Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why is the possibility of Lechmere interrupting the ripper so often discarded?

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

  • Paul g,
    As you imply.take the could be's,maybe's and if's away,and what real evidence that points to Cross as the killer of Nichols,is left. None.The most important ,in my opinion,element of Nichols killing is the murderer had to be in her company when she was killed.So when was she killed?Immediately before Paul arrived,as Fisherman implies.Well Paul was about 20 seconds away when Cross became aware of his presence,and some of that twenty seconds has Cross standing in the middle of the road trying to attract Paul's attention.So how long had Cross been in the company of Nichols before Paul arrived,how had Cross met Nichols,how long was he in her company before commencing his attack on her?.Of course none of this evidence matters,as you say Cross appeared out of nowhere.met Nichols,killed and mutilated her, remained to be found at the murder scene,then lied to one and all.A really vicious and clever fellow.or as he describes himself,a family man on his way to work?
    Take your pick

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

      Yes, the very, nay, extremely obvious inference is that everybody believed there was only one policeman involved.

      (my emphasis)

      Oh wait, maybe not. Maybe everybody understood that there were in fact two different policemen involved, and the difference in opinion was just one of ascertaining who found the body first. Since, you know, there were two instances of the body being found independantly of another, once by a policeman and once by two men, who then alerted a policeman.
      And maybe this is what Neil responded to, when he said it was not true that HE was alerted to the corpse by two men? A statement, which does not, by the way, imply that the police force in general did not believe Robert Paul's story.

      One would not think that needed specifying, really, since it's perfectly clear already. Yet here we are, having to dismantle very obvious inferences which are very obviously wrong.
      Good morning to you, Kattrup, and thank you for your post!

      Your suggestion is that what Neil meant when he said that HE was not alerted to the corpse by two men, was that another policeman, namely PC Mizen was. That, you add, would also mean that Paul may have been believed by the police. And you are critical about having to dismantle very obvious inferences which are very obviously wrong. It gies wothout saying that the inferences you point to are my claim that it was not known at this stage of the proceedings that there were two PC:s involved, both Neil and Mizen. The proof of the pudding would presumably be the part you put in bold, stating that the PC Paul spoke of was not belonging to the beat he was on; Despite the policeman's assertion that he was the first to discover the body, Mr. Paul last night repeated the statement made to our representative on Friday evening that he and another man found the corpse long before the police. He says the policeman he spoke to was not belonging to that beat. Every word he had said was true.

      If you are correct, then I must apologize for having misled the ones who take part of this discussion. But I donīt think I am wrong. So bear with men, please, as I explain why. To do so, we will revisit the papers of the 3:rd, in this case the Daily News, commenting on the press conference held by the police on the evening of the 2:nd of September: It is not true, says Constable Neil, who is a man of nearly 20 years' service, that he was called to the body by two men. He came upon it as he walked, and, flashing his lanthorn to examine it he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the street. These officers had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention, and the mystery is most complete. It should be pointed out that at this stage, the Lloyds Weekly interview with Paul, and the remark you posted about the PC on a beat unfamiliar to him, was in circulation. Thus we may see that as Lloyds speak of how Neil asserted to have been the first to find the body of Nichols, they do not refer to what he said at the press conference on the evening of the 2:nd, but instead the speak of earlier claims on Neils behalf. It therefore seems that Neil was not too impressed by the material presented in Lloyds Weekly.

      Specifically, one has to ask oneself why Neil claimed that it was not true that he was called to the body by two men, without saying that it was Mizen who was called there - if he had that knowledge. It would be very rude of him, having had it pointed out to himself that the PC in question was a man not on his ordinary beat. Having been given this information, why does he not say that much as he, the original finder of the body, got no such call, a colleague of his from another division (and therefore not on his ordinary beat) HAD gotten that call from the two carmen? Why point Paul out as a liar and bolster that accusation with a claim on Pauls behalf that he knew was never made?

