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

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    Once more, why would Paul say that the policeman he spoke to did not belong to the beat he walked into after leaving Paul? It would be decidedly odd to make that claim. If you encourage a PC to leave his post and walk into another PC:s beat, it goes without saying that he does. not belong to the beat he walks into.
    Why would Paul have needed to think about such a thing, Christer? He left the crime spot, saw a PC in Hanbury Street and told this PC that there was a dead woman lying in Buck’s Row. Why would he have needed to care whether the crime spot was on this PC’s beat or not? A woman lying dead in the street should’ve been reason enough for any PC to respond.

    If Paul should have thought something on the matter, I’d expect that he’d be under the impression that the PC he spoke to actually was on his own beat, seeing that he was in the process of knocking up people when Paul saw him and that the PC didn't say he would come or not. Wouldn’t a PC to go knocking up people on a beat he didn’t belong to? And would a PC be inclined to not go to a dead woman lying in the street if it was on his own beat?

    Another thing is that it may very well have been in response to a question posed by the Lloyd’s reporter, meaning that Paul may not have said anything about what he thought about the PC being on his own turf or another’s, if it hadn’t been for the reporter’s question.

    All the best,
    Frank



    "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
    Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
      Wouldn't a PC to go knocking up people on a beat he didn't belong to?
      That should have been:
      Would a PC go knocking up people on a beat he didn't belang to?
      "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
      Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

        One cannot answer yes or not to questions that involve two different options.
        But it's true that your inferences have been dismantled, and are obviously wrong. It's perhaps not true that we will agree on this.

        Since you prefer to discuss using your own rules, it's pretty pointless to continue. I notice you also keep going on about Cross' name

        The questions were "have you or have you not dismantled the suggestion that the police were not aware that there were two PC:s involved" and "Is it or is it not very obvious that I was wrong".

        One can answer both of those questions with a yes or a no - or one can choose to veil it all in smoke and mirrors.

        The very clear and obvious answer, by the way, is no in both cases. You failed to look at things from Neils perspective, and thought you had produced proof that I was wrong. In combination with this, you made an alternative suggestion that I predict will be marginalized pretty quick since it predisposes that we must accept that Neil first emhasized "I" with the intention to clarify (!) that it was not him but instead Mizen who was called to the murder site, after which the PC claimed that he had flagged down Thain and Mizen by way of his lantern, while all the while he supposedly knew that Mizen had come as a result of the carmen alerting him to the site.

        It makes for a very convoluted and strange suggestion, and that will not be lost on people.

        Of course, this is something that I will keep pointing out as long as you push your suggestion, and so the best you can do is to retire from the discussion as fast aas possible.

        That too will not be lost on people.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
          Why would Paul have needed to think about such a thing, Christer? He left the crime spot, saw a PC in Hanbury Street and told this PC that there was a dead woman lying in Buck’s Row. Why would he have needed to care whether the crime spot was on this PC’s beat or not? A woman lying dead in the street should’ve been reason enough for any PC to respond.

          Exactly. What I am saying is that Paul made the point that Mizen did not belong to the Hanbury Street beat where the two met. It is apparent that Paul thought so - or was told so by Mizen. Otherwise, why would he have mentioned it to Lloyds? Paul could not have been commenting on Neil, since he did not see Neil on the murder morning, it must have been Mizen he spoke of and it follows that Mizen was the PC he believed did not belong to the beat. To what degree this was true or not hinges on whether Mizen was new to the beat or not, but it remains that what Paul effectively says is that the PC he spoke to - and that was Mizen - was not belonging to the beat where they met. Oh, and Mizen was not told the woman was dead, letīs not forget that. He pointed out that he was told that there was a woman flat on her back in Bucks Row, nothing else.

          Having found the body and believing that he was the original finder of it, Neil would have been flummoxed by the suggestion made by Paul that he and another man had directed a PC to the murder spot. Neil knew quite well that he had not been directed there, and he accordingly said that this was not true; he had come upon the woman as he walked his beat. The passage where Paul claims that Mizen was not belonging to the beat where the two met, will have seemed a further untruth to Neil - he had not left his beat and he had certainly not encountered any carmen up at Bakerīs Row.

