Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PC Jonas Mizen

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

  • Patrick S
    started a topic PC Jonas Mizen

    PC Jonas Mizen

    We know from “Fisherman”, et al that much of their “evidence” against Lechmere is based upon the testimony of PC Jonas Mizen, the presumptive victim of now infamous “Mizen Scam”. Yet, when one analyzes the information it’s clear that there was a “Mizen Scam” and it was Jonas Mizen or orchestrated it, and he did so for very simply and understandable reasons.

    What do we know of PC Mizen’s behavior upon being informed that “a woman was lying in Buck’s Row”? Both Lechmere and Paul offer similar descriptions of Mizen’s reaction upon hearing this information. Lechmere stated that he replied, “Alright” and walked on. Paul states, “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…”

    Both Lechmere and Paul stated that they informed PC Mizen that the woman in Buck’s Row may be dead. Lechmere stated in his inquest testimony that he told Mizen, “She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." Paul in his statement to ‘Lloyd’s Weekly’ flatly stated, “I had told him the woman was dead.” Mizen, however, contended that he was told only that a woman was “lying in Buck’s Row”, stating that he was told, “You are wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row, where a woman was lying.”

    This brings us to another major inconsistency. Mizen claimed at the inquest that he was told that he was “wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row”. It’s been suggested that such a statement may have led Mizen to assume that Lechmere and Paul had been interrogated and released by a policeman already on the scene in Buck’s Row. Thus, he (Mizen) let the men go on their way, forgoing questioning them further, or searching either man. However, neither Paul nor Lechmere agree with Mizen on this point. Lechmere testified after Mizen, on day two of the Nichols’ inquest. He was asked directly if he’d told Mizen another policeman was awaiting him in Buck’s Row. This exchange was published in Telegraph on Tuesday, September 4:

    A Juryman: “Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's Row?”

    Witness: “No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's Row.”

    Robert Paul’s statement in Lloyd’s makes no mention of a policeman waiting in Buck’s Row.

    “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. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see.”

    Paul makes it clear that no policeman was present in Buck’s Row. In fact, he stresses that he believes that the police had not been doing their jobs effectively inferring that the police had not been adequately patrolling the area.

    The available information tells us that PC Jonas Mizen was likely not forthcoming about his meeting with Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul on the morning of the Nichols’ murder. Further, Mizen did not relate even a mention of his meeting Lechmere and Paul to PC Neil at the scene. He also did not inform his superiors – it seems – as PC Neil testified on Saturday, September 1, that he and he alone discovered “Polly” Nichols body. PC Mizen was not called to give testimony in the inquest until Monday, September 3, the day after Robert Paul’s interview appeared in ‘Lloyd’s Weekly’. Paul stated in his interview that he “saw (a policeman) in Church Row, just at the top of Buck's Row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come….” It is reasonable to assume that Paul’s statement either compelled Mizen to share his encounter with Paul and the heretofore unnamed “other man” in Bakers Row, or Mizen had been asked about Paul’s statement by his superiors. Duty rosters would easily have identified the PC on duty “in Church Row, just at the top of Buck's Row” at 3:45am on August 31.

    Based upon what we know, it’s obvious that PC Mizen was not truthful about many details of what occurred in Baker’s Row. His reasons for being less than honest is understandable, albeit not the sinister reasons many researches may hope for. It’s clear the Mizen assumed that the two men he’d met in Baker’s Row had simply come across a woman lying drunk on the pavement. He continued “calling people up” for work. He reacted with no urgency whatsoever. He asked the men no questions. He didn’t ask their names. He was in no great hurry to report to Buck’s Row. Stating that he was told a PC was already on the scene absolves him somewhat. Stating that he not told the woman was dead, makes his lack of action somewhat more understandable. Mizen’s untruthful statements were made to protect his job and his reputation. It’s clear to anyone willing to see the obvious.

  • GUT
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    hi gut and strange

    more than likely if innocent, and lech not wanting any kind of recognition, it had to do with not getting involved or his family involved and the hassles that went with it.

    the killer obviously knew he gotten away without being seen and lech only confirms it. whats lech got to fear from the killer-reprisal for not seeing or hearing anything? cmon.
    Whilst I agree it was more likely about involvement, if it was fear, it’s not a question of what the killer though, it knew, but what Cross feared, rightly or not.

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    Also, it's just occurred to me, Lechmere had a wife and several daughters, under those circumstances, I'd be worried about attracting attention to my family.

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    >>whats lech got to fear from the killer-reprisal for not seeing or hearing anything? cmon.<<

    Well, first of all, I don't believe Lechmere was trying to hide anything, but if we are talking about fear, then unemotional reasoning doesn't come into it, fear drives irrational behaviour. This was an early murder nobody could profile the killer's reasoning or actions at that stage.

    >>more than likely if innocent, and lech not wanting any kind of recognition, it had to do with not getting involved or his family involved and the hassles that went with it.<<

    I'd tend to agree with that option.