      Because he did not know that, Kattrup. Just as I say, he did not know that another PC was involved, and nor did anybody else, save the carmen and Mizen - who apparently did not inform Neil about the carmen. If he had, Neil would not have said what he did, right? Unless, that is, Neil wanted the glory of finding the body all for himself and was willing to potentially oppose three other witnesses, including a fellow PC, at the inquest?

      So how do we explain all of this? Crucially, how do we explain the part about the PC who was not belonging to the beat? The answer lies in the information given by Paul in the Lloyds Weekly. In it, he stated that Lechmere alone was the first finder, and that he had joined up as Lechmere was already in place. He then went on to speak of the examination and added that he then left for his work at Covent Garden market. That established that he was walking from east to west. He then said that he found a PC (the one who was not on his ordinary beat) "in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row". Although he used another name than Bakers Row (a name that was probably colloquially used for Bakers Row), we can still see where he found the PC. I hope that is clear?

      Now, letīs return to Neil again. He was apparently not happy about how Paul said that he had directed the PC he found to the body. Neil said that this was not true, he had found the body alone. This establishes that Neil actually believed that the PC Paul referred to was himself. And once we realize this, we can also see why Neil is not happy about things - because Paul says that the PC he sent to Bucks Row was up at the top of Bucks Row, in Church-row (Bakers Row)! And that effectively means that Neil believed that he had been pointed out by Paul as having left his regular beat. Meaning, in other words, that he "was not belonging to that beat" he was found on!

      Small wonder then, that Neil protested! Not only had some carman claimed that he and another guy had shown Neil the way to the body, that carman had also falsely claimed that he had left bis beat!

      Your suggestion that the emphasis of Neils denial lay on the word "he" does not make for a very credible alternative for the reasons given above. Consequently, the claim that you have dismantled my claim that it was not known at this stage that there were two PC:s involved and your idea that this is "obviously wrong" is - at the very least - a tad rash and poorly underbuilt. I hope you can see that by now.

      Last edited by Fisherman; 01-05-2021, 07:14 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by harry View Post
        A really vicious and clever fellow.or as he describes himself,a family man on his way to work?
        Take your pick
        Ridgway described himself as a nice family man.

        Armstrong described himself as a nice family man.

        Yates described himself as a nice family man.

        Rader described himself as a nice family man.

        Kürten described himself as a nice family man.

        Were they nice family men? Or were they really vicious?

        Take your pick.

        Really, Harry, that argument is not a very good one, is it?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by paul g View Post
          Thanks for the reply’s

          However with Letchmere there just seems more “if’s than actual facts.

          I think it is the other way around. In Lechmereīs case, there ARE the actual facts that are otherwise always lacking for suspects.

          He WAS found with the body - fact.

          The body WAS still bleeding for many minutes afterwards - fact.

          He DID disagree with the police over what he had said - fact.

          He DID have logical working routes that corresponded with the murder sites - fact.

          Look at the others. Druitt? He did kill himself, but how does that link him? Kosminski? Someone called Kosminski was pointed to by Anderson, but which are the established facts around that matter? Tumblety? He was suggested by Littlechild, but which are the facts behind the accusation? And so on and so on.

          Lechmere is unique in how he does have a lot of facts pointing to him in the shape of circumstantial evidence.



          Maybe your book will reveal further convincing evidence that sways.
          Letīs see!

          Comment


          • Fisherman,
            All those you named were caught,convicted and proven to be vicious killers,while Cross has proven to be just a family man who found a body.My arguement is quite sound.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

              Good morning to you, Kattrup, and thank you for your post!

              Your suggestion is that what Neil meant when he said that HE was not alerted to the corpse by two men, was that another policeman, namely PC Mizen was. That, you add, would also mean that Paul may have been believed by the police. And you are critical about having to dismantle very obvious inferences which are very obviously wrong. It gies wothout saying that the inferences you point to are my claim that it was not known at this stage of the proceedings that there were two PC:s involved, both Neil and Mizen. The proof of the pudding would presumably be the part you put in bold, stating that the PC Paul spoke of was not belonging to the beat he was on; Despite the policeman's assertion that he was the first to discover the body, Mr. Paul last night repeated the statement made to our representative on Friday evening that he and another man found the corpse long before the police. He says the policeman he spoke to was not belonging to that beat. Every word he had said was true.

