Lechmere validity

[JeffHamm]

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?

Well, PC Mizen describes Cross/Lechmere as being in company, so together. Paul testisifies he spoke with PC Mizen, which isn't mentioned in PC Mizen's testimony. Paul and Cross/Lechmere also indicate that after examining Nichols they decided the best thing was to go find a PC, and when they left they didn't go running or anything, they just contined on their way to work. That indicates they were both unaware of the extent of her injuries. So when they spoke to PC Mizen they are not going to be frantic, but rather conveying what the thought they found, a woman laying in the street, whom they thought might be dead, but that belief was probably not as strong at the time they reported it as it would become after it was confirmed she was dead, and worse, mutilated. So, at the time there's no reason for separation as the incident they would be reporting would be coming across as more likely just someone passed out drunk. Hence, PC Mizen probably finished knocking up a few more places before heading off to Buck's Row - the situation did not appear to be the emergency that it was. Both the increase in the belief she was dead, and the down playing by PC Mizen, is what happens with human memory as more facts come to light. Paul and Cross/Lechmere both increase their presentation and memory of how sure they were she was dead, and PC Mizen downplays the importance (and inserts the idea of being need by a PC because when he got there he was needed by PC Neil to go get the ambulance). His downplaying justifies why he kept knocking up, but recognizing the seriousness of the incident once he gets there also means he deny's that, probably because it was one or two more residences.

And Cross/Lechmere, being the one who drew Paul into the whole scenario, means he's the one who is still primarily responsible for reporting the incident to the PC, so he would be the one to speak first. It's all very mundane and innocent type behaviour. And, with the lack of any testimony indicating that PC Mizen spoke to the men separately (Fisherman's descriptions in previous posts describe a situation where Paul doesn't even speak to PC Mizen, but we know that's wrong because of Paul's testimony, and we know Fisherman himself doesn't believe that because the Lloyd's article, if anything, indicates it's Paul who did all the talking).

So, while one could say it is possible the men were spoken to separately, there is nothing in the evidence to support that claim, and it is unnecessary to presume it given the evidence we do have, which places them together, does not produce any issues when taken at face value. I guess what's missing (and I don't mean this disparagingly) is any evidence to back it up, and nothing incoherent in the evidence that gets resolved by inserting it as an unsupported assumption.

- Jeff

[Elamarna]

Jeff,

I think that post gives a very fair analysis of what may have occurred.

There is however one slight mistake, Paul Does Not specifically say in his Testimony that he spoke to Mizen, he is reported in the accounts has talking in the plural, "we" and "they". Unfortunately there are no verbatim reports of his testimony.

However, he does specifically say he did speak to Mizen in the Lloyds article, which I constantly argue should only be accepted, when it is corroborated by either Lechmere or Mizen, and here it is corroborated by Lechmere, in his inquests Testimony.

It is therefore clear that both Carmen are claiming that both of them spoke to Mizen, to counter this one requires more than Mizen, simply not mentioning any interaction with Paul, he does not specifically say Paul does not talk, such must be noted.

To argue that Paul must be out of earshot, is speculation at best, with the sole objective of making the "SCAM" work.

While agreeing with the basic idea, of why Mizen may have reacted the way he did, not realizing it was an emergency until after the event, I propose a further twist in my upcoming work, one which does not make Mizen a bad man or bad Police officer, just someone trying to protect himself.

Steve

[JeffHamm]

Jeff,

I think that post gives a very fair analysis of what may have occurred.

There is however one slight mistake, Paul Does Not specifically say in his Testimony that he spoke to Mizen, he is reported in the accounts has talking in the plural, "we" and "they". Unfortunately there are no verbatim reports of his testimony.

However, he does specifically say he did speak to Mizen in the Lloyds article, which I constantly argue should only be accepted, when it is corroborated by either Lechmere or Mizen, and here it is corroborated by Lechmere, in his inquests Testimony.

It is therefore clear that both Carmen are claiming that both of them spoke to Mizen, to counter this one requires more than Mizen, simply not mentioning any interaction with Paul, he does not specifically say Paul does not talk, such must be noted.

