The Mizen scam

[Monty]

Yes, of course it wasn't the East End. Apologies Ruby, my crystal ball is on the blink.

Point of interest, knocking up was part of a PCs duty.

Stems from the watchmen days but is actually in the Rules and Regulations. So, technically speaking, Mizen wasn't negecting his duty at all.

Monty

[Lechmere]

I personally have no doubt that many people lie under oath - to make themselves look better, because they ate guilty of something they want to cover up, because they don't want to get drawn into a long discussion when they don't want to be there, and so on.
Some people on these boards get very previous along the lines of 'are you saying that so and so perjured themselves', when you doubt the truth of a statement made under oath, as opposed to say a statement made to a reporter.
Incidentally most of our knowledge about the whole ripper case comes to us via reporters.

[FrankO]

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.

Very good point, Caz!

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?

And another good point.

All the best,
Frank

[Lechmere]

There is a lot of contradiction in Cross's actions and words. Paul comes across as an idiot. Mizen was easily duped. The one who's behaviour is questionable is Cross - as Ruby says, supposedly concerned one minute, callous the next. Late forwork yet taking a longer route.
Always uses Lechmere with authority, now uses Cross.
Left home at 3.30 - got delayed with Paul at tge crime scene, further delayed with Mizen, then takes a longer route than necessary and still gets to eork at 4am, despite dawdling between his house and Bucks Row.

[Lechmere]

While you've all been chatting on here, I've been busy tracking him down...

[Lechmere]

Frank O

A good point?
What, that the police wouldn’t have allowed Cross/Lechmere to explain why he used Cross should they have hypothetically established that his real name was Lechmere?
Would he have been lynched on the spot? Is that the suggestion?
In any case it didn’t happen. We also know that whoever the culprit was took risks.
This is clearly a nonsensical proposition.

Another good point?
By the time PC Mizen took the stand on the Monday, PC Neil had already been heard – on the Saturday. On Saturday Neil stated in response to a specific question that he had not been called to the crime scene by two carmen. This is clearly because wind of Paul’s newspaper interview (which was first printed on the Sunday) had leaked out.
Accordingly Mizen will have known that Neil denied seeing anyone so why would Mizen have got all confused over what Cross had said to him.

Caz is throwing up wild speculations with no regard to the record we have of the events.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Lech

Sorry for the lateness of the reply, but:-

I don't believe that the double event was pre-thought out. The connection to the race name is too convoiuted to me and what killer would predict that a journalist would make that connection?

I agree...

If CRoss/Lechmere was the killer it would have gone like this.
He viisted his mother and daughter on his evening off.
He leaves for home, perhaps having a drink first. Perhaps he is in a bad mood - seeing his mother with his second step father. Perhaps he was belittled by a domineering mother. He sees Stride soliciting in Berner Street and strikes. But she struggles too much - being younger and fitter than his previous victims and it is too dark in the yard. Then he is disturbed. He hides then flees but is unsatisfied and goes to where he knows he will probbaly find another victoim. he finds Eddowes, then flees towards his hosue dropping the apron on the way.

Maybe, Lech, IF - but only IF...in fact it's all "IF"...I'm trying to get you to consider this from the other side...the simple unconvoluted side...

It is somewhat rare for a serial killer of vulnerable victims to kill a non vulnerable person who disturbs them.

Evidence please, and preferably for what the FBI would term disorganised assailants...

IOt is of no surprise that the killer - whoever he was - did not attack Diemschutz. The characteristics given to Cross/Lechmere - cool calculating etc - would almost certainly apply to whoever the killer was.

No surprise to you maybe... but I can only speak for me personally...If I'd just quite deliberately killed someone in the dark with the very specific intention of mutilating her, (clearly Jack's very raison d'etre) then I'm a VERY frustrated man indeed with a knife in my hand...

Polly's dress would have reached to her ancles. In Victorian times woman covered their whole leg as the whole leg was regared as being 'too sexy'.
An attempt to make Polly decent would involve pulling the dress fully down.
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 this simply isn't what the evidence states I'm afraid...her clothes were raised "almost up to her stomach"...however, it was a dark night in a very poorly (by modern standards) lit street...

Paul tugged it down a bit to cover her thighs - leaving the majority of her legs still exposed when Neil came along.
If you read the accounts it is clear that this is what the situation was.

I HAVE read...and the best you can say is that her private parts were previously fully exposed and Paul's ("Baul's") efforts succeeded in partially covering the poor woman's shame...his efforts, in themselves, don't indicate for sure where exactly the clothing previously was...his statement "almost up to her stomach", however, does give us some idea...