              If you are correct, then I must apologize for having misled the ones who take part of this discussion. But I donīt think I am wrong. So bear with men, please, as I explain why. To do so, we will revisit the papers of the 3:rd, in this case the Daily News, commenting on the press conference held by the police on the evening of the 2:nd of September: It is not true, says Constable Neil, who is a man of nearly 20 years' service, that he was called to the body by two men. He came upon it as he walked, and, flashing his lanthorn to examine it he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the street. These officers had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention, and the mystery is most complete. It should be pointed out that at this stage, the Lloyds Weekly interview with Paul, and the remark you posted about the PC on a beat unfamiliar to him, was in circulation. Thus we may see that as Lloyds speak of how Neil asserted to have been the first to find the body of Nichols, they do not refer to what he said at the press conference on the evening of the 2:nd, but instead the speak of earlier claims on Neils behalf. It therefore seems that Neil was not too impressed by the material presented in Lloyds Weekly.

              Specifically, one has to ask oneself why Neil claimed that it was not true that he was called to the body by two men, without saying that it was Mizen who was called there - if he had that knowledge. It would be very rude of him, having had it pointed out to himself that the PC in question was a man not on his ordinary beat. Having been given this information, why does he not say that much as he, the original finder of the body, got no such call, a colleague of his from another division (and therefore not on his ordinary beat) HAD gotten that call from the two carmen? Why point Paul out as a liar and bolster that accusation with a claim on Pauls behalf that he knew was never made?

              Because he did not know that, Kattrup. Just as I say, he did not know that another PC was involved, and nor did anybody else, save the carmen and Mizen - who apparently did not inform Neil about the carmen. If he had, Neil would not have said what he did, right? Unless, that is, Neil wanted the glory of finding the body all for himself and was willing to potentially oppose three other witnesses, including a fellow PC, at the inquest?

              So how do we explain all of this? Crucially, how do we explain the part about the PC who was not belonging to the beat? The answer lies in the information given by Paul in the Lloyds Weekly. In it, he stated that Lechmere alone was the first finder, and that he had joined up as Lechmere was already in place. He then went on to speak of the examination and added that he then left for his work at Covent Garden market. That established that he was walking from east to west. He then said that he found a PC (the one who was not on his ordinary beat) "in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row". Although he used another name than Bakers Row (a name that was probably colloquially used for Bakers Row), we can still see where he found the PC. I hope that is clear?

              Now, letīs return to Neil again. He was apparently not happy about how Paul said that he had directed the PC he found to the body. Neil said that this was not true, he had found the body alone. This establishes that Neil actually believed that the PC Paul referred to was himself. And once we realize this, we can also see why Neil is not happy about things - because Paul says that the PC he sent to Bucks Row was up at the top of Bucks Row, in Church-row (Bakers Row)! And that effectively means that Neil believed that he had been pointed out by Paul as having left his regular beat. Meaning, in other words, that he "was not belonging to that beat" he was found on!

              Small wonder then, that Neil protested! Not only had some carman claimed that he and another guy had shown Neil the way to the body, that carman had also falsely claimed that he had left bis beat!

              Your suggestion that the emphasis of Neils denial lay on the word "he" does not make for a very credible alternative for the reasons given above. Consequently, the claim that you have dismantled my claim that it was not known at this stage that there were two PC:s involved and your idea that this is "obviously wrong" is - at the very least - a tad rash and poorly underbuilt. I hope you can see that by now.
              Whatever the confusion over who did what, and who said what, was clearly soon dismissed, because we see no evidence of any suspicion against Cross from the police at the time, or in any police dcuments later. Furthermore there is also no evidence from the inquest testimony to show any police concerns, or concerns from the coroner over this minor issue which you are clearly making a big issue over.

