Lechmere The Psychopath

[Pierre]

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.

Without any evidence for the rest of the murders and without the signature in the case of Nichols that is needed to hypothesize a connection to the other ones from the perspective of the signature.

And by the way, not all serial killers are psychopaths.

Pierre

[Patrick S]

Let's discuss Mizen's ensuing actions, shall we? You say they indicate he was told only that a woman was lying on the ground. Even though the other two men involved in the encounter disagree. One was a police hating liar out for publicity as you tell it. The other, well....you know who.

So, we must discount their words and rely only upon Mizen. Meanwhile, we know that Neil testified that he'd found the body. Alone. No mention of Paul and Cross. I think its reasonable to conclude that Mizen said nothing, to anyone, about his meeting with the two men, of being told that Nichols was lying in Buck's Row, dead or otherwise. He clearly kept that to himself.

Recall that Mizen did - eventually - make his way into Buck's Row. Yet, he still said nothing. He said nothing the entire day of the 30th. He said nothing on the 1st, before Neil gave his version. Which stood uncorrected by anyone until after Paul's words appeared in print on Sunday the 2nd.

On the third Mizen takes the stand to tell his version, which has him being told that he was "wanted (by a PC) in Buck's Row". But, this isn't the only instance we have of the police perhaps bending the truth about what they did and said in Buck's Row, is it?

We have Thain and his cloak, as well. We have the slaughtermen claiming Thain told them about the murder. But Thain denied it. But, the men clearly KNEW about the murder because they showed up at the scene. They testified that Thain told them about the murder. We know that Thain went to their place of work and retrieved his cloak. But, he claimed he didn't tell the men. They must have just guessed it.

Neither man need be an awful human being to have told what amounted to self-serving white lies (both of which served the Met, as well).

[Patrick S]

And by the way, not all serial killers are psychopaths.

Pierre

Okay. I never said they were.

[Patrick S]

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?

It seems as if so many things, a great many things, happened just right to allow Cross to kill Nichols and get away with it in the most counter-intuitive way once can imaging. That elaborate bluff. Calling attention to his victim. Luckily the man who came along, Robert Paul, was exactly what he needed: a dim-witted, publicity-seeking, police-hating liar, who would resolve to find a PC with Cross but would be so easily duped to stand off to one side or continue on alone as they actually found a PC, allowing Cross to pull his scam out of his hearing. Then we have Mizen. Cross managed to get just the right PC: a PC who wouldn't take names, ask any questions, report meeting the two men in Baker's Row before Neil took the stand to tell his - incorrect - version of how the body was found. And then we have that reporter from Lloyd's who liked to spice things up. It ALL came together. Perfectly.

[Elamarna]

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.


Of course the so Mizen scam is a central point of the pro Lechmere believers.

And as you say maybe there is something that has been overlooked.

Guess what there is. While I have no intention of revealing the details until part 3 of my work. Some of the raw data was in part one. The relevant sources are in the up coming part two.

This leads me to believe that the Scam never occurred, at least not The Scam you suggest.
Sorry,but I am sure you understand when one is working on a research project one does not reveal all the findings until one is finished; even when some may be avaible far earlier.
By the end of September is my best guess.
And as I always say until one reveals something it does not exist. So at present it's not on The present Scam remains as it is, hotly debated.


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.

Wrong the data exists, the statements of Paul and Lechmere; Just because you choose not to accept it that does not make it vanishes

That is what I interpret as being unfair and misleading. And it all owes to your disability/unwilingness to see beyond the surface.

It's inability, not disability by the way. However that assumes you are not saying I am mentally disabled.
As for the content of that last statement, it is your overwhelming desire to see things where they do not exist and there is no suggestion of such, that leads you down this dead end road.

Steve

[Pierre]

Okay. I never said they were.

I know you didnīt. It is a general comment.

Cheers, Pierre

[Pcdunn]

Some definitions

Elamarna: I have answered. The fact the answer is something you do not want is not my problem.

