Lechmere The Psychopath

[Patrick S]

You must gauge how long time it takes for a man to say:

"Excuse me officer, but there is a woman lying flat on her back up there, in Bucks Row. Thereīs a PC up there who sent us to fetch help."

Timing it, it takes less than ten seconds, Mizens answer included.

Congratulations on getting the timing of something we've no evidence ever occurred. Paul, Mizen, Cross.....all are silent when it comes to a private conversation - however brief - between Cross and Mizen while Paul stares off into space, alone in the dark.

I know that the men walked together after the discussion too. What I am suggesting is that Lechmere sent Paul ahead, spoke to Mizen and then caught up with Paul some small way down Hanbury Street. I never suggested they left each other in Bakers Row.

Who mentions anything about Cross sending Paul ahead? Ahead where? So, now we have the two men agreeing upon an objective over Nichols body: to find a PC. Now, they've achieved that objective and Cross tells Paul to go on ahead? What reason did Cross give that convinced him to go along with that AND never mention the fact that it happened?

You imply that it would be strange if Mizen did not mention Paul being left out. But look at what happened - up until he was asked by the coroner about Paul, he said NOTHING about him. He said that a man - who he ID:d as Lechmere - came up to him and spoke to him, and he says not a iot about Paul.

So very clearly, he did not find the latters role in any way interesting or decisive enough to be worth mentioning!

When the coroner asked him if there was not another man in company with Lechmere, Mizen said yes, there was.

Speaking about remarkable, if Lechmere AND Paul BOTH walked up to Mizen and BOTH spoke to him, how is it not VERY remarkable that the PC left one of the two men out in his testimony...?

He left him out? Really? I thought Mizen said, "yes" there was another man in that Cross' company. Further, I hope others see how self-serving is your attitude toward the contemporary reportage. Paul barely mentions Cross in Lloyd's and its either Paul's self-aggrandizement or the reporter adding spice. Mizen's testimony is reprinted verbatim by a skilled reporter avoiding any confusion between the two carmen, clearly identifying Cross as the man in charge while meek, easily manipulated Paul is led around by manipulated by our master criminal. Pick and choose. What's good, what's bad. What's right, what's wrong. Thus, always with this theory.

I've read the same news accounts as you have. What's clear is that the scenario you outline only occurs to an individual looking to interpret things - albeit in an incredibly convoluted fashion - in a way that casts suspicion on your man. And even then it's beyond reason.

Responses above bold.

I'll say that this has been a very productive debate. I believe your answers have done more to damage your theory than any questions that have been put to you here. If one is paying attention the mountains of assumption, very specific interpretation of event, absolute trust in one source, distrust of others required to subscribe to this thing is obvious on this thread alone.

[Patrick S]

No, you can't be alleging that Mizen was remiss in his duties. Like you say, he only failed to take down the details of the two witnesses and continued knocking up while his presence was required elsewhere. Obviously, poor PC Mizen was yet another victim to the fiendish machinations of the sinister Lechmere!

Thank you, Harry. As has been stated, Mizen must be honest and true. A victim of the "Mizen Scam" in order for this theory to continue limping along. It's hard to keep the cast of characters and their motivations straight. But, it goes something like this based on what's been presented here over the years:

Mizen: Good. Honest. Christian. Impeccable record.

Paul: Publicity seeker. Holds a grudge against the police (for some unknown offense). Easily duped. Became the unwitting pawn of Cross, allowing him to get away with (a lifetime of) murder.

Cross: Jack the Ripper, The Torso Killer, many, many, many more.

[Fisherman]

well he also went and got help immediately and wasn't seen by another witness near the body before he raised the alarm. Cant believe you left that one out! LOL.
but your other points are valid of course too.

Itīs old age, Abby - itīs beginning to wear me down. On the other ninetysix occasions I answered this same question, I believe I mentioned these factors too...

[Fisherman]

What I think of the Lloyd's article is irrelevant. I'll say that I think that it likely reflects Paul's perception of what happened accurately enough. Mizen was told Nichols was dead (or likely dead). Paul was upset by Mizen's reaction once told the information. What is relevant is that we must rely upon more assumptions and (sorry to use the term again) invention, in this case that Paul or the reporter spiced things up for better reading (I'd note this is something new as previously you have stated a belief that Paul was a self-promoter who likely held a grudge against the police, thus explaining his harsh criticism of Mizen).

I have mentioned all factors before, the self-aggrandation on Pauls behalf, his seemingly being negative to the police and the possibility that the reporter spiced up his article.
Iīve been around long enough to have mentioned them on numerous occasions, even.

