The Mizen scam

[DRoy]

I'm only on page 66 of 108 but I have to reply now if I may...(sorry if someone has said the same thing between those pages!)

First I must say that I admire Fisherman & "Team Lechmere" for their efforts in providing us with a new angle/perception in which to consider. If it is still being discussed after 108 pages...there must be something to their position isn't there?

I think so. I've read over and over again about how adding up the little pieces at the very least should make us consider the possibilitity that they are on to something. How can we ignore all those pieces?

If those of you that are critical of the "Mizen scam" seriously ignore all the pieces as a whole then it's a good thing that you aren't police officers. You'd never question or arrest anyone on suspicion because there are an infinite number of scenarios in which a "suspect" could be innocent!

Just because someone was caught with their hand in the cookie jar doesn't mean they took any. But when you see cookies are in fact missing; cookie crumbs are dangling from their chin and their breath smells like chocolate chip...you have to at least consider the probability they took a cookie.

I'm not sure why some even bother looking for The Ripper when their burden of proof is impossible to meet. Discussion and debate is needed but much of what "Team Lechmere" have had to respond to is quite often the same thing..."but it could have happened this way or that". I think we'd all accept there are an infinite number of possibilities but to use an argument that is asking for proof that will discount the infinite number of possibilities in no way strengthens the validity of any position and really provides no value to the case. I'd like to think that most of us on here are smart enough to know possibilities exist and don't need to be reminded every second post.

I'm not convinced that Cross/Lechmere is The Ripper but hats off to those of you that have convinced me that he at least (at this point) deserves suspect status in Polly's murder.

DRoy

[Monty]

"If those of you that are critical of the "Mizen scam" seriously ignore all the pieces as a whole then it's a good thing that you aren't police officers. You'd never question or arrest anyone on suspicion because there are an infinite number of scenarios in which a "suspect" could be innocent! "

Quote of the day DRoy.

Its not about arrest, its about conviction. There is no conviction. The theory crashes beyond reason from the very moment Paul arrives on the scene, and from that point we get a breakdown of Cross's character and how he would react at that moment.

However, I'm the bad Guy who knows nothing.

He who shall not be named.

[Sally]

However, I'm the bad Guy who knows nothing.

Quite right too, going round expecting silly things like evidence. Jeez. Whatever next?

If those of you that are critical of the "Mizen scam" seriously ignore all the pieces as a whole then it's a good thing that you aren't police officers

DRoy -

This 'theory' is nothing more or less than an edifice of assumptions built on assumptions predicated on a fundamental assumption of guilt.

It all relies on IF. IF Cross was guilty, we can explain his actions THIS way.

The trouble is, there is no evidence that he was. That is why, I imagine, the 'theory' only has a handful of supporters - everybody else can see right through the spin.

And by the way, it doesn't signify at ALL that this thread is long. All that means is that the same people keep bumping it up. Yawn.

You know what they say, Size doesn't Count.

[moonbegger]

Evening All

First I must say that I admire Fisherman & "Team Lechmere" for their efforts in providing us with a new angle/perception in which to consider. If it is still being discussed after 108 pages...there must be something to their position isn't there?

Holy Cow ! does this mean we have all been duped .. the mere fact that while we have all been innocently defending Mr CrossMere against the dressed up but very unsubstantiated [FACTS] we have in actual fact, been tightening the very noose around the poor sod's neck .. We are all in actual fact [ Team Lechmere ] i now feel Violated

bottoms up ,

moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

DRoy:

" I've read over and over again about how adding up the little pieces at the very least should make us consider the possibilitity that they are on to something. How can we ignore all those pieces? "

As you know, DRoy, I could not ignore them. Others can, obviously, and there is nothing much to say about that. Some refute instead - or try to.

"If those of you that are critical of the "Mizen scam" seriously ignore all the pieces as a whole then it's a good thing that you aren't police officers."

Agreed. Then again - and I am just guessing now - I donīt think that many of those who do not recognize much of a value in the theory would seriously think that the police would not be very interested in Lechmere, if they had been given the information we now have at hand. When looking for serial killers, the police know that they are not going to be able to use traditional motives like money, jealousy and such things. The killings are the motives in themselves. Therefore, what the police will look for instead are links inbetween the victims (did they frequent the same places, work for the same company, know the same people etc) and geographical clues. If they had had knowledge about the correlation inbetween Lechmereīs road to work and the murder sites, the police would have pounced on him, I think we can safely rely on that. And then, as the other things surfaced, he would have been in very serious trouble.
This is so very obvious that I find it strange in the extreme when somebody like Monty calls the proposition a dead duck, and then sullenly goes on to say that he is the guy who knows nothing.
Both claims are completely ridiculous.

