Lechmere validity

[Patrick S]

No, it is not clear at all that Mizen said what he said as a personal defense against Pauls statements in Lloyds. If we were to accept that, we would rob him of any possibility of having spoken the truth - regardless of what he says, he is the villain.

Of course it's clear. Far more clear than some far-flung, barely intelligible "Mizen Scam" that's taken the better part of 19,000+ posts for you to explain and defend.

There was no indictment of Lechmere published prior to HIS appearance at the inquest. No one called his actions "a great shame". Of course, that CANNOT be said of Jonas Mizen. As for him being a "villain", of course that's patently absurd. Good people do bad things. Everyone makes mistakes. Sometime you gotta do what you gotta do. Cover your ass......There are myriad cliches that cover such behavior. Pretending that Mizen must either be good and true and honest or a "villain" just adds to the absurdity and provides another dependency upon which this entire house of cards must rest.

That is a VERY flawed way of looking at matters like these. It even has a name: prejudice.

This is, to coin a phrase, beyond laughable. You have said yourself that one MUST VIEW LECHMERE'S ACTIONS WITH THE IDEA THAT HE KILLED Nichols. I'll leave it at that.

And please donīt lie about how I would have reacted with "outrage" when having it suggested that Mizen could have lied. Lies never enhanced a discussion, it only inflames it. Nor has it been suggested by me that the men looked separately for a PC, that too is a lie. What has been said is that we cannot guarantee that they were always close enough together to be within earshot of each other.

It's not a lie to say that you've reacted with outrage when it's been suggested that Mizen could have lied. You cited his Christianity as further proof of his righteousness. If I have the time and inclination I'll find the post(s). Since we're throwing around words like "lies", if you say you didn't post such foolishness, than you are, of course, lying. And I'm sorry if I misunderstood your earlier post: you do not propose they went off to find a PC separately, only that they were physically separated enough to have private conversations and commit scams on police officers at 4am on deserted streets even though Paul and Cross agree they were together. You've now created some distance between the carmen because you must, of course.

Can you expand on why you lie and distort like this, Patrick? Or maybe you want help with that?

I'd love some help with that!

[Fisherman]

I'd love some help with that!

Here it is:

I suggest that you misrepresent what I am saying because you need to create a picture of me as a half-witted person with few insights into the Ripper case. It is a methodology that is very common on net forums, but no less deplorable on account of that.

Trying to claim that I was outraged by the suggestion that Mizen could have lied is equally claiming that I have no idea that the police can de dishonest, and that suits you perfectly.

The problem is that I regularly reveal you for these antics.

Claiming that I have said that the carmen went separate ways to look for a PC is the exact same - it implies that I have no idea whatsoever about what was said in the reports. You now retract it, quite possibly because you realized that it was an impossible thing to suggest.

The problem, once again, is that I do know what was in the reports. I would even go so far as to say that I know it exceptionally well. And I would never claim that the carmen went separate ways precisely because I know what the sources say.

These same sources, however, do NOT and can NOT rule out that one of the carmen MAY have ducked into an adjacent street to look for a PC, and THAt was what I said in response to Jeff Hamms over-belief that the carmen MUST have been close together throughout. That is not in any way a proven thing.

When discussing this with Jeff, I took care to point out that I myself favor the idea that they DID walk together, at least reasonably close, down Bucks Row.

But dis these precautions on my behalf save me from being grossly misrepresented by you? Off course not.

A final example: You dislodge the phrase "one MUST VIEW LECHMERE'S ACTIONS WITH THE IDEA THAT HE KILLED Nichols" from its context, where I will have said something like "to understand what I am saying one must view Lechmereīs actions with the idea that he killed Nichols". And you once more get what you want - the zealot, the fanatic, the half-wit. Congratulations on having pulled another of your stunts of.

As I say, I generally point these things out. The "discussion technique" (in this case a finer phrase for "pack of lies") is an abomination and it serves no good purpose at all. I am therefore disinclined to have any further "discussion" with you, least you better yourself in this department. If not, you will find yourself answered by a reoccurring post where it says that I have grown tired of discussing with you on account of how I perceive that you regularly abuse and misrepresent all I say.

