The Mizen scam

[FrankO]

When 'dicovered' by Cross and Paul the dress would have been down just below the waist - covering the wounds. The wounds simply must have been covered.

But, Lechmere, on what do you base that they 'simply must have been' covered? According to the official police documents, there were at least two stab wounds to the private parts and we know the private parts weren't covered. Only if you wish to ignore those stab wounds and the various newspaper statements regarding the abdominal wounds, yes, then all the wounds were covered.

All the best,
Frank

[Lechmere]

There is no evidence that the private parts were not covered.
If any abdominal wounds of any description were still uncovered then even though it was dark, given the proximity of Pail to where those wounds were it is inconceivable that he would not have noticed - aNd If they were uncovered he would have hot very bloody moving the dress down to the extent that he did.

Fisherman answered the question well about Cross (presuming hr did it) bring in a bubble while attacking the body. That for me explains how Pail got so close and how Neil saw Thane at 150 yards. If Cross wasn't in a bubble he would surely have noticed someone walking behind him on that quiet street before he noticed polly.
Paul by contrast was walking quickly to work and was coming from a lit area into an unlit area - hence he was at a visual disadvantage to cross.

[Fisherman]

If I may, Frank?

You wonder how Lechmere can say that the wounds simply must have been covered, and then you adamantly state that we know that the private parts were NOT covered.

But do you know this? Or do you work from the assumption that the wordings in the reports give it away? The Times: "Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach." Where does THAT put the lower line of her dress? Above her genitals? By them? Under them? I´m sure I can´t tell - for all three versions are "almost up at her stomach".
Moreover, the gashes in her abdomen were large holes, with the intestines protruding from them (at least after she had been wheeled to the morgue), cuts extending from the breast bone down to the lower abdomen. The stabs on her genitals, though, were nothing at all of that magnitude. And if the carmen could not see her open eyes, then why would they see two small stab holes, underneath Nichols pubic hair in the darkness that prevailed?

All the best,
Fisherman

PS. And Lechmere beat me to it, I see!

[Abby Normal]

I was half asleep, not frothing, Moonbegger (work is hard going at the mo'),
but not so asleep that I couldn't see that you were insinuating that Mizen was the liar.

It is you who is not objective. Giving some examples of corrupt policemen will not work -you know their names because they made the papers; They made the papers because they were exceptional. The papers do not print the names of the hundreds and thousands of honest policemen all over the world because they are not exceptional -they are the rule. Putting aside cynicism, policemen, by their jobs, chose to uphold law and order.

If you have two people under oath (Mizen and Lechmere) contradicting each other, it is fair to give more weight to the policeman -objectively. That is because we know that policemen are there to uphold the law, and only a very few of them are corrupt, and we have no reason to conject that Mizen would be one of these rare creatures. In this case, we also already know that Lechmere was a liar, since he had lied about his name.

Therefore -objectively- when deciding whether Mizen or Lechmere gave the correct version of events to the inquest, we should conclude
that it was Mizen who was correct.

Now go back to your burrow, and stop bending my mind over my cuppa tea.

Hi Ruby
At the inquest there is a descrepency between what Mizen said what happened between him and Lech.
Mizen-Lech said I was needed in bucks row by another PC
Lech-I never said that

At the inquest there is a descrepency between what Mizen said happened between him and Paul.
Paul-he continued knocking up
Mizen-I did not continue knocking up

Therefor there is corroboration from two men that one man was wrong with what took place.

Hence it seems like the probability would be that Mizen got it wrong(either intentionally or unintentionally).

[FrankO]

If any abdominal wounds of any description were still uncovered then even though it was dark, given the proximity of Pail to where those wounds were it is inconceivable that he would not have noticed - aNd If they were uncovered he would have hot very bloody moving the dress down to the extent that he did.

Lechmere, seeing that both Cross & Paul failed to see Polly's eyes were open, I don't think it inconceivable that Paul wouldn't have noticed. And since the abdominal wounds were done after the throat was cut, they were very likely quite bloodless and Paul wouldn't get very bloody.

[Fisherman]

Abby, you are missing the fact that Mizen DID state that he continues knocking up on one occasion; an errand that he had started before Lechmere spoke to him.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Frank:

"since the abdominal wounds were done after the throat was cut"

That is no certainty, I´m afraid. There are pointers in the other direction too. But I will leave that for Lechmere (the poster) to expand on!

The best,
Fisherman

[FrankO]

If I may, Frank?

Of course you may, Christer!

The Times: "Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach." Where does THAT put the lower line of her dress? Above her genitals? By them? Under them? I´m sure I can´t tell - for all three versions are "almost up at her stomach".

My idea would be somewhere between (not covering) the pubes and the navel, but maybe that´s just me - which is exactly my point!

The point I was making is that, since we don’t know exactly to what extent Polly’s skirts were actually raised and since we don’t know the exact location of her wounds, we are unable to draw the conclusion that her skirts were actually pulled down by her killer with the intent of covering all the wounds and buying him some time/limiting the chance of being caught.

