The Mizen scam

[moonbegger]

Sorry Moonbegger...probably daft...and I just know I'll somehow regret asking...but I just gotta ask all the same...whereabouts in the list of assassinated US presidents is Thomas Stearns?

Dave

Hi Dave ,

"Thomas Stearns Eliot born in St. Louis, Missouri, the son of Henry Ware Eliot, president of the Hydraulic-Press Brick Company, and Charlotte Champe Stearns"

To be honest Dave,i didn't even know someone tried to knock his ol man off

I guess TS borrowed it from Abe ..

moonbegger .

[moonbegger]

Hello all ,

[ Lech ]" so maybe he told a few of his work colleagues a ****+bull story as to why he called himself Cross "

Hate to keep knocking .. but ,

"once he told his colleagues , and they read about him committing perjury , would they not then become accomplices in their silence , would they also be expected to lie for him if the police came asking questions ?

And even if the police took it , hook line and sinker , and no longer had him under suspicion .. i'm pretty sure that would not be the case for his work colleagues , who would have been very suspicious of his every move .. In Fact the first question they would have asked themselves after the Chapman murder .. Where was CrossMere ?

cheers

moonbegger

[Cogidubnus]

"Thomas Stearns Eliot born in St. Louis, Missouri, the son of Henry Ware Eliot, president of the Hydraulic-Press Brick Company, and Charlotte Champe Stearns"

To be honest Dave,i didn't even know someone tried to knock his ol man off

I guess TS borrowed it from Abe ..

I knew I'd regret asking...



Dave

[FrankO]

Simon & Roy,

Thanks a lot for the information and map! I assume, for now, that Pickford's was situated on or close to the intersection of Liverpool & Broad Street.

All the best,
Frank

[Simon Wood]

Hi FrankO,

This particular Pickford's distribution depot was situated underneath Broad Street station.

Regards,

Simon

[FrankO]

The key thing about these timings us that if innocent, lechmere must have left home at 3.38.

I’m afraid that’s not true, Lechmere. According to Abberline's report of 19 September, Cross found Nichols’ body at “about 3.40. am”. This is corroborated by Spratling’s report of 31 August, in which he stated that Neil “found the dead body of a woman” at 3.45 am.

If Cross left home at about 3.30 am, which is what he stated, then he would have arrived at the crime scene at about some 6 minutes later. So if he actually left at 3.33 am, he would have arrived at about 3.39 am, which is perfectly in line with “about 3.40. am”.

He also claims to have got to work at 4.00 which is also impossible.

That’s not true either. From the crime spot through Hanbury Street to the intersection of Broad Street & Liverpool Street is about 1900 meters or 2070 yards. To follow Simon's latest information (thanks Simon!), let's add another 100 m/110 yards. If Cross walked at a speed of 6 km/h or 3.72 mph, he would have covered that distance in 20 minutes. If he walked at a speed of 6.5 km/h or 4.04 mph, it would have taken him about 18:30 minutes.

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

This particular Pickford's distribution depot was situated underneath Broad Street station.

Thanks again, Simon!

[Cogidubnus]

Frank you're a gentleman....are you listening to this Christer?

Best wishes

Dave

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"I heard no echo there Christer...you must be a tad over-sensitive on the issue. "

Perhaps so - one has to wonder why ...?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Frank:

"I’m afraid that’s not true, Lechmere."

It is perfectly true, Frank. When Lechmere (the poster) writes "the key thing about these timings", you must understand that "these timings" are grounded on Lechmereīs earlier post (930), stating that "Paul was probably accurate on time as he knew he was late and alone had no motive to lie about time. Cross did - he did the deed. The police did as they were dossing around not doing their beats properly."

I tend to agree about Paul. He does not waver in the least, but fixes the time at EXACTLY 3.45 as he passed up Buckīs Row. So you see, even if this is wrong - which it could be, of course - it still applies that Lechmere is absolutely correct in stating that "these timings" predispose that if Lechmere (the carman) was innocent and walked at a reasonable pace, then he must have left home at around 3.38 in order to reach the murder spot at around 3.45.

"hat’s not true either. From the crime spot through Hanbury Street to the intersection of Broad Street & Liverpool Street is about 1900 meters or 2070 yards. To follow Simon's latest information (thanks Simon!), let's add another 100 m/110 yards. If Cross walked at a speed of 6 km/h or 3.72 mph, he would have covered that distance in 20 minutes. If he walked at a speed of 6.5 km/h or 4.04 mph, it would have taken him about 18:30 minutes."

If you work from your own scenario, yes. If you accept that Paul was correct on the time, it does not function in the same manner.