To argue that Paul must be out of earshot, is speculation at best, with the sole objective of making the "SCAM" work.

While agreeing with the basic idea, of why Mizen may have reacted the way he did, not realizing it was an emergency until after the event, I propose a further twist in my upcoming work, one which does not make Mizen a bad man or bad Police officer, just someone trying to protect himself.

Steve

Hi Steve,

Oh, in Evans and Skinner, where they present the inquest as reported in The Times it reads under Paul's testimony:
By the coroner - The morning was a rather chilly one. Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen.

Although Paul's testimony does not include that detail of speaking to PC Mizen, the coroner's summing of his testimony seems to indicate that Paul testified that he did speak to PC Mizen, though I suppose it could be read otherwise. It seems to me that if only Cross/Lechmere spoke, then the coroner would not include that point in Paul's bit, or would have refered to "and the other man told him what they saw". The use of they implies, to me, both spoke. But as for the Lloyd's article, yes, while I suspect the specific details and extent of the information that is attributed to Paul in the Lloyds article are suspect, I think the general gist that he spoke to the PC and agreed with Cross/Lechmere that he thought the woman might be dead, is probably correct.

As for PC Mizen's response, I'm sure there are other possible explanations. I don't think he was a bad fellow, nor a bad police officer. Rather, I suspect he was under the impression that there was someone drunk in the street, so he would ensure these people were up and off to work then go deal with it. The impression one gets from both Paul and Cross/Lechmere's actions and behaviour is that they aren't in any panic, so they definately don't think they've stumbled on a murder, but rather figure she's passed out, though possibly dead (either from drink or natural causes). That lack of fuss would not raise the emergency flag when they spoke to PC Mizen in my mind. But, again, that's just one possible explanation. Will be interested in hearing yours.

- Jeff

[Harry D]

To argue that Paul must be out of earshot, is speculation at best, with the sole objective of making the "SCAM" work.trying to protect himself.

I still don't see how this scam is supposed to work. Presumably, Lechmere hoodwinked Mizen because he didn't want to be searched or questioned by the police, otherwise they might find the murder weapon/blood stains or discover who he was. Therefore, Mizen is led to believe they've already been cleared and lets them on their merry way.

First of all, if Lechmere HAD still been carrying a knife or had any stains on him, I seriously doubt he would've stopped to approach Paul and take him to find a PC in the first place. He would've done a bunk, or agreed to split up and make his escape. Doesn't make sense. That's notwithstanding the fact for a man wishing to conceal his identity, he voluntarily attended the inquest and provided his name, address and place of business.

[JeffHamm]

I still don't see how this scam is supposed to work. Presumably, Lechmere hoodwinked Mizen because he didn't want to be searched or questioned by the police, otherwise they might find the murder weapon/blood stains or discover who he was. Therefore, Mizen is led to believe they've already been cleared and lets them on their merry way.

First of all, if Lechmere HAD still been carrying a knife or had any stains on him, I seriously doubt he would've stopped to approach Paul and take him to find a PC in the first place. He would've done a bunk, or agreed to split up and make his escape. Doesn't make sense. That's notwithstanding the fact for a man wishing to conceal his identity, he voluntarily attended the inquest and provided his name, address and place of business.

