The Mizen scam

[Fisherman]

Abby:

"I absolutely do not question your honesty on how you feel. I just wanted to try and grade your level of personal belief-Just how convinced you are of his guilt. Since you would be willing to bet your life on it, obviously you are convinced he is guilty. I appreciate your honesty."

Hi Abby!

Willing to bet my life on it? Thatīs a drastical way to put it, and it - to me, at least - sounds as if there was no doubt in my mind whatsoever. This is not so. I would not be WANTING to bet my life on it since I am fully aware that Lechmere may have been innocent.
But when push comes to shove, I think more speaks for guilt than the other way around. And in the scenario you suggested, a gun to the temple, I WOULD say "guilty" - and feel less shaky than I would have done if I had said innocent.

All the best, Abby!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Robert Newell:

"I do not necessarily agree with the theory, but I find the case presented by Fisherman and Lechmere very plausible and presented very well."

Thank you, Robert - much appreciated!

"Still don't understand the hostility..."

Nor do I, but I guess that Tom Wescott (a seasoned poster and researcher) made a fair point when he told me that those who speak for a named suspect need to get ready for some rough treatment. Therefore, nothing could have pleased me more than to hear your judgment - you donīt necessarily buy into the theory, but you recognize the plausibility of it. Made my morning, sort of ...!

All the best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Did i miss all the fun ?

"Lechmere is an anglicised name. The family name is as old as the Norman Conquest. There is a saying that when there are no more Lechmere in Worcestershire, there will be no more apples in Worcestershire"

APPLES ! Would you Adam 'N' Eve it

Moonbegger.

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"Did i miss all the fun ?"

In a sense, Moonbegger, you ARE all the fun. Apples or not.

All the best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Why thank you much Fishfellow , i think ?

So , let me throw this ol chestnut back on the fire , seeing as no one fancied taking a bite

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

So .. 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

[Sally]

So .. 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 ?

Yep. And of course they would've all done it, no questions asked Mate, because they was all jolly EastEnd Boys together. Pickfords was just one big Boy's Club - surely you knew that?

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 ?

See above. And of course, the cops wouldn't have given CrossMere a second glance after he so successfully pulled the wool over their dimwitted eyes; because they were too busy suspecting Paul, whom CrossMere had so cleverly implicated in his second (or was it third?) choice of victim.

You didn't miss the fun, Moonbeggar. That's the thing with soap operas - you can go and do something else for months, safe in the knowledge that when you come back the plot will still be the same
cheers

moonbegger[/QUOTE]

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Yep. And of course they would've all done it, no questions asked Mate, because they was all jolly EastEnd Boys together. Pickfords was just one big Boy's Club - surely you knew that?"

We may need to observe that we have not the faintest idea of HOW Lechmere worded things. We donīt even know if he DID tell his co-workers that he was going to participate in the inquest. He may have asked for leave on other grounds.

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

Hi Fish,

You wrote:

There is no circular reasoning on my behalf - there is only you babbling about it. And THAT is becoming more circular by each post ...

Look, Caz - if I had been saying that the fact that he got away proves that he succeded in conning the police, then you would have had an excellent point. What I DO say, though, is that IF he was the killer, THEN he suceeded with his scam.

Now, please tell me that you are able to see the difference!

Hmmm, one is completely circular, the other a statement of the bleedin’ obvious? Both are pointless, you’ve been mixing and matching the two, and neither does your case a bit of good.

Look, Fish - I realise you have to presume Cross was the killer in order to speculate that he needed a scam, attempted a scam and pulled it off. I get it, I really do. But I might just as well keep repeating that IF anyone else was the killer, THEN your scam speculation is all wrong and the killer succeeded in disappearing before Cross arrived. Hardly productive, is it?

But you go further than that when you argue that Cross DID attempt a scam, and cite the fact that he was never a suspect and the killer was never caught as the direct result of this scam being successful: you keep claiming that ‘his scam’ obviously ‘worked’, when you have yet to demonstrate he even needed one or attempted one. That is the point where it all goes horribly circular because you are presuming cause from effect, when the effect would be exactly the same with no scam and anyone else as the killer.