What you think of the Lloyds article is not irrelevant, since it helps make your stance more clear. Much as there are bits in it that seem to be real enough, it nevertheless paints a picture of Paul as the sole hero of the piece and the more active carman. That, very apparently, was never true.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: But you see most do not see him like that at all and so do not approach the subject the way you do.

And that is the very point. Before I pointed out the so called Mizen scam, no other poster/researcher/author had seen itīs potential explosive power.
Thatīs what this whole discussion is about, to a large extent: Maybe what seems evident is not as evident as it seems. Maybe there is information hidden that we have all overlooked for years.
It is not hard at all to do what you do - take a look at the evidence and fail to see more than one possibe interpretation, feeling sure that you have decoded it correctly. It is the easiest thing in the wolrd to say "if it walks like a duck..." - but sometimes, we are dealing with birds of prey instead.

While this last paragraph attempts to paint you as using a fair approach it is clear that you do not.

If there has been an unfair approach anywhere in our discussion, it belongs to you who confodently claimed that you have data to show that Paul overheard what Mizen was told by Lechmere. There is no such data and you know it.
That is what I interpret as being unfair and misleading. And it all owes to your disability/unwilingness to see beyond the surface.

[Fisherman]

No, you can't be alleging that Mizen was remiss in his duties. Like you say, he only failed to take down the details of the two witnesses and continued knocking up while his presence was required elsewhere. Obviously, poor PC Mizen was yet another victim to the fiendish machinations of the sinister Lechmere!

But he was not dutybound to take the names of the carmen if he had been told that another PC was in place in Bucks Row, having the errand in hand.

Did you forget that? Again?

And he WAS dutybound to knock people up, and if he only knew that the woman was on her back, there was no reason to suspect that an extreme haste was necessary. So finishing the errand that he had on hand (which couod have taken all of five seconds) was not wrong either.

Monty - the master of all things police (or so Iīm told) has looked at Mizens behaviour and found it totally in line with the rules he was supposed to play by.

Are you proclaiming yourself the better judge of this? I donīt think so.

[Fisherman]

Responses above bold.

I'll say that this has been a very productive debate. I believe your answers have done more to damage your theory than any questions that have been put to you here. If one is paying attention the mountains of assumption, very specific interpretation of event, absolute trust in one source, distrust of others required to subscribe to this thing is obvious on this thread alone.

I think you are once again wrong - but I know you like to try and give the imnpression that you - or your "side" - has won the debate, and that I have caused irreparable damage to my theory.

That is of course not true.

One example is how you now use Mizens reply to the coroner as an example of how he mentioned Paul. Of course, everybody who has read the material will know that Mizen did not mention Paul on his own account - he had to be reminded about him, before he acknowledged his presence.

And if you donīt think that is extremely unexpected with a scenario where BOTH carmen approached Mizen jointly and where BOTH carmen spoke to Mizen, then to my mind, you are not making much sense at all.

In fact, I think your answer has utterly destroyed your credibility for many a year to come, and...

No wait - that is your way of debating, not mine. Oooops. Sorry!

[Fisherman]

Thank you, Harry. As has been stated, Mizen must be honest and true. A victim of the "Mizen Scam" in order for this theory to continue limping along. It's hard to keep the cast of characters and their motivations straight. But, it goes something like this based on what's been presented here over the years:

Mizen: Good. Honest. Christian. Impeccable record.

Paul: Publicity seeker. Holds a grudge against the police (for some unknown offense). Easily duped. Became the unwitting pawn of Cross, allowing him to get away with (a lifetime of) murder.

Cross: Jack the Ripper, The Torso Killer, many, many, many more.

The same old, same old. Itīs a perfect parallel to how you faultily claimed that I would have said that Lechmere was a psychopath, when I only suggested that he MAY have been and that IF he was, his behaviour makes sense.

Now you claim that Mizen MUST be good and honest. But I am not that onesided, Patrick. I am saying that there is every reason to look at the case from the angle of a PC with a very good service record quite possibly being a good and honest PC.

That is not to say that we have it on record that he must have been. But if I canīt suggest that Lechmere may have been a psychopath, then how is it that you are allowed to suggest that Mizen was a rotten egg...?

We really need to look at matters like these more closely. Today, we are having a meta-debate, where I myself seem to be the target of the criticism instead of the theory itself at times. And much of what I say is twisted beyond recognition. It is unfair, thatīs all I am saying.

[Fisherman]

Thank you, Harry. As has been stated, Mizen must be honest and true. A victim of the "Mizen Scam" in order for this theory to continue limping along. It's hard to keep the cast of characters and their motivations straight. But, it goes something like this based on what's been presented here over the years:

Mizen: Good. Honest. Christian. Impeccable record.

