Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PC Jonas Mizen

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Absolutly Dusty,

    I find it amusing indeed, that the same posters who always say there was time for another killer before Lechmere, they find it now hard to believe there was also time for a killer after Lechmere and Paul left the place,

    And the very posters who always say the time given by witnesses most not be taken as gospel, on the other hand here, they say that another killer after they left will only have 5 Minutes!!

    Was it not very dark for cherry picking too?


    The Baron




    ​​​​​
    Last edited by The Baron; 04-21-2019, 08:00 PM.

    Comment


    • Admittedly, I do a lot of assuming in regards to Jack the Ripper which goes against the grain of one who usually deals solely in facts, yet...

      Assumption 1: Polly Nichols was killed by Jack the Ripper
      Assumption 2: Polly Nichols was killed where she was found (support for this assumption would tend to be the fact that no drag marks, blood stains were found leading away from the body - even if she was transported to the site by carriage or cart, there would have been pooling other than at the site beneath where her injuries were). This assumption is by no means foolproof but I firmly believe Polly was killed where she lay in Buck's Row mainly because she was still warm (Neil) and Paul states that he may have detected slight breath. Nonetheless, this point must remain an assumption.
      Assumption 3: Polly was killed between 3:15am and 3:40am most likely around 3:20 to 3:30.
      Dr Llewelyn, the attending surgeon states that he estimated time of death at 3:30 (-ish). As above Neil (at 3:45-3:52)(she was warm) and Paul (thought he detected breath at 3:40-3:45). This remains an assumption as it may have taken Polly up to 10-15 minutes to actually die dependent upon whether the throat slashing severed merely the windpipe or the carotid or jugular (if one of the latter, you'd expect a greater pooling of blood which would have alerted Paul - then again, the autopsy noted that clothing absorption was a contributor to lack of blood run-off from the wounds).




      FACT - Polly Nichols last spotted around 2:30am 10 minutes from Buck's Row (by her room-mate Holland).
      Assumption - It is doubtful that Poll went straight to Buck's Row to be there at 2:40am as Neil would have seen her at either 2:45am or 3:15am on his half-hourly patrols.
      FACT - Constable Neil (states that he) patrolled Buck's Row at between 3:15-3:22 ("half an hour before" he "discovers" Polly at between 3:45-3:52).
      MAYBE - Lechmere left home at 3:20 (his usual departure time) - arrives Buck's Row 3:27-3:30. Lechmere left home at 3:30 arrives at Buck's Row 3:37-3:40. Either way with a lazy 7 minute stroll from Doveton St to Buck's Row, this still would leave him a good 5 minutes at the scene before Robert Paul's arrival.
      MAYBE - Polly WAS fallen down drunk in the doorway where she was found (prior to her injuries and death).
      MAYBE - She was killed down the wharf or in the yard behind the locked door prior to being moved to where she was found (highly unlikely).
      MAYBE - Lechmere came across a comatose drunken Polly in the doorway and killed her at 3:30 by strangling her (which wouldn't be difficult as she was drunk and not really resisting.) After dispatching her, he could then slice her abdomen a few times before Paul arrives.
      MAYBE - Lechmere throws the knife over the wall? Down a drain? In his boot?

      Maybe he and Robert Paul perpetrated the act together? Who's to say that Paul and Lechmere's paths hadn't crossed (pardon the pun) beforehand?

      I don't fancy William H Bury as a murderer as he lived at 3 Swaton Rd Bow - a good mile away from any of the murders and had no need to be out and a bout at the times of the murders. Although he killed his missus in Scotland later - it wasn't with the same approach as, for example, Mary Kelly.

      I don't think it was Joseph Barnett, merely because of the fact that he was Kelly's partner and would most probably have killed her well before others if she was the reason for his misogyny. Also, he couldn't be placed on the route each of the murders like Lechmere. Surely, Mary Kelly or one of her friends would have noted bloodstains or unusual behaviour on Barnett's part if he were the killer. Remembering that Kelly was a prostitute and the main topic of conversation in that profession at that time would have been the murders.