The choice is yours.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman -- Think this through carefully. Maybe even sleep on it before you answer. Because I am puzzled.

WHY is the jury asking this question of Charles Cross? What is the precursor to the question? What events led up to it? Why are they asking it?

A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?

Surely they must have a reason for asking it?

Yet, if you read all the depositions leading up to this question, there appears to be nothing preceding it. Yet SOMETHING must have triggered it; there must be some reason for the doubt/confusion/concern in the jury's mind.

The only possibility, as far as I can tell, is that a story has gone abroad that Mizen continued to act like a human alarm clock after being told that a woman was either dead or dying in Buck's Row.

You must admit: the question didn't simply spring up out of thin air. What is your explanation for it? Perhaps you have a better explanation? Why did the jury chose to raise this strange question at this point in time? Because I am puzzled. The jury has just been told by Mizen that he had been alerted to another constable's presence at the crime scene. Why did they want clarification of this from Cross?

With all good wishes. RP

It takes all of five seconds to provide the answer: Because a juryman was puzzled by how there was a discrepancy between Mizens and Lechmeres statements, and decided to ask about it.

You should not accept as a given that Mizen was told anything at all about the gravity of the situation - we must of course accept that he could well have told the truth about it all, and if he did, all he was told was that there was a woman flat on her back in Bucks Row. Nota bene that the PC is quoted in the Echo (or was it the Star?) as saying that nothing was said about any murder or suicide.
Nor did the carman tell him that HE was the finder, according to Mizen - he was left to believe that the PC was, and accordingly, he had nothing to say when Neil took the stand on the first day of the inquest and claimed that role.

Does it not occur to you how perfectly shaped the message from Lechmere to Mizen was to allow him to pass unsuspected of anything at all? Does it not intrigue you how all of these little pieces are in sync? Maybe you should sleep on that - I actually think that would be more called for than any such thing on my behalf. To be perfectly honest, I don't see why anyone would argue that a jury member would put that question to Lechmere on account of having been told that Mizen knocked people up after having spoken to the carman.

And donīt forget the differences involved. Which message would make you run to Bucks Row:

1. There's a woman in Bucks Row, lying there, and I think she may be dead! We looked at her and she was cold and limp!

or

2. Hello officer! A colleague of yours sent us from Bucks Row, he was dealing with a woman there who was lying flat on her back (wink, wink)

Once we choose to believe every single word Lechmere said and use it to exonerate him, we get a swift process. Whether it is swift justice or not is another matter.

[Fisherman]

No one was discussing anything distasteful..

Merely quoting the name used by a former poster on these boards.
Is it distasteful to call Lechmere "Cross"?



What alternative interpretation can there be that BOTH said they spoke to Mizen.
You may wish to argue that they both lied, that However is not interpretation, it is speculative theory.

And of course you will not discuss when there is no realistic alternative.

It just won't do.


Steve

If you choose to play the game "I meant nothing at all by saying Mr "Stow" ", we have nothing more to say to each other.

The only place where Paul said he spoke to Mizen was the Lloyds interview - and we KNOW that it is not truthful in all parts. At the inquest, it becomes VERY clear that far from being instrumental in the discussion, Paul was not even significant enough for Mizen to remember his involvement.

At the inquest, Paul does NOT say that he spoke to Mizen. He says "we told him", which equals we informed him, quite possibly meaning that the entity of the two carmen passed on a message - meaning that EITHER of them OR BOTH could have done so. I have repeatedly pointed to this very realistic possibility, but some have sealed their ears with wax on those occasions.
If three neighbors get pissed about having a noisy man living in their street and join up and go knocking on that man's door, and if one of the three tells the man "you either shut up or you move", then any of the other two who said NOTHING can answer their wivesī question "Did you tell him off?" with a "Yes, we did!" without lying about it. It is a very common thing to do, and that may well apply here too.