The police never saw any stray elephants near Buck’s Row either and they never checked Cross’s home. So that would have been the result of Cross rounding up the stray elephants and keeping them indoors and not leaving a trail of elephant dung for the police to find. But it would equally be the result of there not being any stray elephants in Whitechapel and the police having no reason to check Cross’s home for any.

What you lack is actual evidence that Cross needed a scam and attempted a scam. The irony (as with Hutch) is that the more you have to argue for Cross’s behaviour being suspicious as all hell, to big up an otherwise weak case, the less convincing it becomes that the police at the time would have seen nothing amiss in his version of events. IF he lied flat out to PC Mizen, in an attempt to avoid any further involvement, it didn’t work because he went on to identify himself to the police as the discoverer of the victim and to attend the inquest, and was then forced to lie again on oath about what he told Mizen.

Using the name Cross MAY have been a deliberate and successful ruse to keep his involvement from his wife, but that’s about it. Again, it wouldn’t imply guilt any more than it would suggest that he simply didn’t want her frightened for their safety, while a dangerous killer was on the loose. Using the name Cross could not possibly have been a ruse to help him avoid police suspicion; it could only have courted their suspicion had they discovered that everyone else knew him as Lechmere.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Lechmere,

You wrote to Monty:

You then seem to say that giving a fake name to the police doesn't matter so long as the police don't find out about it. A novel approach.

Now I know this has been cleared up and Monty never implied anything of the sort, but how is this for irony? The killer’s approach would have been more than ‘novel’ if he gave a fake name to the police, thinking it wouldn’t matter as long as they didn’t find out - then promptly gave them the means to find out. He would have left himself entirely open to discovery and trusting to luck that the police wouldn’t find out at any point while he was preying on the local prostitutes.

And all because his illiterate wife might suspect him of murder and mutilation if she knew he had been the one to discover Nichols’s body on his way to work? Really? It all rather supposes that she would have suspected her own husband pretty much at the drop of a jolly new bonnet. It’s a wonder she didn’t suspect him anyway when prossies kept dropping while he was out of the house and supposedly on his way to work.

Love,

Caz
X

[Observer]

Yep. And of course they would've all done it, no questions asked Mate, because they was all jolly EastEnd Boys together. Pickfords was just one big Boy's Club - surely you knew that?



See above. And of course, the cops wouldn't have given CrossMere a second glance after he so successfully pulled the wool over their dimwitted eyes; because they were too busy suspecting Paul, whom CrossMere had so cleverly implicated in his second (or was it third?) choice of victim.

You didn't miss the fun, Moonbeggar. That's the thing with soap operas - you can go and do something else for months, safe in the knowledge that when you come back the plot will still be the same
cheers

moonbegger

[/QUOTE]

Well done! You summed up this website in one swoop.

All we Brits in here have probably seen the latest trailer for the BBC soap opera Eastenders, the one where some long lost member of the cast is born to earth on the trail of a cyclone ala Dorothy from The Wizard of Ozz, and is dumped down in Albert Square. For some strange reason she is wearing a wedding dress, and the currant members of the cast stop what they are doing and look up in awe as she descends.

Well picture the scene it's 1891, the Ripper scare is on the back burner, Abberline, Swanson, et al are in Commercial Street police station, they sudenly hear a great roar, and rush outside to see a huge cyclone moving slowly down Commercial street.

"Hello hello hello, what's this" says Abberline.

Up in the cyclone, he makes out the form of human beings, Red Jim McDermott, battles against the wind his Astrakhan coat flapping out behind him, not unlike Batman's cape. Ochrana members swirl around, knives at the ready, Druitt, wields a cricket bat, Chapman clutches a knife in one hand, a bottle of poison in the other, Isenschmid shouts obscenities.They are all there, Bury, Cream, Tumblety, Kosminski, Cohen, Maybrick adds another entry to his dairy. They slowly drift to earth and alight in the middle of Commercial Street.

"Once more into the breach Donald", says Abberline, "F*%Ģ$ this", says Swanson, "I'm retiring"

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

Yep. And of course they would've all done it, no questions asked Mate, because they was all jolly EastEnd Boys together. Pickfords was just one big Boy's Club - surely you knew that?



