Neil was. No certainty, of course, but it makes food for thought.

" For all we know, Mizen could have joined Neil before he reached the crime spot, or only just after he had arrived, or even later, when Neil had sent another one for the ambulance and would have time to talk to Mizen about the 2 men Mizen had seen."

Mizen says that Neil was there when he arrived. And Mizen was the man sent for the ambulance, since Neil had sent Thain for the doctor at an earlier stage, meaning that Neil had been in place for some time when Mizen arrived.

"Only if you regard it more or less as fact that Cross was the guilty party who wanted to con his way out of things, then, yes, you’d say that it very much implies that Cross was in the know."

Not really. The fact that Lechmere was spot on with his prediction tells the same language. That precedes my verdict, it does not come about as a result of it. But I am the first to admit that Lechmere can be read in two ways, always. Itīs just that there are too many instances of suspicion about him for me to be able to gloss it all over.
He could have pulled the dres down for modesty. Or for concealing.
He could have gone to the inquest in working clothes for not wanting to upset his wife. Or for keeping quiet about it.
He could have denied propping her up for knowledge of possible further damage. Or for not wanting it to be known that she had had her head all but cut off.
He could have wanted to be only slightly late to job, and thus lied to Mizen. Or he could have wanted to stay unsearched.

And so on. And on.

"Why would Cross want to chance such a thing, Fish?"

To get past Mizen unsearched. If he still had the knife on him, that would have been the top priority.

"Furthermore, I don’t think Cross even needed this lie to get past Mizen. Just telling there’s a woman in Buck’s Row who was either dead or drunk according to Cross and dead according to Paul, just as he claimed they did, would have done the trick."

And Mizen would not have asked any questions at all about who had found her? Perhaps, although I would have found that very strange. And when it transpired that Lechmere had found her ALONE, he would potentially have been in deep ****. Itīs very easy and very basic. Usin the fictive PC as an assurance, he made sure to optimize his chances. And we KNOW he did exactly this, just as we KNOW that he took great care NOT to say that he had found the woman himself. Speculating that he perhaps did not need to is mere guesswork, Frank.

" I believe that if Neil saw 2 men in Baker’s Row or heard their footsteps, it’s seems odd indeed that he didn’t mention this when he stumbled upon a dead and mutilated women not too far from where he heard of saw them, while we know he heard Thain from some 130 yards and he did mention seeing other people."

I believe the exact same: Neil would have mentioned seeing the two men if he had done so, and there he did not see them, arguably. Nor would he have heard them and actively reflected over it.

"Apart from it being quite a coincidence that the 2 men would be just around the corner when Neil turned into Buck’s Row from Thomas Street, I doubt that the footsteps Neil made in that rather broad part of Buck’s Row would be audible around the corner, beyond their own footsteps."

That one gets the standard Ripperology answer: Perhaps.

The best, Frank!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Mr Lucky:

" I just thought it's worth saying I'm backing you 100 percent on this,- Mizen not knowing Paul or Cross's name I mean, that's actually what the essay I mentioned ages ago is all about!! "

Thanks, Mr Lucky! Yes, it seems pretty obvious and tallies with everything we have on the issue.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

" My intention was only to make a minor point about police terminology specifically."

Hi Colin!

What I did was to google the strain "witness now knew". It turned up thirteen hits, all of them describing witnesses who had had new knowledge added. I can only say that this is exactly how I see things too.

Why would the police add "new" in a context like this if it did not apply? What specific meaning would it convey, if not the meaning that new knowledge had been added?

" If that came across as a criticism of your command of the English language, I must apologise because that was not the intention."

It did not, not in the least, Colin! Myself, I am feeling a bit awkward for challenging you on a point like this, but I really donīt see how it would work the way you suggest. So yes, letīs hope somebody chimes in!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"When animal instincts kick in and take over the human persona we find heightened senses , Adrenalin and awareness also become more active .."