      It wasn't Prince Albert - alibi.

      It wasn't Sickert - he was just an avid follower of the morbidly bizarre which he portrayed in his paintings. No reference of him ever being in the area at the times of the C5.

      It wasn't Druitt - he wouldn't have had the state-of-mind to be in Whitechapel in the early hours of the morning - I think he was just a sad sick man who suicided from depression. No evidence of him being at or nearby any crime scene.

      It wasn't Kosminski - I don't think A-a-Ron was mentally stable enough to gain the confidence of prostitutes - it seems he was a paranoid schizophrenic who would run away from rather than sneak up on people. If Kosminski's sickness manifested itself into violent assaults on women - then a) he would have killed his sister rather than merely threaten her (to stay away) or b) this trend would have continued, even in the asylums to which he was sent - at least to some extent - but, no, no assaults, no mention of hearing voices telling him to assault a woman, nothing.

      Tumblety - No, I don't think so. Just a case of mistaken identity on Tumblety's case. He was a doctor but not someone who would slice people up in the street. Just happened to pop down from Birmingham for each murder? On a Thursday night to kill Nichols, Friday for the others? I don't think so. More likely he was a Peaky Blinder!

      By a process of elimination maybe it can be found who it wasn't. There is also a strong possibility that it could have been someone who's name doesn't appear on any list. There is also a stronger possibility and growing stronger with each passing day, that we will never know.

      I know most of this has been covered before (and Mr Christer been abused for it) but feel free to rebuff any of this rambling.
      Last edited by Snidery_Mark; 04-30-2019, 06:13 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Snidery_Mark View Post
        Admittedly, I do a lot of assuming in regards to Jack the Ripper which goes against the grain of one who usually deals solely in facts, yet...

        Assumption 1: Polly Nichols was killed by Jack the Ripper

        That's an assumption a great many people make. I happen to agree. There are some who think that Jack the Ripper never existed, the victims having been killed by several assailants. There are multiple theories and combinations of killers. For example, Jacob Isenschmid killed Nichols, and Chapman. Stride was killed by Michael Kidney. Eddowes was killed by Ostrog or Kosminski or Chapman or Hyams, etc. Kelly was killed by Joseph Barnett.

        I don't agree with this theory. But I think it's as likely to be true as any other theory selecting one killer. But, then, I don't put much stock in any of "suspects". Personally, I think that Millwood, Smith, Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly were all victims of the same man. I think we'll ever know his name. And I don't think his name appears on anyone's suspect list.


        Assumption 2: Polly Nichols was killed where she was found (support for this assumption would tend to be the fact that no drag marks, blood stains were found leading away from the body - even if she was transported to the site by carriage or cart, there would have been pooling other than at the site beneath where her injuries were). This assumption is by no means foolproof but I firmly believe Polly was killed where she lay in Buck's Row mainly because she was still warm (Neil) and Paul states that he may have detected slight breath. Nonetheless, this point must remain an assumption.

        Unless we believe that her killer was lurking nearby when Paul detected that "slight movement" and returned to her body to cut her throat after Paul and Cross departed Buck's Row, then we must believe Paul was mistaken, in that Nichols was nearly decapitated. I agree that it's very unlikely that Nichols was killed elsewhere.

        Assumption 3: Polly was killed between 3:15am and 3:40am most likely around 3:20 to 3:30.
        Dr Llewelyn, the attending surgeon states that he estimated time of death at 3:30 (-ish). As above Neil (at 3:45-3:52)(she was warm) and Paul (thought he detected breath at 3:40-3:45). This remains an assumption as it may have taken Polly up to 10-15 minutes to actually die dependent upon whether the throat slashing severed merely the windpipe or the carotid or jugular (if one of the latter, you'd expect a greater pooling of blood which would have alerted Paul - then again, the autopsy noted that clothing absorption was a contributor to lack of blood run-off from the wounds).