"I'm not convinced that Cross/Lechmere is The Ripper but hats off to those of you that have convinced me that he at least (at this point) deserves suspect status in Polly's murder. "

Thank you - good to hear, DRoy.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"This 'theory' is nothing more or less than an edifice of assumptions built on assumptions predicated on a fundamental assumption of guilt.

It all relies on IF. IF Cross was guilty, we can explain his actions THIS way."

Claiming that he was innocent, Sally, is nothing but an assumption either. "If Lechmere was innocent, we can explain his giving the wrong name to the police by claiming that it was his colloquial name". "If he was innocent, then we can explain the lie to Mizen with a wish not to be late at Pickfords". "If Lechmere was in Buckīs Row at 3.45 after having left home at 3.30, we can explain that by conjecturing up a meeting with a neighbour and a conversation struck up".

This too is nothing but assumptions - but I am the one who is said to assume, not you.

One wonders why that is?

" That is why, I imagine, the 'theory' only has a handful of supporters"

...and how many are they?

"everybody else can see right through the spin."

...and how many are THEY?

You see, Sally, seeing through THAT spin was very easy.

"Yawn. "

Donīt bother, then, Sally ...

The best,
Fisherman

[DRoy]

Monty,

It is about conviction but an arrest comes first. That arrest would come from some sort of suspicion or evidence. If a policeman only relies on whatever evidence is blatantly obvious without further looking for suspicious people or supporting evidence then again it is no wonder The Ripper wasn't caught (I know I left myself open with that!).

Sally,

"...size doesn't count"...so I hope I'm not being judged by my inadequatequantity of posts and therefore unable to recognize a spin when there is one?

DRoy

[Lechmere]

Abbey
For my understanding of the Cross/Lechmere theory elements for which I cannot reasonably know the answer are not (happily) pointers to guilt or innocence.
Hence was Lechmere the same as anyone seen by a witness - eg 'Blotchy'?
Who knows? He may have been or the witness may have got it wrong anyway.
Did his workmates know of his involvement? I don't know. I can see that it would be useful for him if they did not but i can see that it would not be crucial for him if they did. I think the crucial person that he did not want to suspect him was his wife.
Some posters have affected to not understand this point - but it is a fairly basic requirement for his activities I would say.

[Sally]

It is about conviction but an arrest comes first. That arrest would come from some sort of suspicion or evidence. If a policeman only relies on whatever evidence is blatantly obvious without further looking for suspicious people or supporting evidence then again it is no wonder The Ripper wasn't caught (I know I left myself open with that!).

Yeah, but the trouble is DRoy that we can't say with any degree of authority that the police didn't thoroughly investigate Crossmere. In fact, unless we want to believe that they were incompetent buffoons (and plainly, some do) they almost certainly did. Just because we no longer have the record of that, it doesn't mean it never happened. Much of what is being speculated upon on this thread (and not just here) rests on the assumption that the cops were deaf, dumb and blind. I've even seen it suggested that they would have checked out a man living in a lodgng house and not bothered with one who lived in a house

Ludicrous.

"...size doesn't count"...so I hope I'm not being judged by my inadequatequantity of posts and therefore unable to recognize a spin when there is one?

I'm not judging you at all.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"we can't say with any degree of authority that the police didn't thoroughly investigate Crossmere."

... all we can say is that they most probably did a VERY thorough check - but forgot to run a check on his identity. Ehrm...!!

"Just because we no longer have the record of that, it doesn't mean it never happened."

But we HAVE records as such, Sally, relating to the errand. Sixty of them are signed Lechmere. And the police seems to have seen not one of them. Speculate away to your heartīs desire, Sally - we still have all the reason in the world to accept that whatever check they ran on Lechmere, it did not involve the simplest and most basic of measures: to go to the official registers and confirm the name they had been given.

"Much of what is being speculated upon on this thread (and not just here) rests on the assumption that the cops were deaf, dumb and blind."

Actually no - it instead rests on the seemingly verified fact that the police did not bother to check his name via the official registers, as outlined above. That does not mean that the police were deaf - they heard him saying Cross, dumb - they told the coroner that they had not even bothered to speak to all the inhabitants of Buckīs Row, or blind - they saw Lechmere walking down Hanbury Street, but had forgotten the implications when Chapman fell prey there some short time afterwards.