See above. And of course, the cops wouldn't have given CrossMere a second glance after he so successfully pulled the wool over their dimwitted eyes; because they were too busy suspecting Paul, whom CrossMere had so cleverly implicated in his second (or was it third?) choice of victim.

You didn't miss the fun, Moonbeggar. That's the thing with soap operas - you can go and do something else for months, safe in the knowledge that when you come back the plot will still be the same
cheers

moonbegger

[/QUOTE]

Well done! You summed up this website in one swoop.

All we Brits in here have probably seen the latest trailer for the BBC soap opera Eastenders, the one where some long lost member of the cast is born to earth on the trail of a cyclone ala Dorothy from The Wizard of Ozz, and is dumped down in Albert Square. For some strange reason she is wearing a wedding dress, and the currant members of the cast stop what they are doing, and look up in awe, as she descends.

Well picture the scene, it's 1891, the Ripper scare is on the back burner, Abberline, Swanson, et al are in Commercial Street police station, they sudenly hear a great roar, and rush outside to see a huge cyclone moving slowly down Commercial street.

"Hello hello hello, what's this" says Abberline.

Up in the cyclone he makes out the form of human beings, Red Jim McDermott battles against the wind, his Astrakhan coat flapping out behind him, not unlike Batman's cape. Ochrana members swirl around, knives at the ready, Druitt wields a cricket bat, Chapman clutches a knife in one hand, a bottle of poison in the other, Isenschmid shouts obscenities.They are all there, Bury, Cream, Tumblety, Kosminski, Cohen, Maybrick adds another entry to his dairy. Slowly they descend, and alight in Commercial street.

"Once more into the breach Donald", says Abberline, "F*%Ģ$ this", says Swanson, "I'm retiring"

Regards

Observer

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"I realise you have to presume Cross was the killer in order to speculate that he needed a scam, attempted a scam and pulled it off. I get it, I really do. But I might just as well keep repeating that IF anyone else was the killer, THEN your scam speculation is all wrong and the killer succeeded in disappearing before Cross arrived."

Yes, Caz, that is absolutely true. And...? What is the relevance of telling me something I already know? Did it occur to you that I in my first post on this thread wrote "Somewhere along the line, I am sure that somebody will point out that Lechmere may simply have conned Mizen in order to be at Pickfordīs in time. Technically correct though this may be, I would suggest that we do not forget all the other parameters that point in Lechmereīs direction."

Do you realize what this means, Caz? Exactamundo, it means that much as some like to think of me as a fundamentalist who can only see things in one manner, this is actually not true. And I am growing increasingly tired, having to repeat that message and hammer it home.

Now, read this passage, Caz:
I-know-that-there-may-be-other-explanations-to-the-details-I-point-out-as-potentially-pointing-to-guilt-on-Lechmereīs-behalf.

Once more:

I-know-that-there-may-be-other-explanations-to-the-details-I-point-out-as-potentially-pointing-to-guilt-on-Lechmereīs-behalf.

Did I get it across this time (fat chance...)...?

My interpretation of all the parameters and details available to the Lechmere story is that THE MOST LOGICAL solution to them is that Lechmere was a sinister figure and a killer.

You must understand that this is not saying that it is more logic to be a killer than it is not to be so. Being innocent is statistically much more "normal" than it is to be a serial killer. Itīs just that we DO have a slaying on our hands, and we DO have testimony and information around that can be read in more than one way. But at the end of the day, we can see that our carman apparently had the time needed to commit the crime, he offered a name that he didnīt use officially otherwise, he seemingly lied to a PC to get past him, and he had the rotten luck of having all the murders in a series happening along streets modern researchers would conclude answered to the routes he would have travelled to work or to see his mother and daughter. Plus all the other indication that lend themselves superbly to an interpretation of guilt.

It is no stranger than this, Caz. I look at the parameters, I see that they can be read in different ways, I RECOGNIZE THIS!!!, and then I try to see which interpretation is the most consistent and logical one - to my mind.

How hard can this be to understand? Very hard? Why?

