Was Lech known as Cross at Pickfords??

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: Now, if you want to be technical you wanted ten questions. I only gave one (and you taunted me on that point).

Did I? Here is what I wrote:

Alright, Patrick - a clear and concise question, no insults added. Exactly what I asked for. Well, to be fair, I asked for ten questions, but if you feel that just the one is enough, then so be it.


Please explain how that is taunting? I am commending you on producing what I asked for, and accepting your choice to ask just the one question.

So where is the taunting?

[Fisherman]

Robert St Devil: Since Paul was also in the eye of the storm, Fisherman, should he be considered too?

Yes, of course he should. He was there when Nichols was still very freshly cut, so he is certinly a better suspect than those who were not. However, it is clear that he arrived after Lechmere, so if they did not kill in tandem, Paul must have killed first, hidden next, and then reappeared. Which sounds kind of convoluted.
Nor does he fit the geographical patterns the way Lechmere does.
Nor has he been found to have given the wrong name.
He is not as good a suspect as Lechmere in any other way than being in place when Nichols was still bleeding.

Was Buck,s Row his fastest route, or a shortcut for men running late to work?

Bucks Row was Pauls fastest way to Corbetts Court, yes. It was a sort of bottleneck on account of the railway. But there were no scores of men passing through on the murder night, at the relevant times - many people witnessed about how the streets in the are lay silent and deserted.

It,s been a curiosity lately when considering Lechmere as a suspect, and how far his lie could have run. That, and the idea of two men kneeling on either side of Polly Nicholls taking more than just her vitals.

Not sure what you are saying here, so you need to expand on it. Swedish, you know...

[Patrick S]

You may have missed it, but I donīt think it appropriate to use quotation marks around bombshell, since I do not recognize having used the exact expression.

As I said, I used the expression that "something exploded in the face of the police" in the docu, and I did that to describe how the police were suddenly faced with information claiming that Neil was not the finder of the body.

I can therefore only answer why I think Lechmere was flushed out based on what was said in the Paul interview: Because of how it carried information about how Paul had found a man standing where the body was when he arrived at Browns. I believe that Lechmere came forward on account of how he feared that he would otherwise become the lead suspect in the case. The papers had carried information that the body was bleeding profusely as Neil found the body, and that would tell the police that the cutting was close in time to his presence at the site. Plus Mizen was able to recognize him at the inquest, and this would be something Lechmere probably recognized too - that he had been seen close up in good enough lighting conditions to allow for an identification.

If you want a shorter answer: Because Paul had stated in his interview that another man had been standing where the body was as he arrived at Browns.

And if you'll allow a third question: You say that Paul's statement making it clear that Neil had not found the body was "something exploded in the face of the police". Why - in your view - had Mizen told no one about his interaction with the two men in Baker's Row? We know that Paul claims to have told Mizen that Nichols was dead. We know that Lechmere stated that he said she was "either dead or drunk, but for my part I think she's dead". We know that Paul makes no mention of anyone telling Mizen he was wanted by a PC in Buck's Row. We know that Lechmere flatly denied having told Mizen that a PC was waiting in Buck's Row. In my view there are three points here that seem off. 1. Mizen tells no one of the men in Baker's Row and Neil testifies (incorrectly) that he found the body. 2. Of the three men only Mizen claims that no one mentioned the woman was, or may be, dead. 3. Mizen is the only one of the three men that says anything about anyone telling him a PC wanted him in Buck's Row.

The question is this: Do you find anything at all suspicious about PC Mizen's words and actions? If not, why?

[Patrick S]

Patrick S: Now, if you want to be technical you wanted ten questions. I only gave one (and you taunted me on that point).

Did I? Here is what I wrote:

Alright, Patrick - a clear and concise question, no insults added. Exactly what I asked for. Well, to be fair, I asked for ten questions, but if you feel that just the one is enough, then so be it.


Please explain how that is taunting? I am commending you on producing what I asked for, and accepting your choice to ask just the one question.

So where is the taunting?

