The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Patrick S]

Yes MS, he is far from the near perfect policeman that some like to portray him as.

That is not to say he was a bad officer, just an ordinary one, who probably made as many mistakes as any other.


Steve

Mizen is a key to Christer's theory. I've posted several treatises on this subject in the past but it bears repeating, I think.

What do we actually know about Mizen's behavior upon being told this information? Let's listen to Robert Paul (Lloyds; September 2, 1888):

"I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one 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, 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."

So we know that Paul was less than impressed with Mizen's actions. He calls it a "great shame" that he continued knocking people up. What else to know? Well, we know that Mizen did not detain the men. He did not ask them to return to Bucks Row and show him what they'd seen. He did not even ask the men their names. In fact, Cross summed up their encounter with Mizen at the inquest: "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on.”

So both men tell us Mizen was less than concerned. In that he didn't take names, didn't ask the men ANY follow-up questions it would seem that Mizen didn't take the information all that seriously.

[Elamarna]

I also think Mizen was remiss in not, at least, taking down the names of the two men who approached him (Cross & Paul). I acknowledge that it is easy to be wise after the event.

Yes MS, he is far from the near perfect policeman that some like to portray him as.

That is not to say he was a bad officer, just an ordinary one, who probably made as many mistakes as any other.


Steve

[MysterySinger]

I also think Mizen was remiss in not, at least, taking down the names of the two men who approached him (Cross & Paul). I acknowledge that it is easy to be wise after the event.

[Elamarna]

Hi All

The plain truth is that the testimony of Mizen is central to much of the case made against Lechmere:

1. The so called Mizen Scam

2. The reports of flowing blood, used as part of the blood evidence,

However last weekend the reliability and viability of part of that testimony/statements was called into serious question.

If indeed that holds up, and I do say If, as no rebuttal has been made at this point, then the whole of the Mizen testimony should be looked at to see if it stands up, taking the later apparent dependencies into account.


While I at present do not accept the testimony of Mizen re the blood as being reliable; I have not discounted the blood evidence!
Neil is still there and it is not as straight forward as was the blood oozing or flowing.


This was carefully looked before the posts were made last weekend.
I am willing to accept I may be wrong, and if so will admit it, if evidence of such is offered.
However at present no such argument as been made by anybody.



Steve

[drstrange169]

Christer has indeed cut and run, because you are all, what he has called "a band of mindless thugs".

[Patrick S]

Is that the same James Green by the way who worked for Mr Bailey at 23 Hanbury Street and was called to see the body of Annie Chapman at the rear of number 29?

No. Different guy. But, that didn't prevent a theory popping up around there being two James Greens a few years ago.

[John G]

Is that the same James Green by the way who worked for Mr Bailey at 23 Hanbury Street and was called to see the body of Annie Chapman at the rear of number 29?

Hello,

No.

[Elamarna]

No Fish recently. Is he on vacation? Did someone make him angry?

On vacation on another site I think you will find.

Its one way of not answering questions or addressing serious issues, I guess.


Steve

[MysterySinger]

I see. So the men gathered around the dead body communicated in sign language and whispers so as not to wake up the neighbors? I think it's safe to say there was some level of noise on the street that would have awoken a "light sleeper", lying just a few feet from the dead body. It's not credible to argue otherwise.

I do want to point to James Green. However, I don't actually believe he was Jack the Ripper. Rather, as I stated earlier, he serves as a useful device in demonstrating how simple a thing it can be to associate an individual's connection to even the most tangential aspect of the murders, one particular murder (Lechmere, Richardson) a relationship with a victim (Hutchinson, Barnett), some associated procedural task (Mann), or someone of celebrity who lived in that time and place (Prince Albert Victor, Walter Sickert, Lewis Carrol, Francis Thompson).

The creators of "theories" like these can always credibly argue that we cannot get any of these "suspects off of the hook". Consequently, no matter how many dependencies, hidden motivations, acts of providence, Mizen scams, and happy accidents we must assume took place in order to make any of the above names (and many others) into Jack the Ripper, one can always argue that it cannot be PROVEN that (insert name here) WAS NOT a serial killer.

The point is simple: James Green makes a far better "suspect" than Charles Lechmere, and I think there is an almost zero percent chance that he killed Nichols or was Jack the Ripper.