All the best,
Frank

[Jon Guy]

"since the abdominal wounds were done after the throat was cut"

That is no certainty, I´m afraid. There are pointers in the other direction too.

Christer
If the mutilations to the trunk were before he cut the throat, the killer would have had a lot more blood on his hands and cuffs (he would n`t have been putting his hand on Paul`s shoulder ) and the blood would have positively been dripping off him as he stood chatting to Mizen.

P.S.
Bale - as good an individual as he is, pulled out of the GB Olympic footy team at the last minute citing a bad back, and then goes and scores on the Spurs pre-season tour. I was not misleading you. Not a fan of his.

[Abby Normal]

Abby, you are missing the fact that Mizen DID state that he continues knocking up on one occasion; an errand that he had started before Lechmere spoke to him.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish
Where does he say that he continued knocking up-at the inquest?

[caz]

"Why did Lechy think the police wanted his home address and employment details, if not to enable them to check on him if and when they felt like it?"

He may, Caz, have supposed that it was protocol, picking up on the fact that ALL the witnesses were asked for the same information, including Pollys father, her former husband and Emily Holland. He would, if you ask me, not have been all that convinced that the police pondered paying THEM visits. He thus knew that not all witnesses were guaranteed any further police interest.
What do you think?

Hi Fishy,

Well I think it was a big risk to take if Lechy was the killer and wanted to go on killing - and this is assuming that nobody at his place of work knew him as Cross. So he is meant to have given that name to the police, in the hope that his illiterate wife won’t find out and become suspicious if he gets the urge to kill again on his way to work.

He is also meant to have lied to PC Mizen, then lied again on oath about what he told Mizen, in the hope that his version will be believed over the policeman’s, or at least put down to an honest mistake. All this, and he’s only worried that if the name Lechmere were to reach the papers it would alert his wife - his illiterate wife??

You know what he really should have been worrying about, if all the above were true? He should have been worrying that the discrepancies between his and Mizen’s accounts might well have alerted the police and got them making discreet enquiries rather than questioning him again over something he had already denied on oath. A moment’s check at Pickfords would have revealed that the carman who had discovered the body, attended the inquest and apparently lied on oath had also lied to them about his name. If they chose not to alert him to what they’d found out, he’d have no chance to explain away the sudden name change to his late step-father’s (which, let’s face it, would still have taken some explaining) and the police would conclude he had given them a false one. From there, he’d have been the tiniest step away from them keeping a watch on his home, his workplace and his movements - and he’d have been none the wiser.

How could even the most moronic, or most daring serial killer have gone out and killed again and again under those circumstances?

"How could he possibly have anticipated that they would not do so, without Ruby's crystal ball? "

I´ve given you half the answer already. The other half is that he could NOT be sure that they would not check. If he HAD been sure, he could have called himself Dr Prunebottom, knowing that he would risk nothing. But I would say that the mere fact that he chose "Cross" instead points very much to a calculated risk on his behalf.
What do YOU think?

But he would not have calculated for the police checking him out without telling him, in which case the name Cross would have been every bit as false to them as Prunebottom or Sidewhiskers, and he’d have been given no chance to explain that he thought it would be quite nice on just this one occasion to call himself after his dead step-father.

Yes, Caz. Exactly. He called himself Cross when speaking to the police, they recorded it, the papers recorded his name at the inquest - and thus we KNOW that he called himself Cross. Which is why we need to ask ourselves WHY he did so.

The simplest and most logical answer, given the unknowable and potentially fatal risk as outlined above, of giving an effectively false name to the police, compared with the benefit of keeping his wife in ignorance, might be that if Thomas Cross died 19 years previously and his step-son Charles had been at Pickfords for 20 years, the latter may have used the name Cross when he started working for them and simply carried on doing so for the convenience.

It stands to reason that when giving his workplace details to the police, he would have been all too aware if he had given a name that nobody there would associate with him - and that to me makes no sense if he had something this huge to hide, and at such an early stage of his killing career.

I genuinely thought you had misunderstood what a serial killer is and why and how he differs from us. Until you realize that they do not all run away when discovered, I´m afraid I will remain at that stance.

But I thought it was Lechmere the poster’s contention that Lechy had not been ‘discovered’ and would have had no fear that Paul could have seen him in the act. I’m pretty sure the vast majority would make themselves scarce, given half the chance Lechy supposedly had. And of course, if anyone in the world other than Lechy was the killer, that’s precisely what happened, shortly before he arrived on the scene.

Love,

Caz
X　

[caz]

…there is a 'double event' run at Newmarket close to the 30th September (dates vary) known as the 'Autumn Double' -They are two races (Cesarewitch and Cambridgeshire). I think that I'm correct in saying that in the days before telly, horseracing was very much more popular with the
working classes than it is now -and that's why they built a direct railway line from London to Newmarket to ferry in the crowds. Caz may well be correct with her suggestion (in reply to me) that it was a journalist who saw this link at the time and coined the term 'Double event' in honour of the Autumn Double -but maybe that was the killer's little joke all along ?