          He was always certain that he had alerted both Thain and Mizen to the murder site, and Mizen would not have mentioned the carmen to him. Since the two PC:s belonged to different divisions, they would not have had much of an opportunity to speak of the matter in retrospect, and so Neil goes to the inquest on the 1:st believing that he is the finder of the body. Then, even before the Lloyds article is published, the story leaks out and rumours circulate that two men had shown a policeman the way to the murder site. Neil denies this, and on the evening of the 2:nd, a sort of press conference is held by the police, where he is given a chance to publically deny that he had been shown to the murder site by two men. At this stage, it is apparent that Mizens involvement in the business is not common knowledge and that the police certainly were not aware of it. Unless we invest in Kattrups suggestion that Neil knew it all, that he did not take the opportunity to explain what had happened at the press conference and that he spoke of how he had flagged down Mizen although he was supposedly aware at the press conference that Mizen had gone to Bucks Row as the result of having been alerted to the place by Paul and Lechmere. And instead of saying that it was a misconception that he was the PC who had been approached by the carmen, Neil chose to express himself "It is not true that I was shown to the site by two men. I came upon it as I walked my beat", effectively brandishing Paul - who he knew to be correct - a liar. It is a very strange suggestion, but thatīs Kattrup for you!


          If Paul should have thought something on the matter, I’d expect that he’d be under the impression that the PC he spoke to actually was on his own beat, seeing that he was in the process of knocking up people when Paul saw him and that the PC didn't say he would come or not. Wouldn’t a PC to go knocking up people on a beat he didn’t belong to? And would a PC be inclined to not go to a dead woman lying in the street if it was on his own beat?

          A PC calling up people on a beat is very likely to walk that beat, of course. But that does not mean that Paul did not say what he said. It may be that he simply believed that Mizen was not the ordinary beat constable. We canīt tell. We can only say that Paul said that the PC he encountered was not belonging to the beat. The same thing goes for the degree to which a PC is inclined to go to a dead woman (although Mizen only said that he was told that she was on her back in the street, and clearly underlined that he was NOT told of any murder or suicide) on his beat - Paul nevertheless said that the PC he spoke to was not belonging to the beat. That does not change.

          Another thing is that it may very well have been in response to a question posed by the Lloyd’s reporter, meaning that Paul may not have said anything about what he thought about the PC being on his own turf or another’s, if it hadn’t been for the reporter’s question.

          All the best,
          Frank

          Yes, that is possible,. But Kattrup does not allow us to make suggestions about what people said unless we can substantiate them. Before that happens, such suggestions cannot be ascribed any value.
          I think an interesting question is whether Paul meant that the PC did not belong to the beat as in "he was on a beat he was not supposed to be in" or as in "he was on a beat to which he ordinarily did not belong".
          I seem to recall that Mizen was new or relatively new to the beat, but I may be misremembering that part and I cannot find any information about it. It would offer an explanation if this was so. Does anybody have the information at hand?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

            Yes, that is possible,. But Kattrup does not allow us to make suggestions about what people said unless we can substantiate them. Before that happens, such suggestions cannot be ascribed any value.
            I think an interesting question is whether Paul meant that the PC did not belong to the beat as in "he was on a beat he was not supposed to be in" or as in "he was on a beat to which he ordinarily did not belong".
            I seem to recall that Mizen was new or relatively new to the beat, but I may be misremembering that part and I cannot find any information about it. It would offer an explanation if this was so. Does anybody have the information at hand?
            There are very few specific beat officers on patrol in this day and age, but back in my day when there were and we worked specific beats it was not unusual to stray from ones beat to meet up with another officer on a differnet beat especially if you didnt have a radio, because if you were working to specified points on a beat at specified times you would know where the other officer might be located any given time. After all the Whitechapel beats were not that far reaching Watkins said he could walk his un-initerrupted in 12 mins and of course both is and Harveys beat each covered a part of MItre Square

            So you are again creating a mystery where there is no mystery to be created!

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 01-07-2021, 10:53 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

              The questions were "have you or have you not dismantled the suggestion that the police were not aware that there were two PC:s involved" and "Is it or is it not very obvious that I was wrong".

              One can answer both of those questions with a yes or a no - or one can choose to veil it all in smoke and mirrors.

              The very clear and obvious answer, by the way, is no in both cases. You failed to look at things from Neils perspective, and thought you had produced proof that I was wrong. In combination with this, you made an alternative suggestion that I predict will be marginalized pretty quick since it predisposes that we must accept that Neil first emhasized "I" with the intention to clarify (!) that it was not him but instead Mizen who was called to the murder site, after which the PC claimed that he had flagged down Thain and Mizen by way of his lantern, while all the while he supposedly knew that Mizen had come as a result of the carmen alerting him to the site.

              It makes for a very convoluted and strange suggestion, and that will not be lost on people.