We are not all alike, though! Some of us LIKE the adrenalin rush, and some wonīt even feel it, being sociopaths or the likes of them.

"He would have been aware of anyone approaching well before they was aware of him . "

He may just as well have been in a "bubble" when he cut away, oblivious to anything but the damage caused by the knife before his eyes. We canīt tell.

"There is a difference between a controlled risk , and an uncontrolled risk .. "

Just as there is a difference of how we look upon the two and react to them. We canīt treat everybody as a great collective with the same instincts.

"This for me is the one hurdle that is too high to jump ."

But not for me. See? We are all different, we all judge these things personally and we get all sorts of results.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"The majority of the points raised have not received satisfactory answers...that's why they keep being raised.
The fail in all this is the need to come forward.
There was no need.
The theory is flimsy and relies on assumption. The scenarios and explainations are beyond reasoned doubt, and yes, have been mentioned many times. My apologies if that sounds brutal however its the reality.
You can call a Giraffe a cow as many times as you wish, its still has a long neck and don't go moo."

Like I just said to Moonbegger, we will all reach different results depending on who we are, Monty. You have researched this case for many a year, and you know a lot about it. I too have done so, and I too have picked up a lot over the decades, three of them in my case. And my stance is that Lechmere is not only as good a contender for the Ripper title as any other suspect - he is in fact by far and away the best. Nothing at all has surfaced to gainsay the chain of evidence that can be built around him, it has instead been added to; the use of an alias, the proximity to his motherīs house in the Stride case, the Mizen scam - all of these things have surfaced AFTER Michael Connor first pointed his finger at our carman, and none of them has done his case any good. It has a lot of people looking for excuses that seem slightly desperate to me, but thatīs the game.

To the same game, it also belongs to judge our co-ripperologists assessments, which is why I will say that the Lechmere case is anything but "flimsy" or "beyond reasoned doubt" as you propose. Luckily, you also admit that your verdict is not on of subtlety but instead of brutality, and so I find we concur on this point...

Stay tuned, Monty. And donīt shut any doors on this matter if you can avoid it. It would be a shame, if you ask me. Meanwhile, I will try and answer all the relevant questions that you may have. Please just donīt tell me that Lechmere would have legged it, end of story. Human beings are complex, Monty, and you know that well, I suspect.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

I don't have any evidence for this, only my herculean strength of logic, but I think a guy like Lechmere... even guys like Diemshitz, guys who are always out on the streets, must have known police on their beats very well. Not in an intimate sense (though I'm sure there was that as well), but in the sense of knowing what each other was about. This means that an uncertain situation can become a fairly certain one because of the understanding of how a person reacts to things through many individual observations. We all use such familiarity of characteristics to manipulate others, and we do so because we are fairly certain that the outcome will be what we want it to be. In fact, I do this every day in Kazakhstan to get my needs met, and am not overly proud of it. I just have come to know what motivates people here to go in a direction I want them to. Nothing nefarious (he says with a shrug), but in order to kind of westernize process so that I remain comfortable.

Discuss.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Monty!

Having once more reflected over your last post, I thought it useful to present the scenario - the way I see it - with another starting point than usual.

At 3.45, PC Neil finds a woman lying dead, quite probably murdered, in Buckīs Row. He signals to two of his colleagues, one of them (Thain) coming up from Brady Street, and the other one, Jonas Mizen, arriving from what Neil perceives to be Bakerīs Row. He will be aware that Mizenīs beat does not take him any further east, and therefore surmises that Mizen was in Brady Street when he signalled him.

Some time passes inbetween the arrival of the two fellow PC:s; Thain arrives first, and is told that Neil has found a woman with her throat cut, and is then hurried away to fetch Dr Llewellyn. This means that Thain is not present at the murder spot when Mizen arrives there, but Mizen would have been told the same thing as Thain: That Neil had found a woman with a nearly severed neck and then Neil would have sent Mizen for an ambulance.