        As you say, this is an assumption based on what we know... which is very little, in fact. We know that Llewellyn said:

        "On reaching Buck's-row I found the deceased woman lying flat on her back in the pathway, her legs extended. I found she was dead, and that she had severe injuries to her throat. Her hands and wrists were cold, but the body and lower extremities were warm. I examined her chest and felt the heart. It was dark at the time. I believe she had not been dead more than half-an-hour. "

        As for the extent of the her injuries, he stated: "This incision completely severs all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision is about eight inches long."


        FACT - Polly Nichols last spotted around 2:30am 10 minutes from Buck's Row (by her room-mate Holland).

        Agreed. Best we can tell, she was seen alive at the corner of Whitechapel Road and Osborne Street at around 230am. She was seen walking in the direction of Buck's Row.

        Assumption - It is doubtful that Poll went straight to Buck's Row to be there at 2:40am as Neil would have seen her at either 2:45am or 3:15am on his half-hourly patrols.

        I happen to agree, but we just don't know. She was, presumably, looking for a client. It's likely she didn't meet one immediately, although she may have conducted a transaction or two before meeting her killer. I think that's unlikely because if she had gotten paid for services rendered she's likely to have gone to find a bed. In any event, It's probable she met her killer on or near Whitechapel Road and went with him to Buck's Row in order to conduct business. In my view, it's hard to put Nichols in Buck's Row before 250am. Just my personal feeling, but I think that's the earliest time that she's likely to have found a customer, agreed to terms, and gone to Buck's Row to complete the transaction.

        FACT - Constable Neil (states that he) patrolled Buck's Row at between 3:15-3:22 ("half an hour before" he "discovers" Polly at between 3:45-3:52).

        Neil states that he walked Buck's Row around 315am. We don't know if he actually did or not. I tend to think he did, as I think the timings do make sense. At least in my view, it seems to make sense that Nichols - in no great hurry and rather drunk - wandered down Whitechapel Road around 230am. It likely took her some time to find a paying customer, albeit one with his own designs. It seems - to me at least - likely she met her killer on Whitechapel Road sometime after 3am. It's possible that Nichols and her killer followed behind Neil down Buck's Row, knowing they'd be undisturbed once he passed through. Thus meaning that she was likely killed between 315am and 330am.

        MAYBE - Lechmere left home at 3:20 (his usual departure time) - arrives Buck's Row 3:27-3:30. Lechmere left home at 3:30 arrives at Buck's Row 3:37-3:40. Either way with a lazy 7 minute stroll from Doveton St to Buck's Row, this still would leave him a good 5 minutes at the scene before Robert Paul's arrival.

        Lechmere stated at the inquest that he left home at "about half-past three". So, I tend to think that's somewhat accurate. But, I find it difficult to put a timer on a man who doesn't know he's being timed.

        MAYBE - Polly WAS fallen down drunk in the doorway where she was found (prior to her injuries and death).

        Possible.

        MAYBE - She was killed down the wharf or in the yard behind the locked door prior to being moved to where she was found (highly unlikely).

        Highly Unlikely.

        MAYBE - Lechmere came across a comatose drunken Polly in the doorway and killed her at 3:30 by strangling her (which wouldn't be difficult as she was drunk and not really resisting.) After dispatching her, he could then slice her abdomen a few times before Paul arrives.

        When does he cut her throat in this scenario? Paul is with him until they depart together and her throat is cut when Neil arrives moments later. So I assume your reference to her dispatch prior to the mutilations is her near decapitation.

        MAYBE - Lechmere throws the knife over the wall? Down a drain? In his boot?

        Which wall?

        I think that there was a drain in Buck's Row. Not a sewer that would take the knife away. No knife was found at the scene.

        So, that leaves the boot (or the coat, etc.). And that's what the theory holds: He kept the knife on his person.


        Maybe he and Robert Paul perpetrated the act together? Who's to say that Paul and Lechmere's paths hadn't crossed (pardon the pun) beforehand?

        If they were in it together, no one but the killers knew Nichols was lying dead in Buck's Row. Why invent the story of their meeting in Buck's Row and inspecting Nichols' body? Why go off looking for a PC?