"you go further than that when you argue that Cross DID attempt a scam, and cite the fact that he was never a suspect and the killer was never caught as the direct result of this scam being successful"

Letīs apply some subtlety, Caz. Okay? Listen up: I say that IF Mizen was on the money - and I think he WAS, since he had no apparent reason to lie, and a mishearing does not seem very probable to me - then Lechmere DID feed him false information.

Can you see the difference? Do you spot it, Caz? Do you realize that I am not saying that I KNOW that Lechmere scammed Mizen - only that the evidence POINTS to it very clearly?

"...and cite the fact that he was never a suspect and the killer was never caught as the direct result of this scam being successful".

More subtlety needed - I am saying that IF the scam went down like the evidence points to, then we may deduct that the failure on behalf of the police to see it was unfortunate, and ultimately resulted in failure to unveil it all. I am further saying that IF the scam went down as proposed by the evidence given by Mizen, then it WAS successful.
If you wish to speak of circular arguments, then do so. I can only explain that I am making a more subtle and discerning argument than you will admit.

"What you lack is actual evidence that Cross needed a scam and attempted a scam."

I lack evidence that Lechmere attempted a scam? I have Mizen saying at the inquest that Lechmere told him that there was another PC awaiting him in Buckīs Row, and you claim that I lack evidence that a scam was attempted??

Does Mizenīs testimony not belong to the evidence, Caz? If so, why? Or does the complexity of it rule it out as evidence? IS the fact that he MAY have misheard Lechmere enough for us to say that we may not believe that Mizen was correct - that what he said must be regarded as meaning something entirely different than the actual statement he adamantly gave? I am fascinated by this - how is his testimony no evidence?

And did you notice, by the way, that Nicholīs was nigh on decapitated and gutted that morning. How is that no evidence that Lechmere may have needed a scam? Of course, I canīt tell for sure that he DID - he MAY have been innocent. But if we listen to what Mizen said, then how could we NOT open up for the possibility that he was NOT innocent?

Are we on the same planet here, Caz? Or have you read too many Kafka books?

"The irony (as with Hutch) is that the more you have to argue for Cross’s behaviour being suspicious as all hell, to big up an otherwise weak case, the less convincing it becomes that the police at the time would have seen nothing amiss in his version of events."

Why do you think the police did not regard it as suspicious that he used the wrong name, Caz? Why do you think that they were not suspicious about Mizen being scammed? Why were they not suspicious of all the killings happening at his doorstep? Should they not have been?

Oh yes, they should. But what you do not know, you cannot be suspicious about. Now, were you not the one advicing against circular arguments...? You were? I thought so. Then please, Caz ...!

"IF he lied flat out to PC Mizen, in an attempt to avoid any further involvement, it didn’t work..."

They made him? When did THAT happen?

"... because he went on to identify himself to the police as the discoverer of the victim and to attend the inquest, and was then forced to lie again on oath about what he told Mizen."

But how does this preclude that the scam worked?? I thought itīs object was to allow him to pass Mizen unsearched? I never knew that the main object was to avoid the inquest and to avoid having to lie there.
Caz, when he lied to Mizen, he had a bloody weapon stashed on him if I am correct. Thatīs a pretty serious thing to have hidden on your person when a PC knows that you have been around a murder spot. The main objective would thus have been to solve that problem first. That was priority one. If other problems arose afterwards, then they needed to be attended to at that stage. And he DID attend to them, seemingly. Skilfully and untroubled, apparently.

"Using the name Cross MAY have been a deliberate and successful ruse to keep his involvement from his wife, but that’s about it. Again, it wouldn’t imply guilt any more than it would suggest that he simply didn’t want her frightened for their safety, while a dangerous killer was on the loose. Using the name Cross could not possibly have been a ruse to help him avoid police suspicion; it could only have courted their suspicion had they discovered that everyone else knew him as Lechmere. "

Havenīt you argued this before?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Observer!

Did you post twice unintentionally or in anticipation of an answer you would not care about anyway? I see that method applied every now and then ...

The best, Observer
Fisherman

[Observer]

Seriously, as Fisherman has hinted, we are not at liberty to place ourselves into the minds of people who lived over 100 years ago, and predict what they may or may not have said or thought.

Moonblagger take note

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

oops, unintentionally Fisherman, although you're correct I couldn't care if the post went unanswered, hahaha

regards

Observer