The Mizen scam

[icicle]

Again Fisherman, I am thinking of my friend Rick. Now retired after many years in the music industry. What would he do? Run a mile from any police-persons then blab the whole story for the price of a beer down the local pub to any passing hack. Attention seeking? Well yes, I'd say so. Managed some high profile bands, and fronted one himself that was, erm, rubbish.

Ruby - if Rick detected a pulse he would try to wake the lady up. If that did not succeed, he would ask or take advice. Basically he would do his best, although he is not properly equipped himself to know what that is. He would be easily swayed by any argument evoking an emotion.

If he could not rouse her on his own he would go for help, but, always with an eye to self-interest, would not want to lose money by it. He would lose money if he had to, then moan about it. In my earhole. For the next decade.

However, and this is a real life example - if he witnessed you being hit over the head by the broom of your demented elderly neighbour, indeed, even if he was the one who yelled at you to duck - he would claim he didn't see a thing if the police asked him.

[icicle]

Guys...

Feel free to tell me I've misunderstood this.. From the inquest. Carman Cross /Lechmere giving evidence.

witness (Lechmere) took hold of the woman's hands, which were cold and limp. Witness (Lechmere) said, "I believe she is dead."... in Baker's-row they met the last witness (Mizen), whom they informed that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row. Witness (Lechmere) said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead."..
Replying to the coroner, witness denied having seen Police-constable Neil in Buck's-row... In his opinion deceased looked as if she had been outraged and gone off in a swoon; but he had no idea that there were any serious injuries.

So, Lechmere sees a woman and thinks she is dead, they go off and meet Mizen, he still thinks she is dead. The coroner asks if Lechmere ever met PC Neil and suddenly the woman springs back to life!

Don't make me tell you about the Narcissists I've know as well. We'll be here till christmas..

[Fisherman]

Hi icicle!

Like this:

To begin with, who says that Mizen was told by Lechmere that the woman was either dead or drunk? Correct: Lechmere himself.

Listen to Mizen, and you will see that he gives another picture of how it went down; he says that "Cross" only said that he was wanted in Bucks Row by another policeman, because a woman had been found there.

No speculations about the woman being either dead or drunk thus. And I think this is exactly what Lechmere told Mizen. However, at the inquest and to the police, he will have painted a picture that obscured his own role.

Lechmere also says to the inquest that Paul gave his opinion to Mizen too; that the woman was probably dead. But Mizen is very clear that it was just the one carman that spoke to him. I think Lechmere did his best to hide this from the inquest. If the inquest could be swayed to believe that the carmen both spoke to Mizen, then they would not see how Lechmere could have scammed the PC.

Looking at all details is extremely important when assessing what probably happened. And it is interesting to see how the little bits and pieces that seemingly speak of Lechmere as a good guy all come from himself...

As for the "outraged and gone off in a swoon" thing, Lechmere is simply asserting that he had no idea the woman had been subjected to knife violence. She was lying on her back, her clothes lifted "almost up to her stomach", so the conclusion that she could have been raped would have been something that most people would perhaps have been inclined to draw. This is just another detail in the Lechmere defence line, I believe; he tries to give the impression that he was surprised by his find, a woman looking like she had been "outraged", but why was she not coming to her senses? Why was it that she felt cold and gave the impression of being dead? How was a simple carman to understand something like that, poor soul?

But when speaking to Mizen, he was a lot more unconcerned - "Hey mate, a colleague of yours needs your help down Buck´s Row, some woman´s been found there or something ... mind if I rush?"
And at the inquest, Mizen is still baffled, stating that the carman had absolutely not led on anything at all about a murder or suicide affair, he had instead shared the important and reassuring information that a fellow PC had the situation in hand. But no, no says Lechmere - how could I have done that? There WAS no other PC in that street, Sir, he says - knowing full well that he would win any debate on that subject.

Mizen´s line of thought was very logical:
1. A woman had been violently killed by knife.
2. A PC comes upon the body and sees what has happened.
3. The carmen appear, and the PC tells them what has happened and asks them to go for help.
4. ... so why did the carman not tell HIM, Mizen, what is was all about? Why casually speak of a woman that "had been found", leaving out the seriousness of the business?