Agreed the police were not omnipotent but this is one of the few Whitechapel murders where no shifty individiual was seen around the crime scene. Apart from Cross of course. The lack of anyone else being seen in the vicinity of Polly's body isn't proof that it was Cross but it is just a little extra pointer.

Come now...that's pretty desperate...no other bystanders noted as being around, therefore Cross did it...didn't you stop to consider how that sounded before you posted it?

If Thane and Mizen said they saw a dozen people pass by then I am sure you would suggest that any one of these could have been the killer! And you would be right to. But they didn't.

But at this early stage, the fact that they didn't specifically note down any passers by prior to the discovery, doesn't necessarily imply that nobody was around...irregular shift hours of East End workers clearly indicate there probably were passers by at that time of day...it suggests to me, nothing more than Thane and Mizen didn't particularly take any notice of them...If they were used to passers by at that time of the morning, why especially should they?

If Cross/Lechmere was innocnet then he probably wouldn't have taken any notice of the beats or what was going on down Winthrop Street. True. But that is hardly the point.

But it IS the point Lech...the very point...

There is no way the police returned to the case and checked Cross/Lechmere out he was still refererd to just as Cross in a police report in October 1888. The police always recorded known aliases or alternative names in their reports.

How do you KNOW they didn't check him out Lech...how can you be so sure? I'm equally convinced they would've checked him out (they'd have been bloody daft not to) but I can't be so sure as you seem to be...there is NO evidence...just likelihood...

All the best

Dave

[Rubyretro]

While you've all been chatting on here, I've been busy tracking him down...

I've tracked you down too !

[Lechmere]

Ruby it looks to me like you tampered with the evidence with tippex.

Cog
If you say that a serial killer who choses victims who are vulnerable and are an easy target will kill an able bodied person then it is for you to give examples.
An example based on a disorganised killer is irrelevant as the proposition you are countering (Lechmere) would have been an organised killer. So to counter the case against him you would have to use relevant examples.

I don't recall ever reading that Polly's private parts were on display. Below the stomach could mean also below the private parts - it is an imprecise use term.
However it is an unimportant detail so far as the case against Lechmere is concerned. To perform the cuts across her abdomen he would have had to expose her bare stomach. It wAs certainly not bare and it was not obvious she had been cut at all. This is because unlike the other cases where there were abdominal wounds the clothing was drawn back down.
That is the point of significance.

In answer to another point raised earlier - I think the abdominal wounds may well have been performed prior to the throat cut - this is what Llewelyn initially thought. It is based on the almost total lack of blood from the neck and the considerable amount of blood that soaked into Polly's clothes like a spong.
Also from a crime scene perspective I think the killer would be more concerned with being disturbed from the westerly direction as that was Neil's route. I think he squatted over Poy's face, raised her clothing as a shield from blood splash, and cut. Then turned and cut the throat and in so doing noticed Paul - who has already got too close for comfort.

It is of some significance that Thane and Mizen said they saw no one. Simply if they said they saw lots of people then it weakens the case. You seem to make your case based on denying what they said. I rather think I on firmer ground than you on that one - although as I said it us not a major fact against Lechmere - just one more little one.

[Cogidubnus]

If you say that a serial killer who choses victims who are vulnerable and are an easy target will kill an able bodied person then it is for you to give examples.
An example based on a disorganised killer is irrelevant as the proposition you are countering (Lechmere) would have been an organised killer. So to counter the case against him you would have to use relevant examples.

But have you forgotten Lechmere that it's you and Christer who are arguing that Jack is a bold and calculating killer, whilst it's me who's maintaining he's more of a will of the wisp...You cannot have it both ways I'm afraid...and even an able-bodied person is vulnerable in the dark to a desperate killer with a 6 to 8" knife...no?

I don't recall ever reading that Polly's private parts were on display. Below the stomach could mean also below the private parts - it is an imprecise use term.

She'd have to be pretty fat indeed for her stomach to lay below her private parts Lechmere so that's pretty specious...

In answer to another point raised earlier - I think the abdominal wounds may well have been performed prior to the throat cut - this is what Llewelyn initially thought. It is based on the almost total lack of blood from the neck and the considerable amount of blood that soaked into Polly's clothes like a spong.
Also from a crime scene perspective I think the killer would be more concerned with being disturbed from the westerly direction as that was Neil's route. I think he squatted over Poy's face, raised her clothing as a shield from blood splash, and cut. Then turned and cut the throat and in so doing noticed Paul - who has already got too close for comfort.

So he didn't render her unconscious first, and she didn't scream at all when he cut into her guts? Sorry...that's me being facetious...In the process of strangulating her, why WOULDN'T he have cut her throat? There wasn't an awful amount of blood around in the Eddowes case either, though what there was , was clearly from the throat (the rest, again being soaked spong-like into her clothing) - was the Nicholls case that different?