              Of course, this is something that I will keep pointing out as long as you push your suggestion, and so the best you can do is to retire from the discussion as fast aas possible.

              That too will not be lost on people.

              No, the questions were:
              Is it true that you have dismantled the suggestion that the police did not know about Mizens role at this stage, or is it merely an alternative suggestion on your behalf?
              and
              And is it totally obvious that I am wrong, as you also claimed, or is that claim more of the same: an alternative suggestion on your behalf only?
              And according to you, the "very clear and obvious answer" to both is "no". I don't think that makes a whole lot of sense.

              Speaking of, where did I suggest that Neil emphasised "I"? You've ridiculed me for it several times now.

              I warned you in my earlier post that we would have to part ways again over this, so obviously I'm not retiring from the discussion as fast as possible, that is another misleading construction of yours. It just makes no sense to continue, as I said. That is not because you "won" or proved me wrong or anything like that, but simply because we're not using the same framework for discussion, as you prefer inventing "facts" and use them to prop up your fanciful suggestions, instead of leading a reasoned debate.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post


                No, the questions were:
                and


                And according to you, the "very clear and obvious answer" to both is "no". I don't think that makes a whole lot of sense.

                Not all of us are suited to recognize sense when we see it, Iīm afraid.

                Speaking of, where did I suggest that Neil emphasised "I"? You've ridiculed me for it several times now.

                You have actually wrongly suggested that he emphasized "he", but since he would not have spoken about himself in third person singularis, I helped out. Your suggestion, by the way, was that Neil perhaps did not say "It is not true that I was shown to the site by two men" but instead "It is not true that I was shown to the spot by two men".

                I warned you in my earlier post that we would have to part ways again over this, so obviously I'm not retiring from the discussion as fast as possible, that is another misleading construction of yours. It just makes no sense to continue, as I said. That is not because you "won" or proved me wrong or anything like that, but simply because we're not using the same framework for discussion, as you prefer inventing "facts" and use them to prop up your fanciful suggestions, instead of leading a reasoned debate.
                Yes, well, I personally find that far less convinving than the suggestion that you have simply realized that your suggestion will never get any traction. But letīs just see, shall we? I am no oracle, I just work from experience in these matters.
                At any rate, you are most welcome to offer any kind of suggestions and claimed dismantlings out here. It makes for revealing exercises.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  There are very few specific beat officers on patrol in this day and age, but back in my day when there were and we worked specific beats it was not unusual to stray from ones beat to meet up with another officer on a differnet beat especially if you didnt have a radio, because if you were working to specified points on a beat at specified times you would know where the other officer might be located any given time. After all the Whitechapel beats were not that far reaching Watkins said he could walk his un-initerrupted in 12 mins and of course both is and Harveys beat each covered a part of MItre Square

                  So you are again creating a mystery where there is no mystery to be created!

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  Am I? Isnīt it a lot more mysterious if Paul left out information about having met more PC:s than Mizen? To me, it is very straightforward. Paul said he went looking for a PC, and met one at the corner of Bakers Row and Hanbury Street, This PC was Mizen. Paul then said to Lloyds that the PC he met did not belong to the beat.

                  What mystery am I creating here, Trevor? Please tell me.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                    Am I? Isnīt it a lot more mysterious if Paul left out information about having met more PC:s than Mizen? To me, it is very straightforward. Paul said he went looking for a PC, and met one at the corner of Bakers Row and Hanbury Street, This PC was Mizen. Paul then said to Lloyds that the PC he met did not belong to the beat.

                    What mystery am I creating here, Trevor? Please tell me.
                    You are creating a whole mystery surrounding your misguided theory about the Nicholls murder and who could have been responsible. There is no mystery there, is no suspicion other than what you have created which has no foundation other than in your eyes. Take the blinkers off apply some common sense accept what others are saying and move on.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      You are creating a whole mystery surrounding your misguided theory about the Nicholls murder and who could have been responsible. There is no mystery there, is no suspicion other than what you have created which has no foundation other than in your eyes. Take the blinkers off apply some common sense accept what others are saying and move on.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      Of course there is no mystery. It is all very straightforward. Why would it be in any way mysterious if Lechmere was the killer?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        Why would Paul have needed to think about such a thing, Christer? He left the crime spot, saw a PC in Hanbury Street and told this PC that there was a dead woman lying in Buck’s Row. Why would he have needed to care whether the crime spot was on this PC’s beat or not? A woman lying dead in the street should’ve been reason enough for any PC to respond.