No, the shortcomings that the police can be accused of is instead a prejudiced picture of what the killer would have been like, lacking procedures and a failure to follow up thoroughly on all persons of interest in the investigation. And all three things are to some extent understandable, given that the type of crime they faced was a very unusual one and that they were initially understaffed to deal with the situation.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

But we HAVE records as such, Sally, relating to the errand. Sixty of them are signed Lechmere. And the police seems to have seen not one of them. Speculate away to your heartīs desire, Sally

Wanna provide evidence of the Police not seeing one of them?

Oh wait, theres the old 'seems' caveat. Hidden in there.

Monty

[Sally]

Wanna provide evidence of the Police not seeing one of them?

Oh wait, theres the old 'seems' caveat. Hidden in there.

Monty

Oh No, worse than that.

To begin with, the police couldn't in fact have seen all of them because many of them would have been after the fact - so citing the magical 60 is misleading, whether intentionally, or not. They may be records, but many are irrelevant to the matter in hand.

Secondly, there is no evidence that the police saw these much alluded to documents signed Lechmere - but neither is there any evidence that they didn't. It is therefore a useless proposition to make - either way.

Thirdly, we only have Team Lechmere's assurance that the magical 60 exist. I've never seen any of them listed - how do I know they exist? Team Lechmere have so far been reluctant to demonstrate just what these documents are. Why might that be? I'm frankly astonished that nobody appears to want to check the magical 60 out for themselves (well maybe not the entire 60, we're not all obsessed, after all).

Finally, (thank God) it has been quite adequately demonstrated by others that Lechmere could have been known quite legitimately as Cross in his life - there need be no suspicion attached to his use of the name.

[moonbegger]

Ah .. Maybe your man was witness at another murder ? could he have fooled the police yet again ?

[Witness in Berner street ]

"Charles Letchford, living at 30, Berners-street says: "I passed through the street at half-past 12, and everything seemed to me to be going on as usual, and my sister was standing at the door at 10 minutes to one, but did not see anyone pass by. I heard the commotion when the body was found, and heard the policemen's whistles, but did not take any notice of the matter, as disturbances are very frequent at the club, and I thought it was only another row."

moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"Wanna provide evidence of the Police not seeing one of them?
Oh wait, theres the old 'seems' caveat. Hidden in there. "

Of course, theoretically speaking, the police can have seen each and every one of them. And still chosen not to name our carman by his correct name. No doubt about that, Monty. There is no way we can effectively PROVE that this never took place.

But what does this insight of yours amount to? It amounts to a need for us all to recognize that the possibility is there.
After that, it is everybodyīs prerogative to decide how much specific weight we wish to attach to this possibility - that the police took a look at the official recordings, noticed that our man was born and bread Lechmere and called himself Lechmere whenever signing a document, and STILL opted for suppressing that information in favour of the name Cross. How credible is that?
Myself, I donīt think this is a realistic suggestion. But I know quite well that it cannot be philosophically ruled out. Therefore, I worded myself "the police SEEMS not to have seen one of them". That is what my weighing results in - a much larger probability that the police never checked the name, than that they did so and refrained from using their knowledge when referring to Lechmere. And it is a weighing that rests firmly on the evidence - for the evidence firmly supports the take that the police were not familiar with his true name.

Of course, Monty, you are welcome to whip out your own set of scales, and to do your own weighing! If you come up with the stance that the police probably knew his name but omitted to state it, then thatīs your right to do so. If you come up with a decision that none of the scales tip over - fine. Whatever decision you land in, Iīm sure it will be one that you have taken after having employed your knowledge and your best guesses, and thatīs as it should be.
Itīs much the same as when you say that the Lechmere proposition crashes after Paul comes onto the scene. Meaning, of course, that you think that the killer would have legged it. And once again, Iīm fine with your stance - but it is not a proven one in any form or shape!
And just as you get somewhat irritated by what you perceive as an overfaith on my behalf in Lechmere as the killer, you may want to admit that your take on what the killer would have done or not, is exactly that and nothing more: your take on it. It is not any fact - that dreaded word!

We are both working from stances that are based on our beliefs here, Monty. But there is no great debate going on about how you try to present conjecture - like "he would have legged it" - as facts. The only ones being castigated for conjecturing are the ones who think that Lechmere could have been the killer. And I can handle it, itīs not that - itīs just that I want you to realize what you are doing yourself.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

[ SPANNER IN THE WORKS ALERT ]

So we Know Stride was found dead just after she was murdered. Just like we are to assume polly was ..

And we have two witnesses who claim possibly five to ten min's after Stride was murdered .. she was still warm .

So how do we line up this with pauls inquest statement as to the condition of Polly's body after roughly the same amount of time ?

" I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold "

cheers

moonbegger .