My mistake. Apologies.

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: It is not often I agree with Trevor, but this time I do.

Fisherman, your premise is logical;, however it is based on accepting that Mizen was told there was another Policeman on the site of a dead woman.

There is no premise. I am asking two simple questions. Once we answer them, we can start to try and conclude from it.

If you think it is unfair that there can only be one really rational answer in each case, just say so.

Fisherman,

Of course there is a premise in those questions: it is very clear that your view is that it is highly improbable that Mizen behaved as he did, unless he was told another Police office was already dealing with the incident, which he(Mizen) did not understand to be serious.

I certainly do not feel there is only a single rational answer to each question, rather there are many possible answers, all require to be seriously considered.


Just to demonstrate possibilities lets look at the first question of the two which has until now been somewhat ignored:


1. We have two men approach One police office, and no matter which of the two versions, dead or alive, on her own or with a officer present, Mizen indeed should have taken details, as a minimum response, so why did he not?

Was it he was too busy "knocking up", did he consider this mundane duty to be his priority? It could well be argued his actions suggest yes.


2. Would A single office have been able to detain two men and proceed to the site in Bucks Row? I am not sure?

3. And of course one could reply, as you obviously wanted and say that if that was the case, of course he would have detained and taken names.


Plenty of options, which is correct?

That is the real question is it not?




Steve

[Pcdunn]

To get the timeline straight in my mind, I looked at the "Polly Nichols Inquest" documents here at Casebook in the Victims section. These consist of articles from the Daily Telegraph including some of the testimony.

Polly is found dead on early Friday morning.
The first day of the Inquest is Saturday, during which Neil says he discovered the body.
Robert Paul's interview is printed in Lloyd'son Sunday.
The second day of the Inquest is Monday, during which Cross and Mizen both appear and give additional, conflicting information, about the discovery of the body.
It isn't until the third day of the inquest, postponed until Sept. 17, that Robert Paul is located and appears to give his testimony. From comparing what he says here with the interview in we can see that the latter contained information making him much more of a primary actor in the case than he really was. The Lloyd'sarticle may be considered a "bombshell", I suppose, in that it leaves the police trying to figure out who really did find the body in the street.

I think determining that Cross was "flushed out" by Paul's interview needs assuming the following-- he did indeed read Lloyd's; he had not already contacted the police and agreed to be a witness on Monday; he had the sort of devious mind that thought it was best to approach the police on his own than wait for them to get ahold of Paul and ask him for details about "the other man."

I'm not saying none of these things are impossible. I just think assuming ALL of them happened is a bit much.

[Fisherman]

And if you'll allow a third question: You say that Paul's statement making it clear that Neil had not found the body was "something exploded in the face of the police". Why - in your view - had Mizen told no one about his interaction with the two men in Baker's Row? We know that Paul claims to have told Mizen that Nichols was dead. We know that Lechmere stated that he said she was "either dead or drunk, but for my part I think she's dead". We know that Paul makes no mention of anyone telling Mizen he was wanted by a PC in Buck's Row. We know that Lechmere flatly denied having told Mizen that a PC was waiting in Buck's Row. In my view there are three points here that seem off. 1. Mizen tells no one of the men in Baker's Row and Neil testifies (incorrectly) that he found the body. 2. Of the three men only Mizen claims that no one mentioned the woman was, or may be, dead. 3. Mizen is the only one of the three men that says anything about anyone telling him a PC wanted him in Buck's Row.

The question is this: Do you find anything at all suspicious about PC Mizen's words and actions? If not, why?

As I said, I want a closure on the first issue before I make any decision about moving on. Do you accept my answer in that department, or do you find it wanting in any way?
I would also like for you to exemplify how I would have been sarcastic and taunting, a suggestion I find very odd.

[Fisherman]

I think determining that Cross was "flushed out" by Paul's interview needs assuming the following-- he did indeed read Lloyd's; he had not already contacted the police and agreed to be a witness on Monday; he had the sort of devious mind that thought it was best to approach the police on his own than wait for them to get ahold of Paul and ask him for details about "the other man."