[Harry D]

The most reasonable and innocent explanation I've heard for the "Mizen Scam" is that Mizen was told he was needed in Buck's Row [as there was a drunk/dead woman in the street] and when he arrived to find PC Neil already there, he misremembered what he was told.

No need for duplicity on Lechmere or Mizen's part. Just a good old-fashioned misunderstanding.

[Fisherman]

Toniteīs send-off, with the address Frank van Oploo:

We have discussed whether Lechmere may have been in a "bubble" as he killed Nichols, thus not hearing Paul until late in the process. I think it is a very real possibility.
Today, I saw a Youtube film about a serial killer named Bernard Giles. He was interviewed by Piers Morgan, and when asked about how he could have done what he did to a girl, he asked Morgan in return what HIS passion were. He then described the moment of killing his victims as a sensation where he could "see each atom move".
That, I think, verifies how a killer can be in a bubble when doing away with a victim. Giles was furthermore a sexual predator and a necrophiliac, perhaps further making him useful comparison.

[Fisherman]

The most reasonable and innocent explanation I've heard for the "Mizen Scam" is that Mizen was told he was needed in Buck's Row [as there was a drunk/dead woman in the street] and when he arrived to find PC Neil already there, he misremembered what he was told.

No need for duplicity on Lechmere or Mizen's part. Just a good old-fashioned misunderstanding.

Whats wrong with good old-fashioned understandings, Harry? Apart from how they point to Lechmere as the killer, I mean?

Goodnight.

[rjpalmer]

It takes all of five seconds to provide the answer

That's what I was afraid of. We disagree, Fish, but I feel no need to argue about it.

Rather than taking a mere five seconds, I re-read the whole of the inquest testimony this morning, up to the point where Cross is questioned by the jury.

The reason I don't agree with your interpretation is that there was nothing in Cross's deposition that disagreed with Mizen's statement. There was no real 'contradiction,' he just merely gave his version of finding the body and how he alerted Mizen to the body, without adding the somewhat unimportant detail that another constable was on the scene.

Why unimportant? Because Mizen had already testified that he had been alerted to this fact. There was nothing in Cross's statement that would have "jumped out" at the jury as an obviously lie or contradiction or mystery.

Yet, no sooner does Cross finish his deposition, then the Coroner immediately jumps in:

Replying to the coroner, witness denied having seen Police-constable Neil in Buck's-row.

Boy, the Coroner wasted no time, did he? It certainly doesn't sound to me like the Coroner is doubting Cross's testimony; it sounds to me like the Coroner was waiting for an opening, having already heard the tale of Mizen pounding on doors.

And then, as a kicker, the Jury repeats the question! To me, the question, and the repeating of the question, makes little sense if their intention was to doubt Cross. But it makes a great deal of sense if they doubted Mizen.

But that is merely my interpretation and I gather this has been gone over before at great length, so I'll leave it at that. Have a good evening.

[rjpalmer]

P.S. To be fair, Fish, another person could read the same testimony and conclude that the Coroner and the jury was concerned that Cross and Paul had bolted from Buck's Row before insuring that a constable had secured the scene. So I admit there is room for another interpretation. Which is why we theorists fight it out. Cheers.

[Patrick S]

Here it is:

I suggest that you misrepresent what I am saying because you need to create a picture of me as a half-witted person with few insights into the Ripper case. It is a methodology that is very common on net forums, but no less deplorable on account of that.

Why on earth do I "need to create a picture of (you) as a half-witted person with few insights into the Ripper case"? I've complimented your work and knowledge many times, but of course it can never be enough. I offer my opinions on your theory, on what you've written here, on your documentary. I've never commented on your intelligence (or your nationality or your abilities as a parent or any of the things you've recently bemoaned) and have conceded on many occasions that you are exceptionally well versed in the Ripper case and I've admitted my own knowledge has expanded as a result of your theory and the work you've put into it. I'm not quite sure what you're after, Christer. And I say this sincerely....This is very strange. I don't mean to offend you, but this is behavior one might expect from a fifteen year old child. It's both narcissistic and pitiable.