    On the other hand creating a false name, if guilty, serves no real purpose other than drawing attention to oneself.
    Last edited by drstrange169; 05-09-2019, 10:06 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by GUT View Post

    And how would the killer know if the police were holding back information.
    hi gut and strange

    more than likely if innocent, and lech not wanting any kind of recognition, it had to do with not getting involved or his family involved and the hassles that went with it.

    the killer obviously knew he gotten away without being seen and lech only confirms it. whats lech got to fear from the killer-reprisal for not seeing or hearing anything? cmon.

    Leave a comment:


  • GUT
    replied
    Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
    >>Actually its not. I had brought this up before and was reminded that lech hadnt seen the killer or even heard him walking away. The killer had nothing to fear from lech and so vice versus.<<

    Actually it is, because in that scenario it would be Lechmere's fear of what the killer might do, not what the killer would actually do.
    And how would the killer know if the police were holding back information.

    Leave a comment:


  • GUT
    replied
    Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
    >>Actually its not. I had brought this up before and was reminded that lech hadnt seen the killer or even heard him walking away. The killer had nothing to fear from lech and so vice versus.<<

    Actually it is, because in that scenario it would be Lechmere's fear of what the killer might do, not what the killer would actually do.
    Precisely

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    >>Actually its not. I had brought this up before and was reminded that lech hadnt seen the killer or even heard him walking away. The killer had nothing to fear from lech and so vice versus.<<

    Actually it is, because in that scenario it would be Lechmere's fear of what the killer might do, not what the killer would actually do.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

    And just so it's clear, I am NOT saying it was Christer who argued this point.
    I bet Fish was annoyed he didn't think of it first, though

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    Originally posted by Patrick S View Post

    I don't even want to try and understand the logic behind that, Steve.

    Logic is hardly the word to use.
    It's the inevitable result of being convinced that one man is guilty. Everything must point towards guilt, even when I does not.
    It's a form of intellectual bankruptcy .

    And just so it's clear, I am NOT saying it was Christer who argued this point.


    Steve

    Leave a comment:


  • Patrick S
    replied
    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

    Of course it's not Patrick.
    I have been told by Lechmere theorists that if it is him, it merely shows that when Involved in any incident, he used the name "Cross".

    You may not believe it, but apparently of he used the name Cross, at Pickfords, it actually strengths the case against Him.

    It's truly unbelievable.


    Steve
    I don't even want to try and understand the logic behind that, Steve.

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    Originally posted by Patrick S View Post

    Thanks, Sam. This has been published here before. Perhaps by you (apologies for not recalling). I also did not recall if his name was given as Lechmere or Cross in news reports. This is yet another giant crack in the Lechmere the Ripper facade.
    Of course it's not Patrick.
    I have been told by Lechmere theorists that if it is him, it merely shows that when Involved in any incident, he used the name "Cross".

    You may not believe it, but apparently of he used the name Cross, at Pickfords, it actually strengths the case against Him.

    It's truly unbelievable.


    Steve

    Leave a comment:


  • Patrick S
    replied
    Originally posted by Harry D View Post

    You can't win.

    Lechmere did everything expected of an innocent witness. He approached the first passer-by, he searched for a policeman, he attended the inquest, he volunteered his name, address & place of business.

    That's because he was GUILTY and had to do everything an innocent man would.

    You're never going to win against this kind of fallacious, ass-backwards logic.
    Of course, you're right, Harry. But... Damned if I cannot stop myself from trying...

    Leave a comment:


  • Patrick S
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    There's also this report of a fatal accident in the Islington Gazette of 29th December 1876:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Islington Gazette.png
Views:	50
Size:	55.1 KB
ID:	708896

    It's conceivable that this was a different person, but how many carmen called "Charles Cross" were on the Pickfords payroll? What we do know is that Charles Cross/Lechmere worked for Pickfords for a very long time, so it's eminently possible that this is him. If so, then it seems that he called himself Charles Cross several years before 1888, and that this was at least the name by which he was known at work.

    (Credit to Gary Barnett for finding the newspaper article from which this snippet was taken.)
    Thanks, Sam. This has been published here before. Perhaps by you (apologies for not recalling). I also did not recall if his name was given as Lechmere or Cross in news reports. This is yet another giant crack in the Lechmere the Ripper facade.

    Leave a comment:


  • Patrick S
    replied
    Originally posted by Great Aunt View Post
    Thanks for your thoughts - much appreciated. I understand that there is no record of any personal info shared between Lechmere and Paul - I would just have assumed it was a normal thing for 2 strangers to chat - after witnessing such an event as they had - and as Lechmere was (if the murderer) attempting innocence and normality.

    Again, I feel as if this is more of what's always required if we're to believe in Cross/Lechmere as Nichols' killer. Behavior that simply makes no sense if viewed through the prism of his having killed Nichols but is perfectly natural for a man who was what he was believed to have been for 100+ years: a man who found a woman lying on the pavement on his way to work.