The evidence tells us that Nichols' throat had not been cut when Lechmere and Paul were in Buck's Row because their testimony tells us that they observed no blood, saw no wounds. We even have reason to suspect that Nichols may have been barely alive when the "carmen" came along. Paul tells us he detected a slight movement. We know Green was - physically - mere feet from the spot where Nichols was killed. His mother's testimony tells us he WAS there. We have Paul telling us he helped to "pull down" Nichols' "disarranged" clothing. Yet we have Neil telling us that the victim's clothing was "disarranged" when he came along a few moments later. Based on this testimony it is a near certainty that someone strangled Nichols unconscious, hid close by as Paul and Lechmere inspected his victim, emerged when they left, cut Nichols throat, "disarranged" her clothing in order to perform mutilations to her abdomen, and simply disappeared, unseen. I think it's reasonable to assume that the killer was able to retreat to a place in which he felt quite safe between the time Lechmere and Paul left Buck's Row and the time Neil entered, a span of time which could not have been more than five, seven minutes. We know that Green's home was - quite literally - located UPON the spot where Nichols died.

We also know that Green was quick to clean the pavement upon the removal of Nichols' body. Why? What does this act tell us? Did he not want his mother to see evidence of his crime? After sating his desire to kill did he not wish to be reminded of what he'd done? Did he just want to be "involved" in some way? To flaunt his crime and his ability to avoid detection? We know that Green was a psychopath because he likely killed Nichols and was Jack the Ripper (an argument you've used to explain the Mizen scam and Lechmere's risky behavior in Buck's Row, Baker's Row, at the inquest). Thus, I suggest that he WAS, in fact, inserting himself in order to taunt the police. Not only had he killed the woman in front of his own home, he'd taken the time to clean up his mess in full view of the everyone.

You once wrote on this forum that we should view the crimes with eye "Lechmere being guilty". If we view the crimes with "an eye on (Green) being guilty", if we consider his home was quite literally, at the center of the murder radius, and if Nichols WAS his first victim she was killed literally on his doorstep, and that the "blood evidence" tells us that Nichols' wounds were still "oozing" and "running" when Neil came along, I suggest that we've got a strong prima facie case against James Green, AKA Jack the Ripper.

Is that the same James Green by the way who worked for Mr Bailey at 23 Hanbury Street and was called to see the body of Annie Chapman at the rear of number 29?

[MysterySinger]

Anyway I'm sure Paul would have mentioned if he'd seen Lech with a shiny black bag.

[Patrick S]

No Fish recently. Is he on vacation? Did someone make him angry?

[Patrick S]

Hello Patrick,

>> We have Paul telling us he helped to "pull down" Nichols' "disarranged" clothing. Yet we have Neil telling us that the victim's clothing was "disarranged" when he came along a few moments later.<<

Also, intriguingly, Mrs Nichols legs are described by Llewellyn differently from how Xmere and Paul encountered them. Which is why I believe somebody moved or nudged the body in some way.


>>Based on this testimony it is a near certainty that someone strangled Nichols unconscious, hid close by as Paul and Lechmere inspected his victim, emerged when they left, cut Nichols throat, "disarranged" her clothing in order to perform mutilations to her abdomen, and simply disappeared, unseen.<<

I'm not convinced that actually happened but it does explain all the inconsistencies, so it can't be dismissed.

I'm fairly convinced it didn't happen. But, it COULD HAVE. And, it serves the purpose: to demonstrate how easily we can fit things to our chosen suspects should the inclination present itself.

[Patrick S]

I very much doubt that, at this stage, anything can be absolutely proven as regards the Whitechapel murders!

Agreed.

[Elamarna]

Hello Steve,


>>The major issues with the abdomen wounds are that from the somewhat limited reports we have there is no indication at all of any major blood vessels being cut.<<

According to Baxter, Llewellyn, at least initially, thought a wound to the abdomen was sufficient to cause instant death. To date, I've not been able to discover what such wound would be. Have you come across anything?

No absolutely nothing. To achieve close to what Llewellyn may have said, it would need either a severing of the Aorta or Vena Cava. Alternatively there may have been damage to the heart itself. There is no much else that would cause instant death.

However nowhere is this recorded and indeed the descriptions of the wounds, while less than 100% clear, give the Impression is that while extremely violent and that the guts may or may not have been protruding at site there was no damage to said guts or at least nothing worth reporting.

This suggests that there may not have been extensive internal damage. Llewellyn reported much blood in the cavity, however this could have been the result of gravity flow from the many minor vessels which must have been cut, when she was moved to the mortuary.

It does seem that Llewellyn changed his view by the way.

It is indeed somewhat of a mystery why Llewellyn suggested suchabdomen wounds as reported would cause instant death and it must therefore be questioned.


Steve

[drstrange169]

Hello Steve,


>>The major issues with the abdomen wounds are that from the somewhat limited reports we have there is no indication at all of any major blood vessels being cut.<<

According to Baxter, Llewellyn, at least initially, thought a wound to the abdomen was sufficient to cause instant death. To date, I've not been able to discover what such wound would be. Have you come across anything?