Hi Harry D,

The "scam" idea also creates more problems of validity for the whole Lechmere/Cross is guilty. If he actually lied and said to PC Mizen that he was wanted by a PC, then if Paul's in company with him, he's now got a witness to that lie who could contradict him. He might bank on Paul saying nothing and hope Paul thinks he's just trying to get PC Mizen to go more quickly to the aid of the woman. But, once that lie was uncovered, as it did come up in the inquest, if Paul backed PC Mizen up then Cross/Lechmere will have some explaining to do. And, given that Paul also thought Nichols might be dead, there was no need for any sort of "scam", they just have to tell PC Mizen that the woman was dead and he would go - as he did say she was dead or drunk, and he also testifies that Paul said he thought she was dead. Simply adding "he was wanted by a PC" doesn't really increase PC Mizen's need to go, it's a pretty limp scam really. But inserting that lie would make the whole "scam" just serve to increase attention on him if it were uncovered (as he would have thought likely given that when they left there was no PC in Buck's Row, and two a guilty Cross/Lechmere would know what is going to be found). The point of the "scam" was the exact opposite, though, to divert suspicion from him yet it clearly is going to do exactly the opposite once revealed. So the theory actually contradicts itself, and in a way that is painfully obvious that it would. And given that Cross/Lechmere has identified himself, and given details of residence and place of work, etc, he's clearly not worried about the police finding him, which he would be if guilty.

Now, if Paul is not close enough to hear, despite the testimony that he spoke to PC Mizen (at least according to Cross/Lechmere) that might mitigate some of the risk since now Paul couldn't back up PC Mizen. Hence Fisherman's focus on redefining what walking together and being in company means (Oxford might need to put out a new dictionary soon for all the new definitions that seem to arise out of this Lechmere/Cross theory actually). The scam, is, well, a scam. It's an overly complex and unnecessary complication when viewed at from the evidence to theory, but it's a necessary aspect if start from the theory and need to make the evidence fit it. The former is how we try to track down truth, the latter is how we make up stories.

- Jeff

[Harry D]

It's a case built on half-truths and faulty suppositions. It's no different than 99% of the suspect-based theories, only Lechmere has the advantage of being at the scene of the crime. The discrepancies regarding 'Cross' and the "Mizen Scam" have been totally overblown, as they need to be to construct an argument for Lechmere's guilt. Cross was his stepfather's surname, he may have used it in a formal capacity (see the incident in 1876), and it's worthless to lie about your surname and nothing else. Mizen was told he was needed in Buck's Row. When he found PC Neil at the scene, in hindsight he believed Lechmere had told him he was wanted by another policeman. A perfectly rational, human explanation that doesn't assume any dishonesty on the part of Lechmere or Mizen.

[Patrick S]

Well, PC Mizen describes Cross/Lechmere as being in company, so together. Paul testisifies he spoke with PC Mizen, which isn't mentioned in PC Mizen's testimony. Paul and Cross/Lechmere also indicate that after examining Nichols they decided the best thing was to go find a PC, and when they left they didn't go running or anything, they just contined on their way to work. That indicates they were both unaware of the extent of her injuries. So when they spoke to PC Mizen they are not going to be frantic, but rather conveying what the thought they found, a woman laying in the street, whom they thought might be dead, but that belief was probably not as strong at the time they reported it as it would become after it was confirmed she was dead, and worse, mutilated. So, at the time there's no reason for separation as the incident they would be reporting would be coming across as more likely just someone passed out drunk. Hence, PC Mizen probably finished knocking up a few more places before heading off to Buck's Row - the situation did not appear to be the emergency that it was. Both the increase in the belief she was dead, and the down playing by PC Mizen, is what happens with human memory as more facts come to light. Paul and Cross/Lechmere both increase their presentation and memory of how sure they were she was dead, and PC Mizen downplays the importance (and inserts the idea of being need by a PC because when he got there he was needed by PC Neil to go get the ambulance). His downplaying justifies why he kept knocking up, but recognizing the seriousness of the incident once he gets there also means he deny's that, probably because it was one or two more residences.

And Cross/Lechmere, being the one who drew Paul into the whole scenario, means he's the one who is still primarily responsible for reporting the incident to the PC, so he would be the one to speak first. It's all very mundane and innocent type behaviour. And, with the lack of any testimony indicating that PC Mizen spoke to the men separately (Fisherman's descriptions in previous posts describe a situation where Paul doesn't even speak to PC Mizen, but we know that's wrong because of Paul's testimony, and we know Fisherman himself doesn't believe that because the Lloyd's article, if anything, indicates it's Paul who did all the talking).