        I don't fancy William H Bury as a murderer as he lived at 3 Swaton Rd Bow - a good mile away from any of the murders and had no need to be out and a bout at the times of the murders. Although he killed his missus in Scotland later - it wasn't with the same approach as, for example, Mary Kelly.

        I don't fancy Bury, either. For many reasons.

        I don't think it was Joseph Barnett, merely because of the fact that he was Kelly's partner and would most probably have killed her well before others if she was the reason for his misogyny. Also, he couldn't be placed on the route each of the murders like Lechmere. Surely, Mary Kelly or one of her friends would have noted bloodstains or unusual behaviour on Barnett's part if he were the killer. Remembering that Kelly was a prostitute and the main topic of conversation in that profession at that time would have been the murders.

        I don't think it was Barnett, either.

        It wasn't Prince Albert - alibi.

        Not him.

        It wasn't Sickert - he was just an avid follower of the morbidly bizarre which he portrayed in his paintings. No reference of him ever being in the area at the times of the C5.

        Not him.

        It wasn't Druitt - he wouldn't have had the state-of-mind to be in Whitechapel in the early hours of the morning - I think he was just a sad sick man who suicided from depression. No evidence of him being at or nearby any crime scene.

        Can you clarify what you mean by "wouldn't have had the state-of-mind to be in Whitechapel in the early hours of the morning". I don't think it was Druitt. But, I wouldn't be shocked if it were (as I would be if it were, Sickert, Prince Albert, or even Barnett or Bury).

        It wasn't Kosminski - I don't think A-a-Ron was mentally stable enough to gain the confidence of prostitutes - it seems he was a paranoid schizophrenic who would run away from rather than sneak up on people. If Kosminski's sickness manifested itself into violent assaults on women - then a) he would have killed his sister rather than merely threaten her (to stay away) or b) this trend would have continued, even in the asylums to which he was sent - at least to some extent - but, no, no assaults, no mention of hearing voices telling him to assault a woman, nothing.

        Well, I don't fully disagree. But, we do know that Kosminsky was able to speak for himself when arrested for having an un-muzzled dog. So, there were clearly times lucidity. As well, there is some evidence that supports a schizophrenic's ability to do the kinds of things we think the killer must have done. Although, relative to "luring" or "enticing" these women to their deaths, these women needn't be sneaked up upon. They were looking for customers. I give Kosminsky points for having been suspected at the time. I think there is good evidence to support that he was under police observation. He likely fits geographically. I don't feel like he was Jack the Ripper. But, again, I'd not be shocked if he were.

        Tumblety - No, I don't think so. Just a case of mistaken identity on Tumblety's case. He was a doctor but not someone who would slice people up in the street. Just happened to pop down from Birmingham for each murder? On a Thursday night to kill Nichols, Friday for the others? I don't think so. More likely he was a Peaky Blinder!

        I don't believe in Tumblety, either. But, I'd not be shocked. Mildly surprised maybe.

        By a process of elimination maybe it can be found who it wasn't. There is also a strong possibility that it could have been someone who's name doesn't appear on any list. There is also a stronger possibility and growing stronger with each passing day, that we will never know.

        I know most of this has been covered before (and Mr Christer been abused for it) but feel free to rebuff any of this rambling.


        I think a fair reading of the forum may demonstrate that "Mr. Christer" does far more abusing then he's abused.
        Thanks. Responses above bold.

