Lechmere validity

[Abby Normal]

Oh Yea! Paul moves him around a bit no doubt but does semantics really matter? When you get "found" "next" to a dead whore people are going to be asking you to explain yourself. Parse those words anyway you like, Scotland Yard is going to have questions, and well they should.

I was not trying to prove him the Ripper (or prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt) I was just saying from the police's point of view he is a serious 'person of interest' and because of the where and when of his appearance he is always going to be a suspect.

Say it any way you like: next/beside/road/footpath/around/in the neighborhood/in the vicinity/called to/was approached by/came upon/found by, it don't matter he was close enough for some serious questioning; he was close to a dead whore, not a place to be "discovered".

You sound like a lawyer looking to distract a jury with an argument over diction.

hi AP
I always phrase it as-Seen near the body of a murder victim before raising any alarm. Its as innocuous as possible but yet raises what I think is important-before raising any alarm.

and I always try to put myself in the shoes of the witnesses (or suspects if you like). Imagine your in pauls shoes as he enters a darkened Bucks row and sees the figure of a man near a recently murdered victim. it gives me shivers thinking about it-creepy and yes-suspicious. at least to me anyway.

[Abby Normal]

Me a wet blanket

If you argued this all out and conclude that Lechmere lied to Mizen (and said there was a PC on Buck Row,) you don't gain much. Lechmere's entire motivation may have been nothing more than a simple blow off, making sure PC Mizen doesn't say "show me"?

Maybe he actually just wanted to go to work.

And then denying it at inquest really doesn't amount to much; his alternative would have been to tell the truth: "I lied because I didn't want to get involved."

Concluding Lechmere lied doesn't really mean too much; but finding him next to the body never goes away.

Hi AP
bingo and bingo!

[APerno]

Depends on you definition of “finding” and “beside”.

you mean how he had to stop Paul, was him being found.

and the middle of the road to the footpath as beside.

Oh Yea! Paul moves him around a bit no doubt but does semantics really matter? When you get "found" "next" to a dead whore people are going to be asking you to explain yourself. Parse those words anyway you like, Scotland Yard is going to have questions, and well they should.

I was not trying to prove him the Ripper (or prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt) I was just saying from the police's point of view he is a serious 'person of interest' and because of the where and when of his appearance he is always going to be a suspect.

Say it any way you like: next/beside/road/footpath/around/in the neighborhood/in the vicinity/called to/was approached by/came upon/found by, it don't matter he was close enough for some serious questioning; he was close to a dead whore, not a place to be "discovered".

You sound like a lawyer looking to distract a jury with an argument over diction.

[Abby Normal]

Lloyds is the 2nd. Paul makes no mention in that of saying or hearing about another police officer. Indeed, he makes it clear that he believes there has been no one in Bucks Row for some considerable time, i think it is inconceivable that he supported Mizens view of the account, given those comments.

If another officer not wanting Mizen was not said, it is hard for Paul to refute it in that article on 2nd , before Mizen first gives his version at the inquest on Monday 3rd.

At the inquest Paul is never asked about it Abby, at least it is not reported in the reports of his testimony. Again we should not that the later dates are not as well covered, and the reporting is not as detailed, at least not for Paul on 17th .

Maybe it would be more correct to say that they agree about what was said.

Given that this issue had been raised at the inquest on the 3rd, it is a little odd that he is apparently not asked his view of what was said.
However, we should note that Paul had been questioned by the police before he appears at the inquest, no records remain of this, but Paul gave another interview to Lloyds weekly 30th Sept, when he complained about his treatment.

The argument being presented by the Lechmere theorists is that Paul, does not talk and is out of earshot, which it seems apparently he was not based on an objective reading of the sources.

Steve

thanks el

so then the only thing we have on record of paul saying he spoke himself (none of this "we" stuff)directly to Mizen is his highly boastful Lloyds article-where he tries to act the hero and belittle the police- the subsequent reports are obviously cribbing from the Lloyds article.

and given his apparent negative attitude towards the police its no wonder hes not going to contradict Lech.