Hi Ruby,

I don’t recall ever suggesting a journalist ‘coined’ the term. In fact I’m one of the remaining few who doubt that a journalist was responsible for that postcard. I have suggested in the past that it was probably a known racing term though, and ‘double event’ also appears in The Diary of a Nobody, which was first published in Punch, in serial form from July 1888. The actual term appears in the issue for February 9, 1889, and refers to two pieces of good news received on the same day.

I suspect the author of the postcard was a horse-racing fan who relished the opportunity of using the term in that way to stir things up - hoaxer or killer.

Whoever JTR was, he surely didn't appear to be a 'monster' -and a monster is what the police and public were looking for.

Are you saying that everyone the police ever suspected would have come across as a ‘monster’? That doesn’t seem quite right to me, considering what we know about the named police suspects.

Love,

Caz
X　

[caz]

On the Mizen-Cross exchange - it is agreed that Cross told Mizen that there was a woman down in Bucks Row and she may be alive or dead.
Mizen claims he went straight to Bucks Row - Paul claims he continued knocking up.
Mizen claims Cross told him he was wanted by a policeman, Cross denied it, qualifying his denial by saying 'there was no policeman in Bucks Row' (to paraphrase).
It is clear that Mizen did not take Cross nor Paul's name or address.
For Mizen to fail to take their names and addresses and to continue knocking up (and I strongly suspect that he did continuing knocking up) he would have to have been an utter incompetant. The only excuse for his dereliction would be if Cross did tell him he was wanted by a policeman as that would imply that the matter was in hand and he was not urgently needed and also that the other policeman would ahve already taken their details.
On balance it would seem likely that Cross did tell Mizen he was wanted by another policeman in Bucks Row.

Hi Lech,

In either case, Mizen doesn’t emerge smelling of roses. If he was told by a stranger that his assistance was required by another policeman in Buck’s Row, where a woman was lying possibly dead, he should have stopped everything and gone to assist, preferably after taking down the man’s details, in case it was a ruse to lure him away so a burglary could be committed. He had no right to decide that this other policeman could safely be left on his own a while longer and would already have taken all the necessary witness details. Don’t forget, this was the same month in which an unfortunate had already been foully murdered in the area by some unknown maniac.

On the other hand, Mizen knew with hindsight that PC Neil had come across the body, so he may have got the impression that Cross would have known this when talking to him. Then it would be a simple case of misremembering exactly what was said (after all, he allegedly took no details down at the time) but imagining that his assistance must have been requested. From Mizen’s point of view, why else would Cross have got him involved, if he knew a copper was already at the scene?

Of course, in any scenario Mizen should have responded at once and taken both men’s details. But coppers are human too and have made a lot worse mistakes. With hindsight we know it was too late to help Polly and both Paul and Cross did attend the inquest and were available if there had been any lingering doubts regarding their versions of events.

If the police discovered that he was really Lechmere he could have come out with a concocted story about how he treasured the memory of his late lamented step father. That is why it was a useful fake name to use. The difference - or the reason for the name swap - would be to hide his involvement in the case from his wife. If guilty this would be to avoid her getting suspicious about his behaviour. His family would probably know him to be obsessive, over wraught, up tight, and perhaps aggressive around the home.

This doesn’t really wash, Lech, as I hope my earlier post to Fishy illustrated.

If the police had discovered his real name was Lechmere, on top of his making PC Mizen out to be a liar, he wouldn’t necessarily have been given the luxury of coming out with any concocted story. Instead, for all he could have known at the time, they would have watched his every move and caught him in the act of attacking another prostitute. At least three had been murdered in the area in recent months, and questioning him about his sudden change of name would get them nowhere without any evidence; it would merely alert him about their suspicions.

Love,

Caz
X

[moonbegger]

Great posts Caz ..

Thought this was most interesting ..

Thomas Cross died 19 years previously and his step-son Charles had been at Pickfords for 20 years, the latter may have used the name Cross when he started working for them and simply carried on doing so for the convenience.

Makes perfect sense !

moonbegger .

[moonbegger]

Hello Fisherman ,

"Are we on the clear with this now? On the night of the 31:st, as Lechmere spoke to Mizen, the PC was NOT informed that the woman in Buck´s Row had been murdered!'

It was the morning of the 31st was it not ? now who is confusing who here ?

And is there such a big difference in how a policeman reacts to being told " a woman is dead " as opposed to " murdered " is a dead woman not such a big deal as a murdered woman ? can he finish his crossword for a dead woman , but run like the wind if she be murdered ?

This Press statement clearly has Paul saying .. On the Friday night !

She May have been [ MURDERED ]

And that Mizen was told of a dead woman .

And that Mizen continued knocking up .. which Mizen denied ?



moonbegger.