Mizen had not been summoned to the spot by Neils flashing a light, though. He went there because he was told by Lechmere that another policeman wanted him in Buckīs Row, where a woman was lying, flat on her back, possibly dead. This, however, he has no time to tell Neil, since he is hurried away for that ambulance. He must have, however, made the assumption that PC Neil was the PC that Lechmere had spoken about, the PC that had requested his help! There can be little doubt about that.

After Nichols had been wheeled away, and the news broke at the Met that a woman had been found viciously murdered in Buckīs Row, the men in charge would have spoken to the PC:s that had walked the beats adjacent to the beat on which the murder had taken place. One of these PC:s was Mizen. And he would have informed them about something they had not known before: that two men, looking like carmen, had been sent by PC Neil to fetch him.
This would have had them surprised, since they had spoken to Neil, who had said nothing about any men sent by him to look for assistance. They would then once again speak to Neil and ask him why he had not mentioned this, whereupon Neil would deny that he had been contaced by two men in Buckīs Row.
This would have left the police in the dark for some time. They had one PC, saying that he had found the body alone and another PC who claimed that this same PC had sent two men to fetch help.

It will have made no sense whatsoever. Sooner or later, the men in charge will have realized that if both men were speaking the truth, then there must have been ANOTHER PC in place in Buckīs Row, a PC that had sent the two men spoken about on their way, perhaps conveniently so - if this unidentified PC was the killer.

Nota bene that at this stage, it was NOT known that one of the two men had been the one who had found the body. All that was known was that they had been sent to fetch help and that Mizen had spoken to them, on which occasion the man who had spoken to him had taken care to do so in a passive voice; a woman" had been found" in Buckīs Row. Things pointed to the mysterious PC being the one who had found her, thus.

Then, on Friday evening, as Robert Paul left Corbettīs court after having chipped in his day of labour there after his experiences in Buckīs Row, he was approached by, or approached himself, a representative of Lloyds Weekly, and told them of the events, wording the crucial part: "I saw a man standing where the woman was." Please note that he did not at this stage speak of the middle of the road, but instead of "where the woman was". He effectively placed Lechmere right by Nicholīs side, thus.

This is the relevant background to why Charles Lechmere went to the police, Monty. Those were the implications - a man had stood by the still warm body of Nichols as Paul arrived at the stable yards. If we accept that Lechmere got wind of this by reading the report or by being told about it, then he was faced with the very obvious possibility of becoming the police suspect number one, and if decided to go into hiding, he would more or less confess his guilt. Moreover, the police would enquire about which carmen had a reason to walk through Buckīs Row at the relevant time, and he would always run the risk of bumping into Paul again, a man that walked the same stretch as he did every day!

This is why there was a dire need for Lechmere to step in as quickly as possible and pour water on the fire before the scent of itīs smoke became too apparent. And just as the police wil have been happy about the Llloyds Weekly article, they will have been positively overjoyed by "Cross" arriving himself to the police station to clear not only his own name, but also and simultaneously, any suspicion about that potential PC killer. The question remained about Mizenīs strange testimony, but it was far better to accept that as a mistake or a mishearing on Mizenīs behalf, than as evidence of a mysterious PC. And everybody, "Cross", Paul and Neil seemed to confirm that there had never been any need for worries in that department. Happy days, thus!

This, Monty, is why I think you are completely wrong about Lechmere not having had any need to come forward himself. It is evidence-based, sound reasoning with no holes in it, a chain of events that holds up all the way through. I hope you see my point.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Hi Mike

I don't have any evidence for this, only my herculean strength of logic, but I think a guy like Lechmere... even guys like Diemshitz, guys who are always out on the streets, must have known police on their beats very well. Not in an intimate sense (though I'm sure there was that as well), but in the sense of knowing what each other was about.

Considering the traffic and police beats that Cross would have been vaguely aware of, would he really have picked up Nichols somewhere and headed back to Bucks Row to slaughter and eviscerate her on the pavement?