Of course, Frank, we can all present alternative explanations to the time schedule. You choose to add three minutes to 3.30, so making it 3.33, in spite of the recordings we have that say EITHER 3.30 OR 3.20, speaking about Charles Lechmereīs departure time. And thatīs fine - itīs your prerogative, and in the end, we all know that we will not be able to find a perfect fit for all the timings given by the various actors.

I often think that Paulīs certainty about the time could perhaps be due to a nearby clock striking the quarter as he passed up Buckīs Row. If this was so, then that would provide a good reason for him to be as adamant as he was about the time. And just like Lechmere (the poster) points out, what possible reason would there be for him having gotten it all wrong, and far from being late, he was actually on time?
From his Lloydīs Weekly interview, and from the inquest reports, we KNOW that he was late - or at least under the impression that he was so: "It was dark, and I was hurrying along..."

Are we to accept that he was NOT late? Donīt you think he was pretty sure about such a thing? Most people loathe being late since it is stressfull, and gives you an undesired need to hurry - like Paul.

If this holds true, and if there WAS a nearby clock - does anybody know? - then not only Paul, but also Neil, Thain and Mizen would have heard the quarter strike, and they would have recorded the time as being 3.45 - whereupon things started to happen around them the fewest of minutes afterwards. It would thus be very understandable to couple the events to that clock strike.

All the best,

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"Frank you're a gentleman....are you listening to this Christer?"

I am. And if we are speaking gentlemanly behaviour, Iīd say that the better thing to do on your behalf than to question me on that point, would be to concede that you may have been wrong about Paul leaving home at exactly 3.45, as I took the time and trouble to show you in my post. But each to his own, I suppose. And jestering can be fun at times too.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

By the way, if Paul was NOT late for work, then one would have thought that he would have said at the inquest that he THOUGHT that he was late, only to realize on his arrival at Corbettīs court that he had been mistaken on that score. But this never happens - he is very clear on the fact that he WAS late for work, meaning that he was under that impression as it happened AND afterwards - pointing to a confirmation of his certainty of this as he arrived at work

All the best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Truly amazed how some are trying to keep this dead duck of a theory afloat by distracting.

Smoke and mirrors, nothing of substance.

I'd love to counter the 'facts' supporting Cross as Nichols killer. Just that I'm struggling to find those facts. All I see is suggestion.

Ah, but that's the case with all suspects Monty.

True, so when in Rome huh?


Monty

[Fisherman]

Actually, Monty, I donīt think it makes much of a useful criticism to huff and puff and tell us all how much you would like to counter it. Iīd be much impressed - and pleased! - if you took the time to actually add something of relevance, but you seem reluctant to take that step.

You write about "facts" as if there were no such things about, but I fail to see that anybody has claimed anything but that there MAY have been alternative explanations about for all of the things we find make Lechmere interesting as a suspect. But facts CAN be listed!

Lechmere said he left home at 3.20 or 3.30, and if this was true, he should have been a long way up Hanbury Street at 3.45. Even at 3.40, he should have passed that stable door long before he was found there. And that is working from the assumption that 3.30 was the time he left, not 3.20. This is not conjecture, it is facts.

The clothing was pulled down on Nicholsībody, something that was not the case with Tabram, Chapman, Eddowes. Thus the wounds to the abdomen were hidden from sight, perhaps fully but at least to a significant extent. This is not conjecture, it must be regarded as a fact.

Lechmere claimed to be late for work, but did not choose the quicker Old Montague Street, instead opting for Hanbury Street. This anomaly is not conjecture, it is a fact.

Lechmere gave the name Cross to the police. Fact. He otherwise always called himself Lechmere when dealing with authorities, as far as we can tell - and we have around 60 examples to show for it. Fact.

Mizen testified that Lechmere had claimed that another policeman awaited him in Buckīs Row. Fact. He also claimed that Lechmere had worded this in a passive mode, not giving away that Lechmere himself had found Nichols. Fact.

Lechmere himself said that he and Paul had felt Nichols hands and face for warmth, but that he had rejected to help prop her up. Fact.

Maybe it is very wise to do what you do - dub the theory a dead duck. Maybe it IS a dead duck. But I fail to see that anybody has offered anything at all that goes to even hint at that.

You speak bout "facts" using quotation marks, and confidently lead on that it all needs to be shot down. So letīs see what it is you have to offer, Monty! Surely, a man with such high demands on substantiation must have a lot of tangible evidence to substantiate your own take on things?

Moreover, I have always held you very high in regard when it comes to knowledge of the case and fair assessments, so I suppose you must have something to offer here, other than what others have already put on display.

I for one canīt wait to see it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Yeah, sure....

....Give me some facts then Christer.

Monty