Trying to claim that I was outraged by the suggestion that Mizen could have lied is equally claiming that I have no idea that the police can de dishonest, and that suits you perfectly.

The problem is that I regularly reveal you for these antics.

Again, this is very strange stuff. You reveal my antics? What do you propose my true agenda is, Christer? I disagree with your theory. You seem to require this be personal. It's not. Frankly, you are irrelevant to my views. The words you write on the boards are. Your documentary. Your theory. Are you suggesting I don't actually disagree to extent that I represent in my posts, but rather that I have some personal bias against you? Again, I apologize for saying this, but I think that you have some need to believe any disagreement is because of WHO YOU ARE rather than the content of your argument. Perhaps it's some soul-crushing arrogance that can only be a burden. I don't envy you. Either way, I'm actually very sorry you feel as you do.

Claiming that I have said that the carmen went separate ways to look for a PC is the exact same - it implies that I have no idea whatsoever about what was said in the reports. You now retract it, quite possibly because you realized that it was an impossible thing to suggest.

Again, this is all quite bizarre. I "retracted it" because I was wrong and I said so. I then clarified my understanding based on a re-reading of what you actually wrote (which was equally absurd and based only on what you must invent for certain aspects of your theory to be true).

The problem, once again, is that I do know what was in the reports. I would even go so far as to say that I know it exceptionally well. And I would never claim that the carmen went separate ways precisely because I know what the sources say.

Conceded. I know you know it quite well. Very well. Exceptionally well. What else can I say to make you feel better about yourself?

These same sources, however, do NOT and can NOT rule out that one of the carmen MAY have ducked into an adjacent street to look for a PC, and THAt was what I said in response to Jeff Hamms over-belief that the carmen MUST have been close together throughout. That is not in any way a proven thing.

You seem to have a habit of imagining things that happened simply because the sources do not say they didn't happen. But... okay. Let's be calm.

When discussing this with Jeff, I took care to point out that I myself favor the idea that they DID walk together, at least reasonably close, down Bucks Row.

Okay.... So, that means we agree... after all this? And we still have the issue of Paul either allowing Cross to lie to Mizen in his presence without correcting him on the spot or mentioning it at the inquest OR allowing Cross to pull Mizen aside for a private chat without thinking it odd or mentioning THAT on the spot or at the inquest.

But dis these precautions on my behalf save me from being grossly misrepresented by you? Off course not.

Grossly misinterpreted? Honestly... I'll say this again: I misread what you wrote and corrected myself in a post before this one.

A final example: You dislodge the phrase "one MUST VIEW LECHMERE'S ACTIONS WITH THE IDEA THAT HE KILLED Nichols" from its context, where I will have said something like "to understand what I am saying one must view Lechmereīs actions with the idea that he killed Nichols". And you once more get what you want - the zealot, the fanatic, the half-wit. Congratulations on having pulled another of your stunts of.

I've not called you a zealot, a fanatic or, again, a half-wit. I've not tried to pull a stunt. I will say I don't see a difference between "one MUST VIEW LECHMERE'S ACTIONS WITH THE IDEA THAT HE KILLED Nichols" and "to understand what I am saying one must view Lechmereīs actions with the idea that he killed Nichols", but it's clear that you do. So... I won't do that again. The point, though, is a simple one: in order for any of this to make sense one must start from a place that has Lechmere killing Nichols. Further, his subsequent actions only makes sense if he killed Nichols AND was a psychopath (as you argue only a psychopath would have killed Nichols, been Jack the Ripper, etc.) taking risks for "the thrill" rather than looking to simply get away with his crime. Apologies, again, but to me this is laughable. It's perfectly plausible to you. And that's fine. Despite this strange post, I've not called you a half-wit or anything of the kind.