        Comment


        • Hi - I am new to the forum so apologies for any errors or misunderstandings of the case. I just wanted to make a comment about Lechmere using Cross as his surname. Am I right in thinking Lechmere's former step-father (Cross) had been a policeman? If Lechmere was JtR and had killed Polly Nichols he may have used his step-father's name as a sort of security blanket to relate him to the right side of the law in some way ... does that makes sense? If he had have been considered a suspect he could have used the family link to somehow influence the police's perception of him. I hope I'm explaining myself clearly? Looking forward to catching up with the many discussions on here. Thank you. )

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Great Aunt View Post
            Hi - I am new to the forum so apologies for any errors or misunderstandings of the case. I just wanted to make a comment about Lechmere using Cross as his surname. Am I right in thinking Lechmere's former step-father (Cross) had been a policeman? If Lechmere was JtR and had killed Polly Nichols he may have used his step-father's name as a sort of security blanket to relate him to the right side of the law in some way ... does that makes sense? If he had have been considered a suspect he could have used the family link to somehow influence the police's perception of him. I hope I'm explaining myself clearly? Looking forward to catching up with the many discussions on here. Thank you. )
            Hi great
            welcome
            yes absoloutely and or he didn't want his more common used name Lechmere getting out in the public as any kind of involvement in case lest any friends and family put two and two together (if he was guilty of course).

            now the innocent flip side of that, he used the cross name because he was still known primarily as cross at work, and in this context as a witness, he was the carman cross discovered her body on the way to work.

            welcome to the nut house.
            oh and prepared to be flamed for arguing anything on the lech the ripper side. ; )
            Last edited by Abby Normal; 05-03-2019, 04:35 PM.
            "Is all that we see or seem
            but a dream within a dream?"

            -Edgar Allan Poe


            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

            -Frederick G. Abberline

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Great Aunt View Post
              Hi - I am new to the forum so apologies for any errors or misunderstandings of the case. I just wanted to make a comment about Lechmere using Cross as his surname. Am I right in thinking Lechmere's former step-father (Cross) had been a policeman? If Lechmere was JtR and had killed Polly Nichols he may have used his step-father's name as a sort of security blanket to relate him to the right side of the law in some way ... does that makes sense? If he had have been considered a suspect he could have used the family link to somehow influence the police's perception of him. I hope I'm explaining myself clearly? Looking forward to catching up with the many discussions on here. Thank you. )
              Hi GA

              Welcome to the Forum

              The issue with Lechmere using the name Cross as some kind of subterfuge is that at the inquest he gave his correct Christian names and his correct address so he wasn’t really hiding much.

              Dont worry about making errors. Everyone makes them except for me of course.
              Regards

              Herlock






              "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

              Comment


              • see what I mean? : )
                "Is all that we see or seem
                but a dream within a dream?"

                -Edgar Allan Poe


                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                -Frederick G. Abberline

                Comment


                • Hi Abby and Herlock - thanks for welcoming me - and for your insight. Best wishes. Great Aunt.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                    see what I mean? : )

                    Regards

                    Herlock






                    "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Great Aunt View Post
                      Hi Abby and Herlock - thanks for welcoming me - and for your insight. Best wishes. Great Aunt.
                      No problem. Obviously there are two or even three sides to this. I don’t think that Lechmere was the killer but he has to be considered and I could be wrong. Then you have someone like Abby who I think I’d be right in saying that whilst not particularly favouring Lechmere, believes him to be a better suspect than in do. Then of course we have Fish who strongly favours Lechmere as the ripper (and The Torso Murderer of course.)
                      Regards

                      Herlock






                      "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                      Comment


                      • I can see I have plenty of catching up to do... really looking forward to it. Cheers.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Great Aunt View Post
                          I can see I have plenty of catching up to do... really looking forward to it. Cheers.
                          My advice is not to get too bogged down in "suspectology", but to familiarise yourself with the facts of case first. If you approach the case with a particular suspect in mind, it can cloud your perception and lead you down rabbit-holes.

                          Oh, and welcome to the boards
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                            >>The old myth of me "avoiding questions" again, I see! Go ahead, list them, one by one and I will answer them all. It is as rotten a lie today as it was the last time you tried it, so let's quash it once and for all.<<

                            First off you need to take some time out and relax, you are getting upset and when you get upset you tend to get personal, which is not constructive to anyone.

                            It's nobody's fault, but yours that you've avoided the questions. Of course, you are under no obligation to answer them, but people will rightly or wrongly draw conclusions about your aviodance.