    So, we have Cross/Lechmere having killed Nichols, opting to stay put and await an unknown man's arrival on the scene. Holmgren contends - despite Andy Griffiths clearly stating that Cross/Lechmere COULD NOT have run and had NO CHOICE but to remain on the spot - that he could have simply walked away but chose to stay and await Paul. He then doesn't allow Paul to walk past. Paul tells us that he tried to do just that, only to have Cross/Lechmere "touch his shoulder" and tells him of the woman lying on the pavement. He then goes with Paul to inspect the body. After doing so he then, rather than walk in another direction and parting company with Paul, CHOOSES to accompany him to find a PC. And on that brief walk he tells Paul personal details: his place of employment, perhaps that he lives in Doveton Street? Again, we're asked to believe that this is an attempt at feigned "normality" or "innocence", rather than concluding the more simple, obvious explanation: that he WAS innocent and his behavior was reflective of that.


    Regarding Lechmere possibly not wanting his name in the press - as a working class man with a family it could have been to his advantage - given him some local celebrity status - or even an opportunity to sell his story - so I can't see him trying to avoid publicity (if he was an innocent witness).

    You can't see him trying to avoid publicity if were innocent? Well. Just as we don't know if gave ONLY the name Cross or, if he did, why he did so, I'd suggest that we know nothing of his character. We don't know if was a private man.. just as we don't know that Robert Paul was a police hating "big upper", as it seems we must believe in order for him to become the killer's unwitting dupe and liar... making Mizen the only one telling the truth about what he was told in Baker's Row.

    But, let's play this out. You think it's likely that he wanted publicity if were "innocent", but you believe him a likely serial killer... So you don't necessarily see him as being "innocent". Yet, he subjected himself, again and again, to the police, and to publicity: rather than walk away he, stops Paul; he reports what he found to the police (Mizen) within minutes of finding Nichols' body; he appears voluntarily at the inquest. So, "if he was an innocent witness" you "can't see him trying to avoid publicity". Well. It seems he did NOT try to avoid publicity. At all.

    His testimony was published in multiple papers. Did he not court further publicity in that he gave his real name and address? Do we really believe that no one who knew him was aware that he was - as we know from census records - at one time in his life called "Cross"? Do we know if he was known by that name? If he'd worked at Pickford's for more than 20 years by 1888 that puts his time for beginning his work there only a few years after he was recorded in census records as "Cross". But, back to the main point and it's a simple one: he reported what he found to Paul, reported it to the police (Mizen), appeared voluntarily at the inquest. He gave his actual address. He gave his actual employer. He appeared in person. And we're to believe the idea that gave the name "Cross" rather than "Lechmere" is damning (even if we don't know that's the case)? Arrested under the name "Lechmere" or "Cross", what difference? Tried under the name "Lechmere"? Executed under that name? What does it matter? The same can be said for "publicity", can it not? You have him wanting it if he's innocent... and giving his home address and employer. Clearly he was not running from reporters or publicity.



    Just my thoughts on how I believe people of today might act - maybe Victorian Whitechapel residents wouldn't have behaved so. Thanks for your encouragement regarding my ongoing research.
    I don't think human behavior has changed all the much in 130 years. I contend that, usually, the obvious conclusions are likely the most sound. After all, had Cross/Lechmere walked on from Buck's Row we'd be calling him guilty. Had he NOT appeared at the inquest we'd be hearing how that is indicative of guilt. So, there's really no way out for him with cabal that's decided he's myriad East End serial killers, is there?

    In all my examinations of the events in Buck's Row, Baker's Row, at the Nichols' inquest, I don't see behavior from Cross/Lechmere that indicates that he was anything other than what he's always been thought to have been... i.e. a witness and NOT Jack the Ripper. One MUST begin with the idea that he killed Nichols and then inventing reasons that behavior you'd expect from someone who simply found a body on his way to work is somehow sinister and dishonest. I think it's clear they've taken this "false name" issue and invented "scams" and "dupes" and "big upping" and "anti-police" sentiment to fit up Cross/Lechmere and it simply hasn't held water. Of course, if this name issue had led to records of violent behavior, incarceration, diagnoses of mental illness, confinement to an asylum, strange behavior, ANYTHING at all... I think more may have been recruited to this theory. But that hasn't happened. Instead we've found he worked decades at Pickford's. He had 11 children. He was married 50 years. He opened a shop in retirement. He died at around 70, in 1920, and left his wife a tidy sum. Of course, when this is brought up, Holmgren sneers that it's absurd to suggest these things mean that Cross/Lechmere was NOT Jack the Ripper, the Torso Killer, et al. And then that his MAYBE giving the name Cross and ONLY the name Cross (which we simply don't know) is somehow damning evidence that that he WAS virtually every late Victorian serial killer we know of.....

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X