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                Whatever the confusion over who did what, and who said what, was clearly soon dismissed, because we see no evidence of any suspicion against Cross from the police at the time, or in any police dcuments later. Furthermore there is also no evidence from the inquest testimony to show any police concerns, or concerns from the coroner over this minor issue which you are clearly making a big issue over.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                Yes, exactly; the police should have delved deeper into the carman, but they did not do so. That is what I am saying, Trevor.

                What YOU are saying is that since the police did not clear things up, we can safely rely on how none of the people named in relation to the murder series could possibly have been the killer.

                I donīt buy it for a minute, Iīm afraid.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by harry View Post
                  Fisherman,
                  All those you named were caught,convicted and proven to be vicious killers,while Cross has proven to be just a family man who found a body.My arguement is quite sound.
                  Aha. So any vicious killer who describes himself as a nice family man will inevitably be caught. Is that it? And to boot, it is now PROVEN that Lechmere was "just a family man who found a body"!!

                  Thatīs astounding, Harry. The brilliance!!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                    Good morning to you, Kattrup, and thank you for your post!
                    Good morning, Fisherman, you're very welcome!

                    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    Your suggestion is that what Neil meant when he said that HE was not alerted to the corpse by two men, was that another policeman, namely PC Mizen was. That, you add, would also mean that Paul may have been believed by the police. And you are critical about having to dismantle very obvious inferences which are very obviously wrong. It gies wothout saying that the inferences you point to are my claim that it was not known at this stage of the proceedings that there were two PC:s involved, both Neil and Mizen. The proof of the pudding would presumably be the part you put in bold, stating that the PC Paul spoke of was not belonging to the beat he was on; Despite the policeman's assertion that he was the first to discover the body, Mr. Paul last night repeated the statement made to our representative on Friday evening that he and another man found the corpse long before the police. He says the policeman he spoke to was not belonging to that beat. Every word he had said was true.
                    Some things to note here:
                    You use the phrase "believed by the police" as though the police were a single entity. It's important to remember that the police was a diverse organisation and that departments, hierachichal levels and individuals within the force could have differences of opinion. Thus, while you believe Neil's statement reveals that "the police" did not believe Paul, that is not necessarily true. Even if his statement meant Paul was not believed, which I do not think it does, it does not follow that "the police" had taken a collective stance on it, had reflected on it, had decided whether to believe or not. It could simply mean that Neil did not believe Paul's statement. So stating as you do that the police did not believe Paul is not supported.

                    Secondly, I think you misinterpret the part about the constable - Paul is not saying that the policeman he spoke to was not belonging to the beat he was on. He is saying: the policeman I spoke to was not belonging to the beat where the corpse was.

                    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    If you are correct, then I must apologize for having misled the ones who take part of this discussion. But I donīt think I am wrong. So bear with men, please, as I explain why. To do so, we will revisit the papers of the 3:rd, in this case the Daily News, commenting on the press conference held by the police on the evening of the 2:nd of September: It is not true, says Constable Neil, who is a man of nearly 20 years' service, that he was called to the body by two men. He came upon it as he walked, and, flashing his lanthorn to examine it he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the street. These officers had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention, and the mystery is most complete. It should be pointed out that at this stage, the Lloyds Weekly interview with Paul, and the remark you posted about the PC on a beat unfamiliar to him, was in circulation. Thus we may see that as Lloyds speak of how Neil asserted to have been the first to find the body of Nichols, they do not refer to what he said at the press conference on the evening of the 2:nd, but instead the speak of earlier claims on Neils behalf. It therefore seems that Neil was not too impressed by the material presented in Lloyds Weekly.
                    Another thing to note is that we do not know what Neil was responding to, precisely. You assume that he is solely concerned with and responding to Paul's statement in that specific paper, but I think it seems that he is responding to a question, like "Is it true that you were alerted to the body by two men?" What we can infer from Neil's statement is only that the fact that Paul and Cross (also) found the body and alerted a constable was known. That is what Neil comments on.
                    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    Specifically, one has to ask oneself why Neil claimed that it was not true that he was called to the body by two men, without saying that it was Mizen who was called there - if he had that knowledge. It would be very rude of him, having had it pointed out to himself that the PC in question was a man not on his ordinary beat. Having been given this information, why does he not say that much as he, the original finder of the body, got no such call, a colleague of his from another division (and therefore not on his ordinary beat) HAD gotten that call from the two carmen? Why point Paul out as a liar and bolster that accusation with a claim on Pauls behalf that he knew was never made?
                    We cannot know why Neil did not say something he did not say, and so we cannot use it as basis for any inference. As mentioned above, he likely was just commenting on or responding to a question about whether he was the constable alerted by passers-by. It does not follow that he would automatically have mentioned Mizen. As mentioned above, it is possible that he did not know precisely who the other constable was, or he did not have permission to make further comments, or he was in a hurry and did not think to mention it or whatever - we don't know but there could be any number of reasons.
                    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    Because he did not know that, Kattrup. Just as I say, he did not know that another PC was involved, and nor did anybody else, save the carmen and Mizen - who apparently did not inform Neil about the carmen. If he had, Neil would not have said what he did, right? Unless, that is, Neil wanted the glory of finding the body all for himself and was willing to potentially oppose three other witnesses, including a fellow PC, at the inquest?
                    I disagree, there was no problem and no opposing of anyone, and as it turned out, both constables appeared at the inquest and were not in opposition. Why would Mizen inform Neil of the carmen, Mizen did not answer to Neil at all. Even if, as you assumed, Neil did not know Mizen had been alerted by the carmen, it does not follow that the rest of the police, i.e. Neil's and Mizen's superiors, did not know either.