Paul: Publicity seeker. Holds a grudge against the police (for some unknown offense). Easily duped. Became the unwitting pawn of Cross, allowing him to get away with (a lifetime of) murder.

Cross: Jack the Ripper, The Torso Killer, many, many, many more.

Oh, and one more thing - please point me to where I have stated that Lechmere was probably Jack the Ripper (easy), the torso killer (fairly easy) and the killer of "many, many, many more" (impossible).

Letīs not drop all decency, Patrick. You are welcome to disagree, and you are welcome to soundly criticize my theory. You are not equally welcome to present things on my behalf that I have not claimed.

We have managed to debate for some time now. A prerequisite for that ( as far as I am concerned) is that we are honest. If you honestly think I am a complete idiot, then in a sense, it is fair enough to say so. Not nice, but fair enough.

But it is not fair and honest in any sense of the word to invent things on my behalf.

So please?

[Patrick S]

The same old, same old. Itīs a perfect parallel to how you faultily claimed that I would have said that Lechmere was a psychopath, when I only suggested that he MAY have been and that IF he was, his behaviour makes sense.

Now you claim that Mizen MUST be good and honest. But I am not that onesided, Patrick. I am saying that there is every reason to look at the case from the angle of a PC with a very good service record quite possibly being a good and honest PC.

That is not to say that we have it on record that he must have been. But if I canīt suggest that Lechmere may have been a psychopath, then how is it that you are allowed to suggest that Mizen was a rotten egg...?

We really need to look at matters like these more closely. Today, we are having a meta-debate, where I myself seem to be the target of the criticism instead of the theory itself at times. And much of what I say is twisted beyond recognition. It is unfair, thatīs all I am saying.

Very important distinction: Mizen mustn't be a "rotten egg" all. He needn't be a serial killer, a cop gone bad, a wife beater, or a paper hanger. He need only be a man who acted to protect his job and reputation by presenting a story that gave a reasonable explanation for what Paul called "a great shame", printed in Lloyd's the day before he took the stand, his seeming indifference and failure to act upon begin told a woman was dead.

Lastly, you should get over this victim thing you fall back on when thing go bad for this "Lechmere the most diverse and successful serial killer of all time theory" of yours. I'm sure you're a prince, Christer. When you post thousands upon thousands of pages in defense of this thing, some criticism of theory will attach itself, purposely or otherwise to you.

[Patrick S]

Oh, and one more thing - please point me to where I have stated that Lechmere was probably Jack the Ripper (easy), the torso killer (fairly easy) and the killer of "many, many, many more" (impossible).

Letīs not drop all decency, Patrick. You are welcome to disagree, and you are welcome to soundly criticize my theory. You are not equally welcome to present things on my behalf that I have not claimed.

We have managed to debate for some time now. A prerequisite for that ( as far as I am concerned) is that we are honest. If you honestly think I am a complete idiot, then in a sense, it is fair enough to say so. Not nice, but fair enough.

But it is not fair and honest in any sense of the word to invent things on my behalf.

So please?

Your honestly wasting time arguing about the fact that I wrote "many, many, many more"? Um. Okay.....sorry? I'm certain you've alluded to other victims around the East End. Or, Perhaps I assumed that his victims weren't limited to the 1873 Battersea woman, the 1874 Putney victim, Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, Kelly, the 1887 Rainham body, the 1888 Whitehall woman, Jackson in 1889, and Pinchin Street in 1889. So you contend your Jack the Ripper killed from his mid-twenties to around 40, hung up his knife, and devoted himself to his ten children?

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: Very important distinction: Mizen mustn't be a "rotten egg" all. He needn't be a serial killer, a cop gone bad, a wife beater, or a paper hanger. He need only be a man who acted to protect his job and reputation by presenting a story that gave a reasonable explanation for what Paul called "a great shame", printed in Lloyd's the day before he took the stand, his seeming indifference and failure to act upon begin told a woman was dead.

Once more you are on very thin ice, Patrick - there is no proof at all that he was told that the woman was dead. Mizen himself claimed that he was only told that the woman was flat on her back, and mentioned that he was not told about any murder or suicide by the carman.
We cannot condemn him on no solid grounds at all, he was not reprimanded at the inquest and he got a very good service grade when retiring from the police.
In the end, it all hinges on what he was told, as you well know. And it is apparent from Mizens ensuing actions that he had been told that the other PC was the finder.


Lastly, you should get over this victim thing you fall back on when thing go bad for this "Lechmere the most diverse and successful serial killer of all time theory" of yours.