As I say, I generally point these things out. The "discussion technique" (in this case a finer phrase for "pack of lies") is an abomination and it serves no good purpose at all. I am therefore disinclined to have any further "discussion" with you, least you better yourself in this department. If not, you will find yourself answered by a reoccurring post where it says that I have grown tired of discussing with you on account of how I perceive that you regularly abuse and misrepresent all I say.

The choice is yours.

You've done all this previously. I've said this before. I don't require responses from you, Christer. If you choose to respond, you can. If you don't, that has not and will not affect me. My posts are intended to refute your theory, not to attack you. I'm concerned that you don't understand the difference and have, seemingly, become convinced that your the victim of some "abomination", a "pack of lies" that's intended to strike at you, rather than your theory. That's not been my intent.

For what they're worth, my responses above bold. I found this post quite bizarre. I won't respond to any further imagined persecution accusations and I'm finished giving you praise and compliments because you fish for them (no pun intended). I've given them genuinely in the past but it's quickly forgotten and you seem to require them far more frequently than I'm inclined to give them. But, if I have something I wish to add to these boards, I'll do so. These types of strange, juvenile rants not withstanding. Best wishes, Christer.

[Elamarna]

If you choose to play the game "I meant nothing at all by saying Mr "Stow" ", we have nothing more to say to each other.

The only place where Paul said he spoke to Mizen was the Lloyds interview - and we KNOW that it is not truthful in all parts. At the inquest, it becomes VERY clear that far from being instrumental in the discussion, Paul was not even significant enough for Mizen to remember his involvement.

At the inquest, Paul does NOT say that he spoke to Mizen. He says "we told him", which equals we informed him, quite possibly meaning that the entity of the two carmen passed on a message - meaning that EITHER of them OR BOTH could have done so. I have repeatedly pointed to this very realistic possibility, but some have sealed their ears with wax on those occasions.
If three neighbors get pissed about having a noisy man living in their street and join up and go knocking on that man's door, and if one of the three tells the man "you either shut up or you move", then any of the other two who said NOTHING can answer their wivesī question "Did you tell him off?" with a "Yes, we did!" without lying about it. It is a very common thing to do, and that may well apply here too.

Firstly no one is playing any Games.
That a major player in the Lechmere theory , uses an alternative name, like Lechmere himself cannot be ignored.
However nothing was said that was "distasteful".

If that means you will not talk to me, I am heartbroken.

How truly selective of you. Indeed Paul's comments at the inquest are limited, all we have is reporting in the 3rd person, no 1st person or verbatim accounts.
IT SEEMS he is not asked for his account of the meeting at all. Odd that, given the Lloyds account.

Mizen ignores Paul's input not because it is insignificant, but probably because it is the reason for Mizen's version of events in the first place.

Of course Lechmere also says Paul spoke to Mizen too , but let's just ignore that because it does not fit the narrative we wish to portray.

You are not interpreting the sources, rather what we have is speculative theorizing, fuelled by bias and a need to sustain the theory conrary to the sources.

The posts display a truly shameful approach to serious historical research.

Steve

[JeffHamm]

I really cannot bring myself to take any interest in this post. I got to the two initial statements where you say that it is clear that I think that the carmen ducked into adjaent streets - which is not true, and which I have told you before that I donīt believe.

Earlier, you said that my arguement that they left together, and went looking for a PC together, meant they were together, and you're reply was "Do we really know that neither man swiftly ducked into an adjacent street to check for a PC, Jeff? " as suggesting a counter example. I then presented my reasons for not thinking that, to which you then replied "In your reply to me you put "Right, Jeff! I first note that you - of course - cannot rule out that one of the carmen DID duck into an adjacent street. You just find it unlikely. Good! We agree. On both counts."

Now, your 2nd reply indicates that you believe this to be possible. You say I cannot rule it out, and you agree that you cannot either. I had, of course, ruled it out and you misread my reply, but that notwithstanding, above you are saying you believe thy did - or at least you believe that is possible. So, again, provide details of this belief. I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm responding to what you are saying. If you don't believe these things, but actually agree with my arguement that there is no evidence of such things, then why make it sound like you are presenting an alternative without clarifying that you don't actually believe it?