But the answer is exactly what I want, Steve - a recognition that you are unable to fix a distance. Itīs totally in line with what I am saying: "together" and "in company" do not carry any sort of fixed distance implications.

Oxford English Dictionary: Definition of "in company" -- "with another person or a group of people"

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/in_company

Oxford English Dictionary: definition of "together"-- "with or in proximity to another person or people"

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/together

Granted the latter word may be used in other ways, but this is the first example.

Oxford English Dictionary: definition of "with"-- "Accompanied by (another person or thing)"

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/with

Oxford English Dictionary: definition of "proximity" -- "Nearness in space, time or relationship"

[Elamarna]

Oxford English Dictionary: Definition of "in company" -- "with another person or a group of people"

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/in_company

Oxford English Dictionary: definition of "together"-- "with or in proximity to another person or people"

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/together

Granted the latter word may be used in other ways, but this is the first example.

Oxford English Dictionary: definition of "with"-- "Accompanied by (another person or thing)"

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/with

Oxford English Dictionary: definition of "proximity" -- "Nearness in space, time or relationship"

Hi pat.

That's something I did not even bother to argue. Interesting but I doubt it will have an effect of Fishmans view has he just does not accept what Lechmere and Paul say has having any validity.

Steve

[Sam Flynn]

I know I've said it before but I'm a bit of a sucker for evidence.

And so should we all.

[Fisherman]

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?

Yes, you are on thin ice when you claim that Mizen was informed that Nichols was dead. It is abundantly clear that whatever discussion there was, it was reported as Mizen as being between him and Lechmere. That could be true or false, which means that whoever uses EITHER perspective is on thin ice. If I say that it is clear that Mizen was not told about a dead woman, I would join you on that ice. And Iīm a big guy, so we would in all probability go through the ice together...

[caz]

What can I object to? It's all made up, Christer. So, what's the point of debating these "details"? As you're well aware, I find the entire "Chuck the Ripper" tale laughable. EVERY detail is (yes, I'll say it again) INVENTED. You have invented convoluted reasons for his giving a "false" name (i.e a name we know was recorded by a census taker when he was boy, his stepfather's name) that simply defy logic: He gave this name rather than a completely false name because it gave him a fall back, deniability...... But he gave his real address and employer?

Conversely, YOU find it ILLOGICAL to ask why he gave any name at all when he wasn't asked for one on the night of the murder and was allowed to go on his way...only to voluntarily appear at the inquest and give this "false"/"alternate" name as part of his "bluff".

You present theories with respect to what motivated him to appear at the inquest, as well. And, again, we see - in my opinion - the absurdities mount. You tell us that he would have been sought by the police had he not. Why? The police - in the form of one PC Jonas Mizen - knew all about his role in finding the body in Buck's Row. Mizen knew he'd spoken to two men in Baker's Row. And now, suddenly, Paul's telling of what the police already KNEW so frightened him that he would risk his life A THIRD TIME when he'd already so skillfully extricated himself from the noose 48 hours previously?

Clearly I do not find it rational or plausible or even within the realm of possibility that Paul's statement would drive a killer who'd gotten away with murder out of hiding. And you, in order to have him so fearful of what may come of Paul's statement, must - I'll say it again - INVENT insights into your killer's state of mind when we don't know anything about his state of mind. BUT we DO know what Paul told Lloyd's. And we CAN evaluate that. And that is hardly something that would have compelled a man guilty of murder to come forward and risk his life by telling lies at the official inquest into A MURDER THAT HE COMMITTED.