It is of some significance that Thane and Mizen said they saw no one. Simply if they said they saw lots of people then it weakens the case. You seem to make your case based on denying what they said. I rather think I on firmer ground than you on that one - although as I said it us not a major fact against Lechmere - just one more little one.

So between the three coppers most involved in the early stages (Thane, Neil, Mizen) none of them saw Tomkins the horse slaughterer take his morning walk, none of them saw the other slaughterers in the yard (even though Thain left his cape with them), none of them even saw Mulshaw dozing over his brazier? Because that's what seeing absolutely no-one implies...and obviously that is not what they really meant is it?

All the best

Dave

[FrankO]

What, that the police wouldn’t have allowed Cross/Lechmere to explain why he used Cross should they have hypothetically established that his real name was Lechmere?

For instance, yes. And I'm working from Cross's viewpoint when he gave his name as Cross. At that point it was quite possible that the police would check him out and that if they did, they would undoubtedly find out that his name was in fact Lechmere. If things were only hypothetical at that point, he needn't have cared less about giving whatever name.

This is clearly a nonsensical proposition.

It’s not. If Cross wasn’t known by that name to anyone, in the eyes of the police Cross would be as false a name as, say, Brown or whatever. Regardless of whatever false name he had given, the police would ask him why he hadn’t given his official name, and both in the case of Brown and Cross he would have to have given them the same basic motive: that he didn’t want to get his name in the papers or that he didn’t want to upset his wife with this business or whatever. Using the name Cross simply wouldn’t make it less false.

By the time PC Mizen took the stand on the Monday, PC Neil had already been heard – on the Saturday. On Saturday Neil stated in response to a specific question that he had not been called to the crime scene by two carmen. This is clearly because wind of Paul’s newspaper interview (which was first printed on the Sunday) had leaked out.
Accordingly Mizen will have known that Neil denied seeing anyone so why would Mizen have got all confused over what Cross had said to him.

If Mizen misremembered, which was the point Caz made, in his mind it would be the truth and he would act as if it were. So, what you write here would apply to a Mizen who’d misremembered and a Mizen who told the truth. If it was a case of misremembering, he may have got confused after Cross had taken the stand. If he actually told the truth, then - provided that he closely followed the case - he’d be a bad cop indeed if he didn’t put 2 and 2 together and act on it. Unfortunately, we don't have any information of Mizen stating he must have made a mistake (but that may have been something that he wouldn't want to openly admit) or that he did put that 2 and 2 together.

All the best,
Frank

[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 .

did i miss the reply ?

[moonbegger]

Evening all

So we have Paul proclaiming in the Lloyds article that " he told Mizen she was dead " and also Cross , not only saying the same but also backing up Pauls claim ..

"There's a woman lying in Buck's-row. She looks to me as though she was dead, or drunk." The other man then said, "I believe she is dead." I don't know who this man was; he was a stranger, but appeared to me to be a carman."

So we have two independent witnesses saying the same thing !!!
but still you don't buy it because why exactly ???

Are you suggesting that working class men are incapable of telling the truth

where as Mizen was incapable of lying ?

How about you try this one .. Grab a friend and approach a London Bobby today , Then both inform him that you have just seen a womans body laying in the street and you are both of the opinion she is Dead .. How would he react ? there really is no confusion issue here , it is there in black and white . He was told by two people " a Dead woman"

Also Cross said he got to work at 4 .. but Mizen said he met the two men at 4.15 .. Whats the scoop here ?

cheers

moonbegger.

"How about you try this one .. Grab a friend and approach a London Bobby today , Then both inform him that you have just seen a womans body laying in the street and you are both of the opinion she is Dead .. How would he react ? there really is no confusion issue here , it is there in black and white . He was told by two people " a Dead woman"

Especially , if there has already been a couple of dead women found in that same area in the past month or so !

And are there any idea's about the timing issue ?

[Monty]

Mizen states that he wasn't told the woman was dead.

So no, not black and white by a long shot.

Monty

[Rubyretro]

[/QUOTE]

And are there any idea's about the timing issue ?

[/QUOTE]
I don't know , Moonblighter. I'll let Lechmere and Fishfingers deal with it.

It says in the first press report that I read (Daily News 1st Sept), that Neil 'found' the body at 3.45am. But Paul says that he left home around 3.45. There
were clearly some minutes spent lingering over the body,reaching Mizen, going the long route via Hanbury street -so could Lechmere still have been at work at 4am ? The time is so short -but I have never walked that route myself , and so I can't judge. I have walked from Buck's row to Hanbury Street -I would have imagined 10 minutes for that alone ? But 4.15 for Mizen seems too long.

I shall be interested to read the replies.