So, while one could say it is possible the men were spoken to separately, there is nothing in the evidence to support that claim, and it is unnecessary to presume it given the evidence we do have, which places them together, does not produce any issues when taken at face value. I guess what's missing (and I don't mean this disparagingly) is any evidence to back it up, and nothing incoherent in the evidence that gets resolved by inserting it as an unsupported assumption.

- Jeff

Good summation. A common sense interpretation of what we know based on the sources. Nice work and thanks.

[Patrick S]

Jeff,


To argue that Paul must be out of earshot, is speculation at best, with the sole objective of making the "SCAM" work.

Exactly right. Of course this is primary reason I call the Mizen Scam "laughable". There are so many "devices" for lack of a better term required for it's existence.

[Patrick S]

Hi Harry D,

The "scam" idea also creates more problems of validity for the whole Lechmere/Cross is guilty. If he actually lied and said to PC Mizen that he was wanted by a PC, then if Paul's in company with him, he's now got a witness to that lie who could contradict him. He might bank on Paul saying nothing and hope Paul thinks he's just trying to get PC Mizen to go more quickly to the aid of the woman. But, once that lie was uncovered, as it did come up in the inquest, if Paul backed PC Mizen up then Cross/Lechmere will have some explaining to do. And, given that Paul also thought Nichols might be dead, there was no need for any sort of "scam", they just have to tell PC Mizen that the woman was dead and he would go - as he did say she was dead or drunk, and he also testifies that Paul said he thought she was dead. Simply adding "he was wanted by a PC" doesn't really increase PC Mizen's need to go, it's a pretty limp scam really. But inserting that lie would make the whole "scam" just serve to increase attention on him if it were uncovered (as he would have thought likely given that when they left there was no PC in Buck's Row, and two a guilty Cross/Lechmere would know what is going to be found). The point of the "scam" was the exact opposite, though, to divert suspicion from him yet it clearly is going to do exactly the opposite once revealed. So the theory actually contradicts itself, and in a way that is painfully obvious that it would. And given that Cross/Lechmere has identified himself, and given details of residence and place of work, etc, he's clearly not worried about the police finding him, which he would be if guilty.

Now, if Paul is not close enough to hear, despite the testimony that he spoke to PC Mizen (at least according to Cross/Lechmere) that might mitigate some of the risk since now Paul couldn't back up PC Mizen. Hence Fisherman's focus on redefining what walking together and being in company means (Oxford might need to put out a new dictionary soon for all the new definitions that seem to arise out of this Lechmere/Cross theory actually). The scam, is, well, a scam. It's an overly complex and unnecessary complication when viewed at from the evidence to theory, but it's a necessary aspect if start from the theory and need to make the evidence fit it. The former is how we try to track down truth, the latter is how we make up stories.

- Jeff

The whole "scam" is non-intuitive. As you say, "it's pretty limp". It's not something anyone trying to achieve the objective (getting away with Nichols' murder) would conceive, much less execute. Further, in order to arrive at the point where this "scam" is deemed necessary (according to Christer, et al), Cross must make several decisions that do not serve to achieve his objective, either: 1. Waiting for Paul to arrive rather than walking way; 2. Telling Cross about the presence of Nichols' body in Buck's Row even as he (Paul) tried to walk past him; 3. Going with Paul to find a PC rather than simply walking in another direction. And then, having somehow achieved escape... duping Paul, "scamming" Mizen (who didn't ask his name or for any information at all that may be used to identify him), his next decision was to appear at the inquest voluntarily because of Paul's Lloyd's article, which refers to him only as "a man", but to mitigate against danger by giving the name "Cross" rather than "Lechmere" but giving his genuine address and place of employment. We've been told alternately that Cross had "no choice" (by Griffiths in the documentary - he's quite clear saying that he COULD NOT have walked on because someone else was in Buck's Row and that flight was further made impossible leaving Cross NO CHOICE but to stay and bluff it out) and that he "chose" this convoluted path of bluffs and scams because he liked the action and excitement. In short, there IS no evidence to support the theory. There is invention and assumption, but even those aren't enough to make it plausible. Of course, the same can be said of many other theories floating around. I think the frustration of those peddling this one is that their "candidate" hasn't been elevated as the "prime suspect" or the "likely killer". And I think that's done a dis-service to the work they've done.