Let's bear in mind. You have him successfully "bluffing" his way through his encounter with Paul. He opts for that rather than flight. Hard to believe but, let's say he froze. So, we'll play along. Then you have him going off searching for a PC with Paul. He finds Mizen. You then have him successfully duping Paul and misleading Mizen to an extent that allows him to escape the scene of the crime. He's never asked his name, employer, address. AND THEN......He's barely mentioned in Lloyd's, in an article that focuses mainly on what a "great shame" it was that the police allowed a woman's dead body to grow cold on the pavement and that the PC didn't say whether he would come or not even after he had been "told the woman was DEAD"....and he's driven out of hiding? He's terrified that he's NOW sought by the police? As we know, and it's worth repeating, Paul's statement does nothing to implicate your killer but it IS critical of the police and PC Jonas Mizen. And we're asked to believe THIS "bombshell" drove Jack the Ripper to appear bright and early Monday morning at the inquest?

Struggling to catch up with this thread, but I think this may be one of the best posts I've read on the whole sorry Lechmere mess - sorry - 'theory'.

As with Hutchinson, it's time the suspect theorists made up their mind whether their Jack was a) so frightened of his own shadow that he had to come forward and bluff his way out, to prevent the police seeking him out; or b) such a fearless psychopath that the thrill of putting himself under the spotlight time and time again, when he could have melted away into the morning, an anonymous nobody, was just too much to resist.

If it's the former, and Paul's account in the newspaper really did spook Jack the Scaredy-cat into the open for some as yet unexplained reason, he was no psychopath - and bang goes the whole theory. If it's the latter, Jack the Psycho would surely have come forward anyway, just for jolly, even if Paul had included an accurate description of him so detailed that Hutchinson would have been in awe of it, and added that he had "found" the carman leaning over the woman, with an evil grin on his face.

The combination of fearful one minute, fearless the next, depending on what the theory needs to make it work, doesn't work for me and never has.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

And so should we all.

I actually think we all agree on that point. There īs not one person out here that would not chose evidence over suggestion - if it could be had.

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: Let's discuss Mizen's ensuing actions, shall we?

Yes, lets!

You say they indicate he was told only that a woman was lying on the ground.

No, I donīt. I say they indicate that he was told that another PC was in place in Bucks Row.

Even though the other two men involved in the encounter disagree. One was a police hating liar out for publicity as you tell it. The other, well....you know who.

I do, yes - a person who I think was the killer and whose word I would be very wary about. Not least since I know that he used an alias and since I know he disagreed with the police about what had been said.
It is not a numerical exercise to me, therefore.

So, we must discount their words and rely only upon Mizen.

No, "we" must not. I do.

Meanwhile, we know that Neil testified that he'd found the body.

Yes.

Alone.

Yes.

No mention of Paul and Cross.

No mention of Paul and Lechmere, no.

I think its reasonable to conclude that Mizen said nothing, to anyone, about his meeting with the two men, of being told that Nichols was lying in Buck's Row, dead or otherwise. He clearly kept that to himself.

There is that "clearly" again. It is not clear at all, Iīm afraid. My own take on things is that he wrote in his report that he was summoned to Bucks Row by Neil, and the ones in charge would have known that Neil said that he summoned Mizen with his lamp, so there was no discrepancy. It all seems very uncontroversial to me.
But hereīs the thing - you object to my interpretation of Lechmere, and you think I am wrong to expect the worst. But in Mizens case, YOU are expecting the worst, although a very simple explanation can be offered.

Recall that Mizen did - eventually - make his way into Buck's Row. Yet, he still said nothing. He said nothing the entire day of the 30th. He said nothing on the 1st, before Neil gave his version. Which stood uncorrected by anyone until after Paul's words appeared in print on Sunday the 2nd.

Yes, exactly. I recall that VERY well. Mizen did NOTHING at all about how Neil said that he was the finder. And he really SHOULD have done that - IF he knew that Neil was NOT the finder.
According to you, he DID know this, and so it becomes inforgiveable that he didnīt tell his superiors that the body was found by a carman and not by Neil.
However, Patrick! If Mizen had been told that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row - as he claimed - then look at how totally consistent with that information his behaviour becomes!
He did not tell Neil about the carmen - but why would he, if he surmised that Neil already KNEW about them, and had sent them to fetch Mizen?
He did not tell his superiors that a carman was the finder, and that Neil was lying through his teeth - and he should have done, IF he had not been told that another PC was in place in Bucks Row. If this was so, then it is perfectly understandable that he was working from the idea that Neil WAS the finder, that the carmen had arrived later and been sent by Neil to fetch him.