I'm not saying none of these things are impossible. I just think assuming ALL of them happened is a bit much.

Yes, we must assume that Lechmere was aware of the Lloyds article to have been flushed out. It does however not mean that he must have read the article - having been made aware of it does just as well.

Lloyds had a wide circulation, and I think there is every chance that he read about the murder if he was the killer - serialists are very often eager to gain media coverage.

If he was reached by what Lloyds wrote, it must have come as a chock to him - one would hardly expect that Paul would have been found and interviewed. But that was exactly what happened.

Would he then be "devious" enough to try and be proactive? I donīt see why not. If the police believed in Paul (ironically, they originally did not), then he must have realized that things were looking bleak for the man found "standing where the body was".

By the way, if you find these two things working together too much of a coincidence - then why not look at all the coincidences that point to Lechmere!?

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Fisherman,

Of course there is a premise in those questions: it is very clear that your view is that it is highly improbable that Mizen behaved as he did, unless he was told another Police office was already dealing with the incident, which he(Mizen) did not understand to be serious.

Yes, that is my view. But that is not contained in the questions. There is no premise there, Iīm afraid. They can be answered without any such additions. Imagine that you asked yourself these questions. How would you answer them?

I certainly do not feel there is only a single rational answer to each question, rather there are many possible answers, all require to be seriously considered.

Of course. But which is the most rational answer in each case? Do PC:s who are informed that they may have a case of murder on their hands normally take the name of the informantor not? Surely, that is quite a hrad question to dribble away?

And do PC:s who are informed that there is a PC in place who tends to a case of a woman lying in the street need to feel a pressing urge to take the names of THAT informant?

Letīs try and stay on Moder Earth, Steve.

Just to demonstrate possibilities lets look at the first question of the two which has until now been somewhat ignored:

1. We have two men approach One police office, and no matter which of the two versions, dead or alive, on her own or with a officer present, Mizen indeed should have taken details, as a minimum response, so why did he not?

Because he had been told that there was another PC present in Bucks Row. That meant that he could count on that PC doing the honours. Thatīs why. And thatīs a bloody good reason to accept that Mizen WAS lied to in the fashion he suggested. Itīs either that or a PC with an excellent serving record seemingly violated protocol.

Was it he was too busy "knocking up", did he consider this mundane duty to be his priority? It could well be argued his actions suggest yes.

Not if he had a potential murder case on his hands, no. It is not a reasonable suggestion at all.


2. Would A single office have been able to detain two men and proceed to the site in Bucks Row? I am not sure?

A single officer could certainly make the try. If any of the men ran, that person would look VERY guilty.

3. And of course one could reply, as you obviously wanted and say that if that was the case, of course he would have detained and taken names.


Plenty of options, which is correct?

That is the real question is it not?

Yes. And you just had the by far most logical answer together with a very good motivation.

[Pierre]

I hereby declare Lechmere cleared, Fisherman.

QUOTE=Fisherman;398905

At that time, the wounds to the abomen were covered. If anybody else than Lechmere was the killer, then that somebody would either have left the body before he heard Lechmere approach, or he would have left the body as a result of Lechmere appearing.

STRONGLY BIASED ideas from you Fisherman. You assume that:

A) the killer would have LEFT the body before he heard Lechmere or that
B) the killer would have LEFT the body as a result of Lechmere appearing

But you also assume that if Lechmere was the killer he would have done the opposite!

Conclusion: The killer must have left according to yourself.

But Lechmere did not leave. So HOW could he be the killer?

He could not according to you, since killers leave the murder site.

You use the hypothesis to get journalistic attention, even though it goes against your own basic understanding of serial killers, i.e. that they do leave the murder site and do not stay and chat with people, seek the police and go to inquests.


And then you write:

In the first case, there would have been no reason at all to hide the wounds, since there was nobody in place to see them. And it would be inconsistent with the other Ripper deeds, since these were "display" deeds, where the victims are left in shocking positions, clearly revealing what had happened.