[Joshua Rogan]

Where would the scam be if Mizen had arrived at the body before Neil?

[Abby Normal]

Jeff,

I think that post gives a very fair analysis of what may have occurred.

There is however one slight mistake, Paul Does Not specifically say in his Testimony that he spoke to Mizen, he is reported in the accounts has talking in the plural, "we" and "they". Unfortunately there are no verbatim reports of his testimony.

However, he does specifically say he did speak to Mizen in the Lloyds article, which I constantly argue should only be accepted, when it is corroborated by either Lechmere or Mizen, and here it is corroborated by Lechmere, in his inquests Testimony.

It is therefore clear that both Carmen are claiming that both of them spoke to Mizen, to counter this one requires more than Mizen, simply not mentioning any interaction with Paul, he does not specifically say Paul does not talk, such must be noted.

To argue that Paul must be out of earshot, is speculation at best, with the sole objective of making the "SCAM" work.

While agreeing with the basic idea, of why Mizen may have reacted the way he did, not realizing it was an emergency until after the event, I propose a further twist in my upcoming work, one which does not make Mizen a bad man or bad Police officer, just someone trying to protect himself.

Steve

hi el and jeff
thanks! Evrything ive seen so far seems to indicate that one man did the talking to mizen-lech. Mizen said one man spoke to him.
so ergo-two men together approached him-and one man did the talking.

where is anything that specifically says that paul spoke to mizen? I don't see it.

lech is the initial witness, he found the body first-he seems to be taking the lead. theyre late for work, its not a complicated situation to describe-it takes lech one or two short sentences and hes off. the whole situation seems to indicate only one man needs to say anything. and Paul is the passive one throughout.
Lech was the one who initially approached Paul, he seems to be taking the lead. hes the one who makes the statement that this whole discrepancy is about.

theyre walking together, they see Mizen, lech approaches mizen tells him--- as paul is standing a little ways off, anxious to get to work and be on his way. maybe hes out of earshot, maybe not. and to me its kind of a moot point anyway-even if paul heard lech say hes wanted buy another police officer-why would he give a ****.


also, mizens continued knocking up wasn't a bunch more residences-he says he finished knocking up one more place-probably the one he was about to do when he was interrupted.

and yet all this and people are going to say its probable that mizen is lying about the whole thing? why mizen and not lech? Isnt the most reasonable conclusion is that its a simple misunderstanding? to argue mizen was lying and lech telling the truth is exactly the same as those arguing vice versus.

[Abby Normal]

Where would the scam be if Mizen had arrived at the body before Neil?

I would imagine lech might have some splainen to do?

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Oh, in Evans and Skinner, where they present the inquest as reported in The Times it reads under Paul's testimony:
By the coroner - The morning was a rather chilly one. Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen.

Although Paul's testimony does not include that detail of speaking to PC Mizen, the coroner's summing of his testimony seems to indicate that Paul testified that he did speak to PC Mizen, though I suppose it could be read otherwise. It seems to me that if only Cross/Lechmere spoke, then the coroner would not include that point in Paul's bit, or would have refered to "and the other man told him what they saw". The use of they implies, to me, both spoke. But as for the Lloyd's article, yes, while I suspect the specific details and extent of the information that is attributed to Paul in the Lloyds article are suspect, I think the general gist that he spoke to the PC and agreed with Cross/Lechmere that he thought the woman might be dead, is probably correct.

I agree with that Jeff, just wanted to point out the possible issue with Paul's testimony.

As for PC Mizen's response, I'm sure there are other possible explanations. I don't think he was a bad fellow, nor a bad police officer. Rather, I suspect he was under the impression that there was someone drunk in the street, so he would ensure these people were up and off to work then go deal with it. The impression one gets from both Paul and Cross/Lechmere's actions and behaviour is that they aren't in any panic, so they definately don't think they've stumbled on a murder, but rather figure she's passed out, though possibly dead (either from drink or natural causes). That lack of fuss would not raise the emergency flag when they spoke to PC Mizen in my mind. But, again, that's just one possible explanation. Will be interested in hearing yours.