So, Patrick, these are the options:

1. Your version: For some reason, Mizen decided not to tell anybody about the carmen. I think the idea is that he had realized in retrospect that it would have been good if he took their names, and now he wanted to cover that up. And when Neil took the stand and witnessed about being the finder, Mizen let it pass, since he didnīt want to come clean on the topic. Then, when Paul and Lechmere surfaced, he was forced to admit their existence.
Drawback: If this happened, then his superiors would have kicked him off the force for having lied to them. That, at least, is my suggestion.

2. Mizen was lied to by Lechmere, and acted accordingly, always believing that Neil was the finder up until Paul and Lechmere re-surfaced, telling a different story. He did not offer a single lie, but instead he did his best and testified honestly.

Take your pick.

On the third Mizen takes the stand to tell his version, which has him being told that he was "wanted (by a PC) in Buck's Row". But, this isn't the only instance we have of the police perhaps bending the truth about what they did and said in Buck's Row, is it?

Hold it. Why are you talking about it as an established case of the police bending the truth? That is not inly unestablished but also unlikely as per the above.

We have Thain and his cloak, as well. We have the slaughtermen claiming Thain told them about the murder. But Thain denied it. But, the men clearly KNEW about the murder because they showed up at the scene. They testified that Thain told them about the murder. We know that Thain went to their place of work and retrieved his cloak. But, he claimed he didn't tell the men. They must have just guessed it.

Neither man need be an awful human being to have told what amounted to self-serving white lies (both of which served the Met, as well).

I am sorry, but that has nothing at all to do with Mizen and his veracity.
We have a number of ridiculous posters out here. Does that make you ridiculous? Or me?
It does not work like that.

[Fisherman]

It seems as if so many things, a great many things, happened just right to allow Cross to kill Nichols and get away with it in the most counter-intuitive way once can imaging. That elaborate bluff. Calling attention to his victim. Luckily the man who came along, Robert Paul, was exactly what he needed: a dim-witted, publicity-seeking, police-hating liar, who would resolve to find a PC with Cross but would be so easily duped to stand off to one side or continue on alone as they actually found a PC, allowing Cross to pull his scam out of his hearing. Then we have Mizen. Cross managed to get just the right PC: a PC who wouldn't take names, ask any questions, report meeting the two men in Baker's Row before Neil took the stand to tell his - incorrect - version of how the body was found. And then we have that reporter from Lloyd's who liked to spice things up. It ALL came together. Perfectly.

Yes, it came together, Patrick. If it hadnīt, the killer would have been caught. Thatīs what happens when things do not come together.

As for Paul, he did not need to be dim-witted at all to be fooled - he worked from your assumption; that his fellow carman was just a passer by. Nothing dim-witted about that.
And Mizen was not dutybound to take any names once a colleagu of his had the errand in hand.

These are no real points, therefore. They represent your thinking, but not everybody shares it.

[Fisherman]

It's inability, not disability by the way. However that assumes you are not saying I am mentally disabled.
As for the content of that last statement, it is your overwhelming desire to see things where they do not exist and there is no suggestion of such, that leads you down this dead end road.

Steve

The data tells us that Lechmere and Paul said that they were "together" and it was said by the coroner (who was not there) that they were "in company". I am all for acknowledging this, but that is ALL the data tells us. It says not a iot about how far from each other the two carmen were in Bakers Row, and it says not a iot about whether Paul was within earshot or not. So read my lips, Steve: THERE-IS-NO-DATA-FOR-PAUL-HAVING-OVERHEARD-WHAT-LECHMERE-TOLD-MIZEN!

And itīs upcoming, not up coming by the way...