SO: Who did hide the wounds? Since the killer, according to you, would LEAVE. We will get to that.

In the second case, why would the killer take the time to cover the wounds with a person drawing nearer along the street? Why would he not prioritize getting out of the street instead?

Yes, yes, yes! WHY, Fisherman? Why would plain old Lechmere, looking like a simple carman, which he was, stay there and cover the wounds when he heard a person drawing nearer along the street? The killer would have ran away. You say this yourself. So here is your BIAS again. Lechmere must have been the killer but he was not LEAVING. And now you say (allow me to put this in bold and in red):

In fact, the only truly reasonable scenario in which a covering of the wounds apply as something useful, is a scenario where the killer is still in place at the murder spot, but wants the murder to stay undetected.

Correct. It IS the only truly reasonable scenario, a scenario where the killer is still in place at the murder spot, but wants the murder to stay undetected. But why did he not do as in A or B then? Because you told us he would LEAVE the crime scene.

Let me answer this: Because there is only one type of person who can be at a crime scene and expect not be immediately suspected:

This type is a policeman.

And did Lechmere say he saw a policeman at the crime scene?

According to sworn witness and policeman Mizen: YES, HE DID!

And is there any other indication that Lechmere could have seen the killer?

YES: He gave his other name, not used by his wife and children: Cross. With that action, he managed to protect his own family.

And is there any other indication that Lechmere could have seen the killer?

YES: He lied at the inquest and said that he DID NOT see a policeman, in spite of what sworn policeman Mizen stated.

Beacause he did not immediately understand what he had seen. But he must have been intelligent, because he understood it later and chose to protect his family.

He could have gone with the idea that Neil was there. But NO, he did NOT. He chose to go against sworn police constable Mizen!

Because he saw a policeman at the murder site. And that is why the clothes were pulled down and the wounds hidden, and there where no extensive mutilations because ha was interrupted by Lechmere and that is also why the blood was still "oozing"!


And there is your case, Fisherman. YOUR FISHING EXPEDITION IS OVER.

I AM VERY VERY SORRY AND WISH I WAS WRONG, BUT YOU HAVE PROVED THAT THERE IS A HIGH PROBABILITY THAT I AM RIGHT.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Of course. But which is the most rational answer in each case? Do PC:s who are informed that they may have a case of murder on their hands normally take the name of the informantor not? Surely, that is quite a hrad question to dribble away?

Not sure what that means to be honest the "not" is causing confusion.

And do PC:s who are informed that there is a PC in place who tends to a case of a woman lying in the street need to feel a pressing urge to take the names of THAT informant?

Letīs try and stay on Moder Earth, Steve.

That's a little bit belittling, putting down in such terms ideas you do not agree with?

OK maybe it the language issue.

Because he had been told that there was another PC present in Bucks Row. That meant that he could count on that PC doing the honours. Thatīs why. And thatīs a bloody good reason to accept that Mizen WAS lied to in the fashion he suggested.

Possibly, but why not do his duty correctly and at least get names, after all he was not in hurry, he carried on knocking up.


No there are suspicions which you have, others do not..

Not if he had a potential murder case on his hands, no. It is not a reasonable suggestion at all.

No, but it appears to be what happen.
It all depends on what one believes.
My view is that he did not understand what he was told, and that is why he carried on . only later realizing what it all meant.

A single officer could certainly make the try. If any of the men ran, that person would look VERY guilty.

If any were going to run, they would not logically have sort him out.

Plenty of options, which is correct?

That is the real question is it not?

Yes. And you just had the by far most logical answer together with a very good motivation.

Point proven, one accepts and believes what one wants, you are somewhat passionate about this, i understand, but it does give you a particular viewpoint.



Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Not sure what that means to be honest the "not" is causing confusion.

It would. Sorry. Here īs a clearer version:

Of course. But which is the most rational answer in each case? Do PC:s who are informed that they may have a case of murder on their hands normally take the name of the informant? Surely, that answers itself?