We need to wait for it going bad for the theory before we can comment on that, Patrick. So far, that has not happened. And it needs to be understood that by going bad, I mean the theory being factually dismantled.
The fact that people dislike it to a degree is not "going bad" - it is common procedure.
Plus, of course, I donīt see me as a victim. I am factually pointing out that much of the criticism is faulty and misleading, and thatīs not because I feel sorry for myself. Itīs because I dislike it.

I'm sure you're a prince, Christer.

Oh, I wouldnīt go that far - I am perfectly happy with "am honest, intelligent, clever, effective and admirable researcher". My modesty prevents me from going any further and I have no royal blood in my veins as far as I know.

When you post thousands upon thousands of pages in defense of this thing, some criticism of theory will attach itself, purposely or otherwise to you.

You genuinely lost me there. Can you rephrase? Do you mean that I am bound to become part target of the criticism myself? Is that it? If so, I fail to see why that should be so. In my world, such criticism is weak criticism.
Or am I reading you wrong?

[Fisherman]

Your honestly wasting time arguing about the fact that I wrote "many, many, many more"? Um. Okay.....sorry? I'm certain you've alluded to other victims around the East End. Or, Perhaps I assumed that his victims weren't limited to the 1873 Battersea woman, the 1874 Putney victim, Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, Kelly, the 1887 Rainham body, the 1888 Whitehall woman, Jackson in 1889, and Pinchin Street in 1889. So you contend your Jack the Ripper killed from his mid-twenties to around 40, hung up his knife, and devoted himself to his ten children?

Yes, it seems you made an assumption out of thin air. What I have said is that there are other murders that may have been Lechmere, I havent named any number and I have certainly not led on any knowledge or supposition that he was responsible for "many, many, many" more.

And yes, I am going to argue about it when things are claimed on my behalf that are totally wrong. I consider it bad tone to do it, and I consider it a necessity to clear it away.

I donīt see you accepting anything I claim on your behalf that is not true. Then again, that is because I never give you any reason to.

It would be nice if you could extend the same courtesy to me.

[Patrick S]

Patrick S: Very important distinction: Mizen mustn't be a "rotten egg" all. He needn't be a serial killer, a cop gone bad, a wife beater, or a paper hanger. He need only be a man who acted to protect his job and reputation by presenting a story that gave a reasonable explanation for what Paul called "a great shame", printed in Lloyd's the day before he took the stand, his seeming indifference and failure to act upon begin told a woman was dead.

Once more you are on very thin ice, Patrick - there is no proof at all that he was told that the woman was dead. Mizen himself claimed that he was only told that the woman was flat on her back, and mentioned that he was not told about any murder or suicide by the carman.
We cannot condemn him on no solid grounds at all, he was not reprimanded at the inquest and he got a very good service grade when retiring from the police.
In the end, it all hinges on what he was told, as you well know. And it is apparent from Mizens ensuing actions that he had been told that the other PC was the finder.


Lastly, you should get over this victim thing you fall back on when thing go bad for this "Lechmere the most diverse and successful serial killer of all time theory" of yours.

We need to wait for it going bad for the theory before we can comment on that, Patrick. So far, that has not happened. And it needs to be understood that by going bad, I mean the theory being factually dismantled.
The fact that people dislike it to a degree is not "going bad" - it is common procedure.
Plus, of course, I donīt see me as a victim. I am factually pointing out that much of the criticism is faulty and misleading, and thatīs not because I feel sorry for myself. Itīs because I dislike it.

I'm sure you're a prince, Christer.

Oh, I wouldnīt go that far - I am perfectly happy with "am honest, intelligent, clever, effective and admirable researcher". My modesty prevents me from going any further and I have no royal blood in my veins as far as I know.

When you post thousands upon thousands of pages in defense of this thing, some criticism of theory will attach itself, purposely or otherwise to you.

You genuinely lost me there. Can you rephrase? Do you mean that I am bound to become part target of the criticism myself? Is that it? If so, I fail to see why that should be so. In my world, such criticism is weak criticism.
Or am I reading you wrong?

Alright. Perfect. I'm on this ice because you claim we have no "proof" that Mizen was told Nichols was dead. Yet, Paul says explicitly in Lloyd's that Mizen WAS told she was dead. So, Paul lied. Why? Hold on....did the reporter make it up? I mean, he'd have also have made up all the rest, about what a great shame it was he acted as he did, after being told she was, you know, dead. All that about the woman being cold, no PC having been around. All of that made up....by Paul or the reporter?

[Fisherman]

I have had quite enough of this debate for today, so I am withdrawing for the night. I will merrily rejoin the discussion tomorrow, and I hope it will center around the case facts more than around things it should NOT focus upon.