                    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    So how do we explain all of this? Crucially, how do we explain the part about the PC who was not belonging to the beat? The answer lies in the information given by Paul in the Lloyds Weekly. In it, he stated that Lechmere alone was the first finder, and that he had joined up as Lechmere was already in place. He then went on to speak of the examination and added that he then left for his work at Covent Garden market. That established that he was walking from east to west. He then said that he found a PC (the one who was not on his ordinary beat) "in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row". Although he used another name than Bakers Row (a name that was probably colloquially used for Bakers Row), we can still see where he found the PC. I hope that is clear?
                    I think so, yes
                    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    Now, letīs return to Neil again. He was apparently not happy about how Paul said that he had directed the PC he found to the body. Neil said that this was not true, he had found the body alone. This establishes that Neil actually believed that the PC Paul referred to was himself. And once we realize this, we can also see why Neil is not happy about things - because Paul says that the PC he sent to Bucks Row was up at the top of Bucks Row, in Church-row (Bakers Row)! And that effectively means that Neil believed that he had been pointed out by Paul as having left his regular beat. Meaning, in other words, that he "was not belonging to that beat" he was found on!
                    No, it does not.

                    What Neil said does not establish that Neil believed the PC referred to was himself. Not at all. So Neil would not have been concerned about being accused of being outside his regular beat.

                    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    Small wonder then, that Neil protested! Not only had some carman claimed that he and another guy had shown Neil the way to the body, that carman had also falsely claimed that he had left bis beat!
                    No, he of course knew that the carmen were referring to another PC, he simply specified that he had not been the PC alerted by the carmen.
                    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    Your suggestion that the emphasis of Neils denial lay on the word "he" does not make for a very credible alternative for the reasons given above. Consequently, the claim that you have dismantled my claim that it was not known at this stage that there were two PC:s involved and your idea that this is "obviously wrong" is - at the very least - a tad rash and poorly underbuilt. I hope you can see that by now.
                    I cannot see that.

                    Neil made a small comment about not being the pc alerted to the body by two carmen. This does not mean and cannot be used to infer that the police did not know there was another pc involved.

                    In fact, it implies the opposite: Neil was perfectly aware that another PC was involved, because otherwise why specify that HE was not the pc alerted?

                    In previous discussions, it has been brought up that Paul's statement in Lloyd's was critical of the police, and the headline in for instance Evening News Sept. 3rd reinforces that: "The police at fault".
                    In that perspective, it is clear why Neil is stating that he actually found the body without help from the public - he is keen to point this out to avoid criticism, perhaps of himself, perhaps of the force in general. It does not mean that he or the police force did not believe Paul or did not know about Mizen being alerted. They perhaps just wanted another perspective out there, namely that of the intrepid constable finding and securing the victim on his own, in order to deflect accusations of being "at fault".