This is how the material fits best together, the way I see things. It is in fact the only really logical way it fits at all, as far as I can tell.

The best,
Fisherman

[Mr Lucky]

But Mizen is very clear that it was just the one carman that spoke to him.

Mizen has said no such thing. Nevermind being 'very clear' about it.

Go on, just one single citation that Mizen has said 'just one carman spoke to him' or similar.

[Fisherman]

Mr Lucky:

"Mizen has said no such thing. Nevermind being 'very clear' about it.
Go on, just one single citation that Mizen has said 'just one carman spoke to him' or similar."

Could you ask in a nicer tone, Mr Lucky? It would make me feel better when accomodating you.

Here are some excerpts from the papers. They are all in accordance on this point. None of them say that TWO carmen spoke to Mizen, they unanimously state that "a" carman spoke to him, and that carman was "Cross". Furthermore, Paul himself does not say that HE spoke to Mizen, other than in his Lloyds Weekly interview, where he awards himself the main role - and Lechmere no role at all. But speaking to the authorities, Paul only syas that the two carmen went to Baker´s Row/Hanbury STreet where "they" informed Mizen, meaning that the conglomerate made up of two men forwarded the information.

Nobody asks Mizen if the second carman spoke to him as well as the first, but if both men had spoken to him, he would arguably have said so. But he does not - he consequently speaks of "a" carman, and points him out when he comes into the inquest room. To me, that speaks a very clear language.


”Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him...” (Daily Telegraph)

”... Mizen said that about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, when a carman passing by in company with another man said...” (Daily News)

”Police-constable Mizen said that about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the corner of Hanbury-street and Baker's-row, when a carman, passing by in company with another man, said...” (East London Observer)

”Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row.” ” (The Echo)

”Policeman George Myzen said that at a quarter to four on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row. A man passing said to him, "You're wanted round in Buck's-row." That man was Carman Cross...” (The Star)

”Constable G. Mizen, 56 H, stated that at a quarter past 4 on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, and a man passing said "You are wanted in Baker's-row." The man, named Cross, stated ...” (The Times)


All the best, Mr Lucky!
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Oi Fisherman
Mr Lucky asked for just one example - not loads of examples.
Are you incapable of reading?

[icicle]

Hm, Fisherman. Either you are too subtle for me or I am too subtle for you, though it would be the first time I was accused of being subtle I'm writing on an ipad though and its not ideal.

I'll paraphrase, from the inquest. Monty Python and George Lucas will help.

Cross: The woman was dead. She was an ex woman.
Cross: The woman was dead, oh yes. My friend agrees. Pining for the Fjords.
Coroner: I'm about to ask you the question now that you don't want to hear most in your life. Did you see PC Neil on Bucks Row?
Cross: Now I think about it, she was alive after all. I am not the droid you are looking for.

I'm fairly well aware of the different versions given by different people now, and the big clue in the Mizen Scam, but I wanted to point out what struck me, jumped out at me, the very first time I read the coroners inquest testimony - and it was this - the sudden turnaround in Polly's health.

Unless you have a logical explanation, I'm going to put that down to a Narcissist rearranging the universe to suit themselves. The first time you watch one do that (the world was one way and now, by decree, it is another and it would be most rude of you to point out the difference - I didn't lie, I am God and I made things different now thats all. Go away pesky minion) its a bit like being in your first minor earthquake. Did that just really happen?? Nah..

Not his first Jedi mind trick, is it? It is the second we have evidence for, and rather implies this is just how he interacts with people. It is his default mode.

I don't see what he gets out of this particular turnaround though. Thinking back to three Narcissists I've known, two thirds of the time I can see what they gain by the reality change.

It could just be an instinctive response to being asked the question he fears most. Suddenly he didn't kill her. She is alive. Oh yes.

But Fisherman or anyone - apart from that emotional lifeline, was there any other strategic or tactical advantage for Lechmere, if Polly is alive again at the mention of Neil? And by this stage, if I am right, and you built a time machine then went back and asked him - he will appear to have genuinely forgotten he ever said she was dead.