That's a little bit belittling, putting down in such terms ideas you do not agree with?

OK maybe it the language issue.

Once more, these are straightforward, easy questions.


Possibly, but why not do his duty correctly and at least get names, after all he was not in hurry, he carried on knocking up.

It was NOT his duty to take the names of informants who passed on information from another PC, or so Monty says, as far as I understand. And he is supposedly the number one authority on the issue.
The misunderstanding is a common one, but it would be nice to have it dispelled once and for all.

No there are suspicions which you have, others do not..

Maybe now that the misunderatanding is cleared up, you may reconsider. Mizen was dutybound to take the names if he was told that the carmen were the finders of a postentially murdered woman. He was not dutybound to take the names if the informants passed on unalarming information from another PC.

Mizen did not take the names. Which description does that dovetail with?


No, but it appears to be what happen.
It all depends on what one believes.
My view is that he did not understand what he was told, and that is why he carried on . only later realizing what it all meant.

And you base that view on how we normally misunderstand what we are told in a quiet street, I take it? Why not go with the absolute fact that we normally do NOT misunderstand what we are told in a quiet street?


If any were going to run, they would not logically have sort him out.

No comprendre.


Point proven, one accepts and believes what one wants, you are somewhat passionate about this, i understand, but it does give you a particular viewpoint.

Nope, you have not proven that I am not making the correct decision, in which case it need have nothing to do with believing what I want but instead what I logically and correctly deem to be the more probable thing.

So much for proving matters. You do say a lot, but I am less and less convinced that it is worth listening to. We shall see.

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Elamarna;398949

Hi Steve,

Fisherman has lost.

See my post 415 above.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Elamarna: Not sure what that means to be honest the "not" is causing confusion.

It would. Sorry. Here īs a clearer version:

Of course. But which is the most rational answer in each case? Do PC:s who are informed that they may have a case of murder on their hands normally take the name of the informant? Surely, that answers itself?

That's a little bit belittling, putting down in such terms ideas you do not agree with?

OK maybe it the language issue.

Once more, these are straightforward, easy questions.


Possibly, but why not do his duty correctly and at least get names, after all he was not in hurry, he carried on knocking up.

It was NOT his duty to take the names of informants who passed on information from another PC, or so Monty says, as far as I understand. And he is supposedly the number one authority on the issue.
The misunderstanding is a common one, but it would be nice to have it dispelled once and for all.

No there are suspicions which you have, others do not..

Maybe now that the misunderatanding is cleared up, you may reconsider. Mizen was dutybound to take the names if he was told that the carmen were the finders of a postentially murdered woman. He was not dutybound to take the names if the informants passed on unalarming information from another PC.

Mizen did not take the names. Which description does that dovetail with?


No, but it appears to be what happen.
It all depends on what one believes.
My view is that he did not understand what he was told, and that is why he carried on . only later realizing what it all meant.

And you base that view on how we normally misunderstand what we are told in a quiet street, I take it? Why not go with the absolute fact that we normally do NOT misunderstand what we are told in a quiet street?


If any were going to run, they would not logically have sort him out.

No comprendre.


Point proven, one accepts and believes what one wants, you are somewhat passionate about this, i understand, but it does give you a particular viewpoint.

Nope, you have not proven that I am not making the correct decision, in which case it need have nothing to do with believing what I want but instead what I logically and correctly deem to be the more probable thing.

So much for proving matters. You do say a lot, but I am less and less convinced that it is worth listening to. We shall see.

You should really try to answer my post 415. Your case is over.

[Robert St Devil]

Rambling. Texan you know, Fisherman .

Not that Paul dis- and re- appeared. That the whole story may have been concocted by both men. I,m thinking through the assertion of Lechmere as a liar, and how far that lie may have run. I,ve been picking up from the board of Paul,s story being at odds with Mizen,s too. Those things, and Schwartz, belief that he encountered two men.

Aside. If Cross is the man, he must have been extremely cautious of getting blood on his hands since there weren,t any prints found on her face or hands.