- Jeff

My view is not that different Jeff, he certainly does not see it as an emergency, i go further than that, and his response is produced because of the evidence of Neil on 1st and the Lloyds article on 2nd.
The book should be out in the next couple of weeks.



Steve

[Elamarna]

hi el and jeff
thanks! Evrything ive seen so far seems to indicate that one man did the talking to mizen-lech. Mizen said one man spoke to him.
so ergo-two men together approached him-and one man did the talking.

where is anything that specifically says that paul spoke to mizen? I don't see it.

Hi Abby,

the Lloyds account for a start:

"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"

We know there are issues with this account in general, and my rule is to only accept it when it is corroborated by either Lechmere or Mizen.

So what does Lechmere say?

Echo 3rd September

""There's a woman lying in Buck's-row. She looks to me as though she was dead, or drunk." The other
man then said, "I believe she is dead." I don't know who this man was; he was a stranger, but appeared
to me to be a carman. From the time I left my home I did not see anyone until I saw the man who
overtook me in Buck's-row."


IPN 8th September

"and in Baker's-row they saw Police-constable Mizen. They told him that a
woman was lying in Buck's-row, witness adding, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk." The other
man observed, "I think she's dead.""



Star 3rd September

"They went up Baker's-row, and saw the last witness. Witness said to him, "There's a woman lying down in Buck'srow
on the broad of her back. I think she's dead or drunk." The other man said, "I believe she's dead."



The Times 4th September

"They went to Baker's-row, saw the last witness, and
told him there was a woman lying down in Buck's-row on the broad of her back. Witness also said he
believed she was dead or drunk, while the other man stated he believed her to be dead"

It is of note that reports which don't give such detailed info such as the Evening Post say:

"They went away and met a constable coming out of Montague-street, and told him
what they had seen, remarking that either the woman was dead or insensibly drunk."

That is very in keeping with the Non Verbatim accounts we have of Paul's actual testimony, and may suggest that he said much the same, giving details of comments to Mizen by both himself & Lechmere .

I hope that makes it clear, that both men claim they spoke to Mizen.

lech is the initial witness, he found the body first-he seems to be taking the lead. theyre late for work, its not a complicated situation to describe-it takes lech one or two short sentences and hes off. the whole situation seems to indicate only one man needs to say anything. and Paul is the passive one throughout.
Lech was the one who initially approached Paul, he seems to be taking the lead. hes the one who makes the statement that this whole discrepancy is about.

theyre walking together, they see Mizen, lech approaches mizen tells him--- as paul is standing a little ways off, anxious to get to work and be on his way. maybe hes out of earshot, maybe not. and to me its kind of a moot point anyway-even if paul heard lech say hes wanted buy another police officer-why would he give a ****.


also, mizens continued knocking up wasn't a bunch more residences-he says he finished knocking up one more place-probably the one he was about to do when he was interrupted.

and yet all this and people are going to say its probable that mizen is lying about the whole thing? why mizen and not lech? Isnt the most reasonable conclusion is that its a simple misunderstanding? to argue mizen was lying and lech telling the truth is exactly the same as those arguing vice versus.

Simply because Abby, Two men, who do not know each other, Paul and Lech agree about what was not said to Mizen. it's not Mizen V Lech!

Mizen's wording is very clever, i believe it was used intentionally by him, once he realised he had made a mistake that was about to be exposed(Sorry, book makes it clear)
by saying the words he did, he could always say it was a misunderstanding, which i suggest was the view taken officially at the time.

[FrankO]

Tonite´s 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.

Even though it's not going to change my views much (as Giles took his victims to remote places where he had all the time he wished for with his victims and Lechmere would not have had this luxury), thanks for sharing this example, Christer, much appreciated!

All the best,
Frank