[GUT]

Me a wet blanket

If you argued this all out and conclude that Lechmere lied to Mizen (and said there was a PC on Buck Row,) you don't gain much. Lechmere's entire motivation may have been nothing more than a simple blow off, making sure PC Mizen doesn't say "show me"?

Maybe he actually just wanted to go to work.

And then denying it at inquest really doesn't amount to much; his alternative would have been to tell the truth: "I lied because I didn't want to get involved."

Concluding Lechmere lied doesn't really mean too much; but finding him next to the body never goes away.

Depends on you definition of “finding” and “beside”.

you mean how he had to stop Paul, was him being found.

and the middle of the road to the footpath as beside.

[JeffHamm]

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

Yes, and appreciated. I tend to consult Evan and Skinner's book for testimony, which reproduces The Times when official documents are not available. I realize wording and reporting style differ between papers though, but for the general gist it seems reliable. When things get down to specific wording a single source is not best practice of course. From the testimony as written though, with Cross/Lechmere indicating both he and Paul spoke and told PC Mizen what they found, and with PC Mizen leaving out Paul, I get the impression that Cross/Lechmere, being the one to first discover the body, did most of the talking and Paul probably threw in agreements and when Cross/Lechmere said he thought she was drunk or dead, Paul could have just said "I think she's dead", type thing. So it appears that Paul's contribution was more confirming, and minor additions rather than giving an entirely separate statement at the time.

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

Oh nice. Look forward to it.

- Jeff

I see you've covered all that a few posts above, and the accounts in the other papers look exactly like the impression I was getting from the accounts, so that's nice to see.

[APerno]

Me a wet blanket

If you argued this all out and conclude that Lechmere lied to Mizen (and said there was a PC on Buck Row,) you don't gain much. Lechmere's entire motivation may have been nothing more than a simple blow off, making sure PC Mizen doesn't say "show me"?

Maybe he actually just wanted to go to work.

And then denying it at inquest really doesn't amount to much; his alternative would have been to tell the truth: "I lied because I didn't want to get involved."

Concluding Lechmere lied doesn't really mean too much; but finding him next to the body never goes away.

[Elamarna]

thanks el
when what date was the Lloyds article?

"Paul and Lech agree about what was not said to Mizen."

when and where does Paul specifically refute mizens claim that he was told that he was wanted by a policeman?

Lloyds is the 2nd. Paul makes no mention in that of saying or hearing about another police officer. Indeed, he makes it clear that he believes there has been no one in Bucks Row for some considerable time, i think it is inconceivable that he supported Mizens view of the account, given those comments.

If another officer not wanting Mizen was not said, it is hard for Paul to refute it in that article on 2nd , before Mizen first gives his version at the inquest on Monday 3rd.

At the inquest Paul is never asked about it Abby, at least it is not reported in the reports of his testimony. Again we should not that the later dates are not as well covered, and the reporting is not as detailed, at least not for Paul on 17th .

Maybe it would be more correct to say that they agree about what was said.

Given that this issue had been raised at the inquest on the 3rd, it is a little odd that he is apparently not asked his view of what was said.
However, we should note that Paul had been questioned by the police before he appears at the inquest, no records remain of this, but Paul gave another interview to Lloyds weekly 30th Sept, when he complained about his treatment.

The argument being presented by the Lechmere theorists is that Paul, does not talk and is out of earshot, which it seems apparently he was not based on an objective reading of the sources.

Steve

[Abby Normal]

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.





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.

thanks el
when what date was the Lloyds article?

"Paul and Lech agree about what was not said to Mizen."

when and where does Paul specifically refute mizens claim that he was told that he was wanted by a policeman?

[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

[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.

[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

[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?

[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.

[Joshua Rogan]

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