[Fisherman]

icicle:

"Either you are too subtle for me or I am too subtle for you, though it would be the first time I was accused of being subtle"

Let´s find out!

"I'll paraphrase, from the inquest. Monty Python and George Lucas will help.

Cross: The woman was dead. She was an ex woman.
Cross: The woman was dead, oh yes. My friend agrees. Pining for the Fjords.
Coroner: I'm about to ask you the question now that you don't want to hear most in your life. Did you see PC Neil on Bucks Row?
Cross: Now I think about it, she was alive after all. I am not the droid you are looking for."

Alright; let´s take a look at it, courtesy of the Daily Telegraph:

"Witness said, "I believe she is dead." He touched her face, which felt warm. The other man, placing his hand on her heart, said "I think she is breathing, but very little if she is." Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her. Just then they heard a policeman coming. Witness did not notice that her throat was cut, the night being very dark. He and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's-row they met the last witness, whom they informed that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row. Witness said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on. The other man left witness soon after. Witness had never seen him before.

Replying to the coroner, witness denied having seen Police-constable Neil in Buck's-row. There was nobody there when he and the other man left. In his opinion deceased looked as if she had been outraged and gone off in a swoon; but he had no idea that there were any serious injuries."

I really don´t think we need to follow any given chronology here, to begin with. The swoon thing would not have been something he had impressed upon him after having examined Nichols and realised that she may have been dead. It sounds a lot more like a reasonable first impression to me. Maybe he is just reinforcing why he did never look for or suspect the kind of damage that had actually been done to her? "I really never expected anything like this", sort of. And then he puts it at the end, just to convey something he thought needed further emphasizing.

Incidentally, it tallies well with my picture of the man; "really, mr coroner, Sir, there was no way I could have known ...!"

" ... apart from that emotional lifeline, was there any other strategic or tactical advantage for Lechmere, if Polly is alive again at the mention of Neil? "

In a sense, yes, actually. If he was the killer, then he would have felt a need to really rub in how he was never suspicious about any foul play at all. His version of events differs very much from the gory truth: a woman that gives the impression of having gone off in a swoon, versus a woman bathing in her own blood, her entrails protruding from a large gash in her stomach, her head severed down to the spine.

He must have felt that there was always the risk that somebody would ask themselves "can such things really go unnoticed?", and therefore, he stood to gain from giving the impression of really having NOT noticed anything but a lady in some sort of distress - not a murder victim.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Icicle, I don't care what you write, I just love reading you...(but tell me more about 'Rick' ...)

[icicle]

Thank you Fisherman. It is the sort of abstract reasoning I'm not much good at. I could see there was something interesting there, but couldn't see what it was. I mean I can tell what people are up to, but, having Aspergers, I can't tell why beyond the compulsions awarded to them by their various different neural wirings.

Ruby, if you are in the UK you can meet Rick. During his retirement he found (in my opinion) the best band he ever came across. They are often gigging and he is a very social character. Puts you in mind of Jules Holland crossed with Johnny Rotten.

Heheh. He might be less than flattered if he found out under what circumstances, exactly, you became interested. I'll live with it though. Heheh.

[Rubyretro]

Ruby, if you are in the UK you can meet Rick. During his retirement he found (in my opinion) the best band he ever came across. They are often gigging and he is a very social character. Puts you in mind of Jules Holland crossed with Johnny Rotten.

Heheh. He might be less than flattered if he found out under what circumstances, exactly, you became interested. I'll live with it though. Heheh.

[/QUOTE]

OMG, Icicle...Jules Holland was the heart throb of my youth (not so sure about the crossed with Johnny Rotten though....although I loved the Sex Pistols and Johnny was one of the greatest front men of a band ever, his style with the micro much imitated)...ah, but Jules...(I used to watch Jules on 'The Tube' and listen to Squeeze -that dates me, eh ?).

I'm not in England at the mo', but pm me the info and I'l deffo go with some mates to check Rick's band out next year.........

I shall reread your posts now -picturing Rick in a totally different light...(obviously brilliant, funny & charming, if he's like Jules....)