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                      Yes, exactly; the police should have delved deeper into the carman, but they did not do so. That is what I am saying, Trevor.

                      What YOU are saying is that since the police did not clear things up, we can safely rely on how none of the people named in relation to the murder series could possibly have been the killer.

                      I donīt buy it for a minute, Iīm afraid.
                      Each case is judged on its merits and each investigation is different.

                      You keep being told that when a murder takes place in a street and the body left in the street, someone has to find it, Just because a person finds the body does that make them a suspect, no it doesnt. If you are going down that route you might as well accuse everyone throughout the whole series who found bodies as being the killer.

                      In a murder investigation all lines of enquiry and avenues are explored and witness statements material to the crimes are checked and corroborated where possible. There is nothing to show that this process did not occur with Cross and Paul and there is nothing to suggest that the police in 1888 failed to do just that in this instance.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk



                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        Each case is judged on its merits and each investigation is different.

                        And some go badly wrong, right? Like when the police who interviewed Chrstie failed to note that one of the posts holding up a garned fence was a femur, if I donīt misremember things? And the police ended up jailing Evans and sending him to the gallows...

                        You keep being told that when a murder takes place in a street and the body left in the street, someone has to find it, Just because a person finds the body does that make them a suspect, no it doesnt. If you are going down that route you might as well accuse everyone throughout the whole series who found bodies as being the killer.

                        I am not going down that route. I am going down the route that Lechmere was found alone with the body, and that body bled for many minutes afterwards. It is n ot a simple case of finding a long since dead body, Trevor. You seem to forget that?

                        In a murder investigation all lines of enquiry and avenues are explored and witness statements material to the crimes are checked and corroborated where possible. There is nothing to show that this process did not occur with Cross and Paul and there is nothing to suggest that the police in 1888 failed to do just that in this instance.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        But there IS just such evidence - the fact that the police did not find out Lechmereīs real name. What there is NOT is any smidgeon of evidence that Lechmere was in depth checked.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                          Good morning, Fisherman, you're very welcome!

                          Thank you!

                          Some things to note here:
                          You use the phrase "believed by the police" as though the police were a single entity. It's important to remember that the police was a diverse organisation and that departments, hierachichal levels and individuals within the force could have differences of opinion. Thus, while you believe Neil's statement reveals that "the police" did not believe Paul, that is not necessarily true. Even if his statement meant Paul was not believed, which I do not think it does, it does not follow that "the police" had taken a collective stance on it, had reflected on it, had decided whether to believe or not. It could simply mean that Neil did not believe Paul's statement. So stating as you do that the police did not believe Paul is not supported.

                          Of course, I cannot establish which parts of the police thought what - but I can establish that Neil fevently denied having been directed to the murder site by Paul and Lechmere and that none of the officers at the press conference on the 2:nd voiced any other take on things. That was what I meant when I said that the police thought there was just the one PC involved. And to be frank, these were the policemen who foremost counted since they involved the investigating force and the person who was believed to be the finder of the body.

                          Secondly, I think you misinterpret the part about the constable - Paul is not saying that the policeman he spoke to was not belonging to the beat he was on. He is saying: the policeman I spoke to was not belonging to the beat where the corpse was.

                          Eh - no. He is saying, and I quote at verbatim: He says the policeman he spoke to was not belonging to that beat. And when he spoke to the PC, that PC was on the beat walked by Mizen, not the beat walked by Neil. One may of course choose as one wants here, but it is not as Paul actually said what you claim he said, and the inference must in my world be that "that" beat refers to beat where the encounter Paul was commenting on took place. Why would Paul claim that the PC, on leaving Bakers Row, ventured into a beat that was not his ordinary one...? It seems a very odd suggestion.

