The Mizen scam

[Fisherman]

Of course Richardson would not be Cross, Jon! On the mark there!

Then again, he would not be the killer either ...

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

leather apron

Hello Jon.

"No-one saw him, yet he placed himself at the crime scene with a knife at the Doctor`s estimate of TOD."

Not to mention he wore a leather apron at times.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Lynn:

""No-one saw him, yet he placed himself at the crime scene with a knife at the Doctor`s estimate of TOD."

Not to mention he wore a leather apron at times."

Let´s not forget that the TOD given by Phillips was about as contested as is Northern Koreas claim to be democratic. Still is, actually.

They really should have convicted him for wearing a leather apron, though! Serious offence, that - and very, very unusual, I´m sure.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

line

Hello Christer. Merely pursuing a certain line. From my perspective, Richardson lacked the proper amount of little grey cells to conceive a murder plot.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Lynn:

"Merely pursuing a certain line."

... as you are perfectly entitled to. Guess I was a bit edgy there.

"From my perspective, Richardson lacked the proper amount of little grey cells to conceive a murder plot."

That may well be correct.

The best,
Fisherman

[FrankO]

Since it has been thrown forward on the thread that the abdomen is situated some inches over the navel (!), I thought it would be a good idea to sober up on that score:

I hope you don't mean that it was me who threw that forward, Fish! I usually don't throw but if I did by accident, then I certainly didn't throw any abdomen.

[Fisherman]

I trust you would have the guts to do so, Frank! But I have never seen you propose anything as strange as that.

All the best,
Fisherman

[FrankO]

Good to hear that, Christer!

I trust you would have the guts to do so, Frank!

Good one!

[Lechmere]

There's an interesting paralell for the Cross/Lechmere case with that of prostitiute killer John Eric Armstrong.

After a carrer in the US Navy during which he earned four promotions and two Good Conduct medals, he settled in Michigan. Neighbours thought of him as a solid citizen and a good family man who was devoted to his wife and son.
In January 2000 Detroit police received a call from a man who claimed to have found a body floating in a river. The dead women turned out to be Wendy Jordan, a drug addict and prostitute. She had been strangled. The man who called the police was John Eric Armstrong.
The police in this century are more used to dealing with serial killers and they found his story to be deeply suspicious and put him under surveillance. After collecting DNA and various fibers from the victim, they visited Armstrong at his home and with his consent took fibers from his vehicle and a blood sample. The tests showed definite matches between the victim and samples taken from Armstrong.
Soon three more bodies were found in various stages of decomposition and Armstrong was arrested. As soon as he was in custody he broke down and confessed to strangling at least 11 prostitutes.
Armstrong had put himself forward as he was worriedd that he had been seen by the crime scene and wanted to create an alibi for himself.

Actually this would also fit John Richardson who we are now told is a red hot suspect as well.

[moonbegger]

Hello all ,

"I am quite content that the collected time estimations of four people, three of whom were serving PC:s, must take precedence over a witness testimony that - by coupling it to a train that passed at a given time (3.30) - must be accepted as not belonging to the dealings inbetween Lechmere and Paul. They were not together in Buck´s Row at 3.30 "

Is it not a possibility that all the trains may have been running a bit late that morning due to the young signal boy who was killed on the same tracks the previous day ?

moonbegger .

[Cogidubnus]

Since it has been thrown forward on the thread that the abdomen is situated some inches over the navel (!), I thought it would be a good idea to sober up on that score:

Not by me it hasn't...the quotation I used said just below the stomach...this gives a little leeway depending on whether you take a literal anayomical definition or a colloquial one...but under the circumstances, taking this to mean the dress was somewhere between the navel and the pubic area, would seem to me at least, quite reasonable...

Dave

[Rubyretro]

Is it not a possibility that all the trains may have been running a bit late that morning due to the young signal boy who was killed on the same tracks the previous day

?

The evidence doesn't say that, and anyway think of 'roadkill' (and no personal remarks, thankyouverymuch ) -the big bits would have been shovelled up, and the bitty bits,mincemeat, by then.

[Cogidubnus]

There is no reference anywhere that I am aware of to her private parts being on show. However it is blatently obvious that her clothing was covering her wounds (certainly the major wounds) which is unlike any other victim who had abdominal wounds.
That is how it was. An obvious explanation for this is that the culprit was disturbed and wished to obscure the situation. Some people find this very hard to accept for some reason.

Nor I'm afraid does there seem to be any evidence her private parts (and perhaps at least a part of the mutilation) WEREN'T on show, hence perhaps Paul's eagerness to cover them...So why is your view so "blatantly obvious" and mine (for which there is no proof to the contrary) "absurd"

The Lilley testimony could refer to anything.

It could...but it is suggestive, and should not simply be discarded because it doesn't fit in with a set of timings which you're propounding...

The timing discrepancies work in favour of the Cross/Lechmere theory

Maybe...maybe not...there is plenty of room for doubt...

You have upwardly rearranged Polly's clothes.

I could equally well claim that you have lowered them...you and Christer have previously commented on the darkness of the night...This would easily account for the fact that both the abdominal wounding and cut throat were missed by Cross and Paul, and only spotted by Neill...

You are rubbing words out of Mizne's mouth.

No I'm not...I've suggested he could have been confused...suggested as a possibility, no more...unfortunately you seem to take my honest doubts and cast them as an attack of some kind...

I think you were asking wherether it is known that Mizen failed to take Paul's and Cross's name and address. The police didn't know Paul's address and had to search to find him. His name also did not appear at the inquest until he appeared later on. Mizen admitted at the inquest that he had only learnt Cross's (fake) name on the morning of the inquest.

Thank you for that...I thought perhaps I was maybe missing something...

This ties back in with Mizen's claim that Cross had said he was wanted by a policeman in Bucks Row which absolved him of the need to take their names. But I think you have decided Mizen was confused and never actually heard Cross say this?

I haven't decided anything Lechmere...I don't doubt it's an interesting theory - I'm merely pointing out (sometimes robustly!) that there is a good deal more doubt (and less certainty), than you and Christer often admit to...I'd like to think that I've at least a reasonably open mind on the subject - I'd remind you that on the end of post #812 I added:-

if you can come up with more, then maybe I'll agree you have a case, but I'm afraid until then....

I meant that quite literally!

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

The evidence doesn't say that, and anyway think of 'roadkill' (and no personal remarks, thankyouverymuch ) -the big bits would have been shovelled up, and the bitty bits,mincemeat, by then.

Oh thanks Ruby...quite spoiled my gammon and tomato relish sarnie!

Cheers

Dave

[Rubyretro]

[COLOR="Red"]No I'm not...I've suggested he could have been "confused".

[/COLOR]

It reminds me of Nigel's plans for rebuilding 'Stone'enge' in Spinal Tap....