You then go on to say that I stated that Lechmere and Paul arrived at Mizen together, and that is not true either. I was not there, and so all I can do is to make as good a guess as possible.

Again, I quote you from above:
"Imagine that the two turned the Bakers Row corner jointly. Imagine that they were talking as they did. Imagine that Mizen noticed them: "There's two guys walking to work together and chatting as they go". Imagine that Lechmere veered off as the only person to speak to Mizen (extremely well reinforced by how Mizen says that one man, not two men, spoke to him). Imagine that Mizen was at the northern side of the corner of Hanbury Street and Bakers Row, and that Paul rounded that corner on the southern side while Lechmere went up to Mizen and spoke to him. Further imagine that the conversation took all of ten seconds , and that Lechmere then joined up with Paul again.
If that was so, why would not Mizen answer the question "there was another man in company with Cross?" with a "Yes"...? What were his alternatives? To say that they were not in company at the very instance when Lechmere spoke to him?"

You describe, with perfect clarity, the two arriving together at PC Mizen. If you don't believe they did, stop saying you do.

I find it hard to discuss with somebody who turns what I say into a mockery that has little or nothing to do with my take on things.

You don't seem to have a consistent take on things. In one reply you say you believe there is some possibility of side trips, and you describe Cross/Lechmere and Paul arriving and meeting PC Mizen together, but when I ask about your beliefs, you next reply says you never said these things.

I'm asking you direct questions on these beliefs to try and understand what it is you do believe, but you won't do that. I'm left to conclude that you believe nothing and everything.

The rest is along the same lines. You say that I find it remarkable that a local resident has connections with the local area...! If you really want to discuss the case, then donīt try to get fresh with me. It will have the exact opposite effect.
Like now.

I do find that remarkable, if in fact you do still believe it. I'm surprised you didn't deny that as well.

Basically, Fisherman, we both know you believe Paul spoke to PC Mizen, so we both know that PC Mizen's "a man" statement cannot be interpreted as PC Mizen only talking to Lechmere/Cross. We both know that because of how strongly you push Paul's Lloyd's article where you've mined the word exactly, and use that when arguing about the time line. And that time line gets really messed up for you if you starting including side trips between the body and PC Mizen, which for some reason you believe may be possible (as per your statement above - you can't rule it out). Well, if they did, your arguements about how long it took them to get from Nichols to PC Mizen needs to account for this possibility and you can't. You also know that if PC Mizen is shown, yet again, to be the less accurate, other aspects of your theory get weakened.

Hence, you won't answer my questions on those points, because you aren't interested in making your ideas clear to others. You use a form of debate and discussion that relies upon smoke and mirrors, you confuse and distract, because when presented clearly it all falls down.

- Jeff

[Harry D]

Whats wrong with good old-fashioned understandings, Harry? Apart from how they point to Lechmere as the killer, I mean?

Goodnight.

Would you not agree that it requires an unbiased approach, Fish? Since neither Lechmere nor Mizen is supported by Paul, it's a case of he said, he said. PC Mizen is not a more reputable witness simply because he was a copper. Policemen are not infallible. They suffer from the same human lapses as anyone else. However, we can reconcile the discrepancy between the two accounts without jumping to accusations of dishonesty.

What purpose did the Mizen scam serve anyway? If Lechmere was that concerned about being grilled, he wouldn't have approached Paul in the first place.

[Abby Normal]

what if paul stood a little ways off when they encountered Mizen? I would think in a situation like this really only one man needs to tell the officer whats going on. seems like lech took the lead to me that's it. am I missing something?

[harry]

Cross was a legal surname,Fisherman.It was the name he was known by nationally.It in no way defines guilt.
Whether the present day knowledge would have solved the Ripper murders is debateable.In the case of Cross,it is equally likely it would have cleared him.
However to even broach the subject,as you have,clearly shows the lack of incriminating evidence in 1888.