                            >>I am waiting! And DON´T tell me that you have already posted the questions - do it again, and do it now. No yellowbelly hiding, please. Put up or shut up. <<

                            This thread is only 4 pages long and the relevant subject matter is only in the last two pages. It doesn't say much for your attitude to research, that you require me to find them for you, still, hang on...

                            ... it took me 35 secs.

                            Post #82:
                            "Simple test, prove, to me, according to Xmere's time source, that there was a long delay in him reaching Buck's Row.

                            Prove to me that Paul was correct in saying it was exactly 3:45 when he entered Bucks Row and that the three policemen were wrong."

                            Post #83: "Above all, prove to me that Xmere and Paul's times were in sync. Without that your story is meaningless."

                            I asked again, in post #101.

                            I notice you cut and pasted my posts in your responses, so you can't claim not to have seen them and yet no answers to those specific questions.
                            have plenty more if you are finally in the mood for answering.

                            ​​​​​​​If you could avoid digressing as you normal do in your answers it would be helpful.


                            >>My money is on you failing to produce any question at all, since you know quite well that I can answer them all.<<

                            Don't take up gambling, you've racked up over $10,000 in virtual debt in your last two posts to me already.
                            If you think that how matters cannot be proven is synonymous to them having been, ehrm, "debunked", you may need to take up another hobby.

                            It takes around 7 minutes to walk from Doveton Street to Browns. Lechemre said he started out at 3.30. He should have been there at 3.37. He was not.

                            These timings are perhaps exact, perhaps not. We cannot tell. But we CAN tell that the timings given are not a point in favor of Lechmere´s innocence. They are instead in line with the suggestion of him having something to hide. As Scobie succinctly put it: He is somebody who is acting suspiciously, and a jury would not like that.

                            Making the very mildly earth-shattering observation that people sometimes get their times wrong does not change the in any way.

                            The same thing goes for Pauls timing. It cannot be proven to be correct in retrospect, but building a case for Lechmere´s innocence on that fact - not to mention speaking about having "debunked" the Lechmere theory - is of course just ridiculous.

                            The timings given could have strengthened the suggestion that Lechmere was innocent. As fate would have it, no such thing happened. Instead, the information we have leave Lechmere totally open to a suggestion of guilt.

                            Do you like it? No.

                            Will you have to learn to live with it? Yes.

                            Do I have any problems answering any of your questions? Please...!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              Hi GA

                              Welcome to the Forum

                              The issue with Lechmere using the name Cross as some kind of subterfuge is that at the inquest he gave his correct Christian names and his correct address so he wasn’t really hiding much.

                              Dont worry about making errors. Everyone makes them except for me of course.
                              If he had called himself Giles Fairbottom and claimed to work for The Drunkenbolt Distillery, adding that he lived at 666 Rotten Row, and if this information was checked out, he would have been caught with his trousers down and he would quite likely have been accused of being the killer.

                              This has been explained a million times but listened to on the fewest of occasions. The myth that if you give some information in a correct fashion then all information given must be correct is peddled over and over again.

                              He COULD NOT lie on all scores in case he was checked out. Please take heed of that!

                              What he COULD do if he wanted to stay incognito to those who read the papers was to alter his name - and altering it to a name that he could explain if he was checked out, would be the logical and clever way to go about it. Then he could also try to obscure his address by withholding it - and since one paper only had an address to him, it would seem the rest of the many papers either:
                              1. Never heard it
                              2. Could not hear what was said (while the Star got it spot on)
                              or
                              3. Got the address but choose to keep it out of their reporting.

                              There are no other possible explanations if we rule out the aliens from outer space explanations. Which explanation do you favour, Herlock?

                              Comment


                              • The point that I would make is that in none of the scenarios does it point to Lechmere giving the name Cross with the purpose avoiding the police or making himself less of a suspect. He might of course have done this to avoid the name Lechmere being associated with the case in the newspapers. So I’d say that the sinister explanation is untenable but the non-sinister one is a very reasonable possibility.
                                Regards

                                Herlock






                                "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X