                          Another thing to note is that we do not know what Neil was responding to, precisely. You assume that he is solely concerned with and responding to Paul's statement in that specific paper, but I think it seems that he is responding to a question, like "Is it true that you were alerted to the body by two men?" What we can infer from Neil's statement is only that the fact that Paul and Cross (also) found the body and alerted a constable was known. That is what Neil comments on.

                          Generally speaking, we know that there were rumours circulating about two men showing a PC the way to the body BEFORE Lloyds Weekly published the interview, so Iīd say that Neil was responding to this persistant rumour as such. It seems likely to me that the press conference wanted to give Neil the chance to publically and once and for all put that rumour to bed.
                          However, there is absolutely nothing to show that Pauls and Lechmereīs alerting Mizen was known to anybody but Paul, Lechmere and Mizen at this stage, so you are wrong there. If that knowledge had been there, then why would Neil paint Paul out as a liar?
                          An interesting side issue on that score: You know that drawing where Neil finds Nichols? Has it occurred to you that in all the other five murders, Tabram included, the drawings in the paper always show the victim and the first finder: Tabram/Reeves, Chapman/Davis, Stride/Diemschitz, Eddowes/Watkins and Kelly/Bowyer. But in the Nichols case, the papers drew Neil finding the body. It tells us what the picture was, Iīd say.


                          We cannot know why Neil did not say something he did not say, and so we cannot use it as basis for any inference. As mentioned above, he likely was just commenting on or responding to a question about whether he was the constable alerted by passers-by. It does not follow that he would automatically have mentioned Mizen. As mentioned above, it is possible that he did not know precisely who the other constable was, or he did not have permission to make further comments, or he was in a hurry and did not think to mention it or whatever - we don't know but there could be any number of reasons.

                          In my world, it DOES follow that he and his seniors would have mentioned Mizen. Neil was under fire for having lied about who was the first finder and for having left his beat, and that was not something the police would let pass uncommented on. It would paint them in a very bad light. If they could put it right, they would, I have no doubt whatsoever about that.

                          I disagree, there was no problem and no opposing of anyone, and as it turned out, both constables appeared at the inquest and were not in opposition. Why would Mizen inform Neil of the carmen, Mizen did not answer to Neil at all. Even if, as you assumed, Neil did not know Mizen had been alerted by the carmen, it does not follow that the rest of the police, i.e. Neil's and Mizen's superiors, did not know either.

                          Of course Neil and Mizen were not in opposition: Both men thought that Neil was the finder. And Neil did not mention the carmen at all, so he could not be opposed on that point.
                          Once again, if the police had been aware of how the land lay, they would certainly have mentioned it at the press conference. It was no state secret but instead important information that they had no reason at all to withhold. Presuming that they would keep quiet about it does not work unless you can explain why they did so. And lazyness or forgetfulness is no really rational answer as far as I can tell.


                          No, it does not.

                          What Neil said does not establish that Neil believed the PC referred to was himself. Not at all. So Neil would not have been concerned about being accused of being outside his regular beat.

                          The fact that the carmen and Mizen were never mentioned by Neil or his superiors tells us that this was no knowledge they had. Ergo, Neil thought that Paul claimed to have shown HIM the way to the body. And the claim involved having informed him about it at the top of Bucks Row - which was not his beat. The idea that what Neil said was "No, it is not true that I was shown to the body by that carman" actually should be pronounced "No, it is not true that I specifically was shown to the body by that carman", and involving the nudge-nudge, blink-blink unvoiced implication " .... but SOMEBODY ELSE was!" lacks any credibility in my world.
                          One must consider how Neil said at the inquest that he flagged Mizen and Thain down, clearly showing that he tought that HE was the instigator of Mizens presence. And Mizen had no reason to tell him about the carmen, as he too believed that this was so, but for another reason: Lechmereīs claim that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row. If Mizen had known that Neil was not the finder, then he should have reported this to his superiors, but he apparently didnīt. The errand only gets in balance in this way.


                          No, he of course knew that the carmen were referring to another PC, he simply specified that he had not been the PC alerted by the carmen.