[Mr Lucky]

Could you ask in a nicer tone, Mr Lucky? It would make me feel better when accomodating you.

I’m Sorry, Fisherman, I was pressed for time and the mixture of incredulity and brevity has given the post an unnecessary curt tone. But, consider this, if your ‘conjecture /facts’ type alchemy is jarring with someone who themselves is putting Cross forward as a suspect, what’s it doing to everyone else?

Here are some excerpts from the papers. They are all in accordance on this point. None of them say that TWO carmen spoke to Mizen, they unanimously state that "a" carman spoke to him, and that carman was "Cross". Furthermore, Paul himself does not say that HE spoke to Mizen, other than in his Lloyds Weekly interview, where he awards himself the main role - and Lechmere no role at all. But speaking to the authorities, Paul only syas that the two carmen went to Baker´s Row/Hanbury STreet where "they" informed Mizen, meaning that the conglomerate made up of two men forwarded the information.

Nobody asks Mizen if the second carman spoke to him as well as the first, but if both men had spoken to him, he would arguably have said so. But he does not - he consequently speaks of "a" carman, and points him out when he comes into the inquest room. To me, that speaks a very clear language.

Yes, it's something you have inferred, it's not something Mizen has made 'very clear'

”Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him...” (Daily Telegraph)

”... Mizen said that about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, when a carman passing by in company with another man said...” (Daily News)

”Police-constable Mizen said that about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the corner of Hanbury-street and Baker's-row, when a carman, passing by in company with another man, said...” (East London Observer)

”Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row.” ” (The Echo)

”Policeman George Myzen said that at a quarter to four on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row. A man passing said to him, "You're wanted round in Buck's-row." That man was Carman Cross...” (The Star)

”Constable G. Mizen, 56 H, stated that at a quarter past 4 on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, and a man passing said "You are wanted in Baker's-row." The man, named Cross, stated ...” (The Times)

But Mizen is very clear that it was just the one carman that spoke to him.

That your claim, not one single quote has Mizen claiming ‘just the one carman spoke to him’ That’s the point, Mizen has claimed Cross has spoken to him, that’s not the same thing as him saying that only one person spoke to him, this is something you have inferred from Mizen not mentioning Paul until prompted by the coroner.

Paul has make the following claim ‘I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead.’ Lloyd's 2nd Sept.1888

Can’t really see the incentive for Mizen to bring this up at the inquest, that doesn’t mean that Paul hasn’t spoke to him.

So there is nothing at all to support your claim that 'Mizen has made it very clear that only one carman spoke to him.'

Best wishes, Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Mr Lucky:

"not one single quote has Mizen claiming ‘just the one carman spoke to him’ "

That´s correct. But please notice the fact that he doesn´t deny speaking to four chimney sweeps and the sugar plum fairy either! And technically, he could have. His not denying it offers the same openings here as it does visavi Paul.

Look at the Daily Telegraph snippet again, Mr Lucky: "”Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him...” (Daily Telegraph)"

If BOTH men talked to him, why does it not say " ...when two carmen informed him"? Would that not be the better thing to say, if this was what happened?

Of course, one would always like to have things certified, patented and put beyond any doubt. But I think we have all we need to establish that "Cross" was the man who spoke to Mizen. I see no reason at all for the PC to obscure any effort on Paul´s behalf in this respect - if it was there.

And in this context, it is interesting to see how Lechmere claims that Paul DID take part in the discussion with Mizen - for some peculiar reason, whenever something seems to absolve Lechmere from potential guilt, that something is always handed to us by Lechmere himself...?

You write: "Paul has make the following claim ‘I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead.’ Lloyd's 2nd Sept.1888
Can’t really see the incentive for Mizen to bring this up at the inquest, that doesn’t mean that Paul hasn’t spoke to him."

The Lloyds Weekly interview leaves Lechmere out of the proceedings after the carmen had felt Nichols for warmth. Here´s the relevant part:

"The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her."

Notice how only Paul feels her for warmth! The interview directs the thoughts towards a concerned Paul, feeling her for warmth as "Cross" stays in the background, never even approaching her. Let´s go on, Paul speaking:

"I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead.