                          "Of course"? I have provided an alternative scenario that I find a thousand times more likely than yours, so there can be no "of course" Either you or I am right, and the way the evidence looks, I donīt think itīs a tough call, Iīm afraid. You presented a personal take based on a personal idea, and said that you had "dismantled" my claim and that it was very obvious that you were right. You apparently failed to look at it from Neils perspective. That is not much of a ground to allow for any further "of courses", is it?

                          I cannot see that.

                          And thatīs where we differ. If you can prove my take on things wrong or in any way less likely than yours, then do so.

                          Neil made a small comment about not being the pc alerted to the body by two carmen. This does not mean and cannot be used to infer that the police did not know there was another pc involved.

                          Is that "a small comment", though, when someone fervently denies having been shown the way to a murder victim and defending himself against the suggestion that he had left his beat? Even if you do not like it as such, I fail to see how you can claim that perspective to be wrongful?

                          In fact, it implies the opposite: Neil was perfectly aware that another PC was involved, because otherwise why specify that HE was not the pc alerted?

                          If Paul said "I showed that policeman the way to the corpse" and Neil knew that was wrong, how on earth would he explain that at the press conference without using the word "I" ...?
                          Furthermore, why do you lead on that he said "I was not the PC alerted" when he never said that at all, but instead that it was not true that he had been called to the body by two men? It is very misleading and simply not true. There was no such specification unless he emphasized the word "I" - and you donīt know that he did. Plus, as I have pointed out, he would arguably have told about Mizen being the PC involved if that knowledge was there.


                          In previous discussions, it has been brought up that Paul's statement in Lloyd's was critical of the police, and the headline in for instance Evening News Sept. 3rd reinforces that: "The police at fault".
                          In that perspective, it is clear why Neil is stating that he actually found the body without help from the public - he is keen to point this out to avoid criticism, perhaps of himself, perhaps of the force in general. It does not mean that he or the police force did not believe Paul or did not know about Mizen being alerted. They perhaps just wanted another perspective out there, namely that of the intrepid constable finding and securing the victim on his own, in order to deflect accusations of being "at fault".
                          "It is not true" is actually a very clear phrasing. And a very confrontative one, meaning that he should likely not have used it if he knew that Paul was correct. The inference is clear - he didnīt. If he had known, Iīd suggest that he would have explained matters: "There has been an unfortunate mistake in combination with my finding the body of Polly Nichols. In actual fact, the body was first found by two carmen by the names of Paul and Lechmere, and these men later met PC Mizen in Bakers Row and sent him to the murder spot, where I was at that stage in place. The idea that I would have been the PV sent by the carmen is therefore wrong.
                          Surely you can see that this is what a press conference would establish - if it was actually there to be established.

                          You are - as anybody else - welcome to your personal view, be that view good or bad. But I dislike having it claimed that it would dismantle my view and that it would in any way be obvious that I am wrong. And I must ask you to refrain from making claims that cannot be substantiated when discussing the matter.
                          Last edited by Fisherman; 01-05-2021, 10:56 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Didn't Neil's beat cover Baker's Row from Whitechapel Road to Thomas Street, including the top of Buck's Row?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                              But there IS just such evidence - the fact that the police did not find out Lechmereīs real name. What there is NOT is any smidgeon of evidence that Lechmere was in depth checked.
                              How do you know they didnt find out his real name, they must have at some point, and therefore felt that there was nothing suspcious.

                              Do you think that he would have continued this name charade with out beliveing the truth would come out?

                              Give it up take another break, your OCD is getting worse

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                                Didn't Neil's beat cover Baker's Row from Whitechapel Road to Thomas Street, including the top of Buck's Row?
                                We donīt have it in detail, but it seems he turned into Bucks Row from Thomas Street, which was not the top of Bucks Row. Furthermore, he believed he flagged down Mizen by wawing his lantern. If Mizen did not patrol Bakers Row, if it was in fact Neils beat, then why would Neil think he could reach Mizen up there by way of lantern from the murder site?
                                Last edited by Fisherman; 01-05-2021, 11:05 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X