Notice how Lechmere does not even come along on the route to Hanbury Street! It is all about Paul: Paul tells him that he will find a PC, Paul leaves, Paul finds the PC, Paul speaks to him - no Lechmere in sight.

And we KNOW that Lechmere claimed himself to have managed the discussion with Mizen, claiming that Paul butted in for a brief corroboration, nothing more, just as we KNOW that Mizen says that just it was "a carman", not "two carmen" that spoke to him.

Conclusion? Both versions can´t be correct.

Further conclusions? If Lechmere DID do the talking, he would have known that Mizen would probably say so. Claiming that he had NOT done so, the inquest (and the police) would reasonably grow suspicious.

Corroboration? Paul does NOT say at his inquest appearance that he took care of everything himself. He conveniently speak of "we". We walked away in search of a police, we found him, we informed him.

Mizen never says "I counted the amount of carmen speaking to me, and I can assure you it was just the one - him!"

But he DOES say in all the papers that "a" carman passed by and spoke to him, and then he points "Cross" out as that carman - the one who spoke to him, that is. He never says "They told me", he says "HE told me". He complaints that "HE" never led on that Nichols was dead, but he never accuses Paul of having hid something from him. Why? Because Paul never told him anything, and thus did not share in the guilt of holding information back.

Also note the Echo wording: "The other man, who went down Hanbury street..." Does that implicate any participation in the discussion on Paul´s behalf - or does it implicate that he instead went down Hanbury Street?

It´s a good thing when people demand absolute proof for things, but it is also good when it is accepted that in the absence of such proof, the indications and circumstantial evidence can be enough to draw valid conclusions from anyway. Different people will call for different amounts and differing quality when it comes to circumstantial proof - but in this case, I find it totally uncontroversial to lay down that what Mizen says establishes that Lechmere was not one of two men that spoke to him - he was the only man who spoke to him.

On a side note, Mr Lucky - were you not in the process of publishing on Lechmere? Is that still in the pipeline? I´m curious about what it is you have looked into.

All the best,
Fisherman

[icicle]

You know, I have been thinking for a while that there is something wrong with the Harriet Lilley thing. Not with Harriet though. I think she must have been a fine woman who heard what she heard, and if she wasn't called at the inquest I'm thinking the police were bone idle or wanted to spare a lady the trouble, because being female was a medical condition in those days.

So it must be the 3.07 from New Cross I don't like.

I know the passenger trains take half an hour or more, but that is because the pesky passengers insist on getting on and off all the time. 3.30 suggests a journey time of 23 minutes for a goods train and that might sound reasonable, but thinking about it - its still not right. It shouldn't take 23 minutes for a goods train from New Cross to Whitechapel. Assuming they go 20 miles an hour in a city, like my Dad says, or even faster.. (start around page 49)

http://books.google.com/books?id=j2swAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA51&lpg=RA1-PA51&dq=%22new+cross%22+%22east+london+railway%22+accident&source=bl&ots=xFTnD0h_ZP&sig=s3vt82Vc3pUsErHZtgq8Gd_T1Ko&hl=en&sa=X&ei=h85SUJ2xGIOc8QSmnIHYCw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22new%20cross%22%20%22east%20london%20railway%22%20accident&f=false

..at least till 1885 when they got restricted to only 15 mph through the Thames Tunnel part, I make it about 16 minutes from New Cross to this side of Whitechapel.

Harriet should have heard that train about 3.23. She might well have called that half past, but it wasn't.

Now if she is fixing the time by a train, there can't be too many trains - otherwise I'd say she had the wrong train or perhaps mistook it for a coal train heading for the south coast.

I'm thinking the train was late that night.

[Edited to add] And that link said something about trains from New Cross often being late setting off - some technical reason I didn't understand.

[Abby Normal]

Hey Fish, lech
I just thought of something so obvious it must have been mentioned before but could not find it. If Lech was the killer an obvious reason he would want to use the name Cross when talking to the police(apart from keeping his usual name Lechmere out of the picture) was that his stepdad, the Cross namesake, was a policeman. As in: I couldn't be a killer-My dad was a cop. Someone has definitely brought this up before I'm sure.