                        Exactly. What I am saying is that Paul made the point that Mizen did not belong to the Hanbury Street beat where the two met. It is apparent that Paul thought so - or was told so by Mizen. Otherwise, why would he have mentioned it to Lloyds?
                        I, for one, don’t find it apparent that Paul made the point you suggest he made. In fact, I’ve always read it like he was saying that the PC he spoke to wasn’t the one responsible for the beat where the body was found. I’ve always thought he said this in response to a question asked by the Lloyd’s reporter checking with him if he still stood by what he’d stated the night before. It would make sense for a reporter to want to know such a thing. After all, from the reporter’s point of view it would have been very interesting indeed if the PC Paul spoke to had been Neil.

                        But even if Neil read it the way you do, wouldn’t he have browsed through the Lloyd’s and also have read the inquest report with, right above it, Paul’s “remarkable statement”, which says that the policeman he spoke to was going round calling people up? And wouldn’t it, therefore, have been clear to Neil that Paul hadn’t been accusing him of leaving his beat as you suggest?

                        All the best,
                        Frank

                        "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                        Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                          I, for one, don’t find it apparent that Paul made the point you suggest he made. In fact, I’ve always read it like he was saying that the PC he spoke to wasn’t the one responsible for the beat where the body was found. I’ve always thought he said this in response to a question asked by the Lloyd’s reporter checking with him if he still stood by what he’d stated the night before. It would make sense for a reporter to want to know such a thing. After all, from the reporter’s point of view it would have been very interesting indeed if the PC Paul spoke to had been Neil.

                          Aha. Yes, I can see how that would work too, Frank.

                          But even if Neil read it the way you do, wouldn’t he have browsed through the Lloyd’s and also have read the inquest report with, right above it, Paul’s “remarkable statement”, which says that the policeman he spoke to was going round calling people up? And wouldn’t it, therefore, have been clear to Neil that Paul hadn’t been accusing him of leaving his beat as you suggest?

                          All the best,
                          Frank
                          I think Neil was quite aware that Paul was not speaking about himself - Neil had not been called to the spot by two men. What I donīt think is that Neil believed that Paul must instead have been speaking about some other PC; I instead think Neil simply decided that Paul was lying about it.
                          If Neil had truly believed that Paul was correct and that he himself had mistakenly been pointed out as the PC who was shown to the site by the carmen, he would as far as I can see never have said that Pauls claim was "not true" without expanding on WHY it was not true.

                          The idea that Neil was aware of Mizens role and Pauls veracity on the evening of the 2:nd is dead baked to me. The wording Neil used at the press conference is out of sync with such a possibility, whereas it is in perfect sync with him disbelieving Paul: It is not true that I was shown to the site by two men, I came upon the body myself as I was walking my beat, is what the PC says, in that order and with an obvious intent to try and clear up what he believed was a misconception and a false claim.

                          If Neil was of the meaning that Paul was making things up, his reaction to the claim of not belonging to the beat would reasonably have been one of irritation. He was not aware of Mizens role and that he had spoken to the carmen, and so to Neil he himself would have been the only PC involved in the matter. Meaning that Pauls wording about not belonging to the beat would have seemed like Paul talking rubbish and producing an insult as he went along.
                          Last edited by Fisherman; 01-07-2021, 08:04 PM.

                          Comment


                          • How does anything said or done afterwards,determine who killed Nichols?Paul comes upon Cross standing near a dead body,and both go and speak to a policeman to report that body.What evidence,of an incriminating nature,is that against Cross?

                            Comment


                            • Here you are, Harry, I took your post and the liberty to make a few additions and alterations, all with the purpose of helping out! My contributions in red, Harry.

                              How does anything said or done afterwards,determine who killed Nichols, I wonder? Well, as Andy Griffiths put it in the docu, in cases like these, it always comes down to what people say. Paul comes upon Cross standing near a dead body at a stage in time when the body will still bleed for many minutes afterwards, and to boot, it is impossible to establish for how long Lechmere was alone with the body, and both go and speak to a policeman to report that body, although it seems it was only Lechmere who actually spoke to Mizen. What evidence,of an incriminating nature,is that against Cross is what I ask myself, and I have come to the conclusion that it is not evidence as such that Lechmere did kill Nichols, but it is quite apparent that he cannot be ruled out either and so I ask myself if there are other factors that point in his way? And when looking into that, it emerges that a handful of the other murders ascribed to the same killer as the one who did for Nichols actually happened along the logical routes from Doveton Street to Lechmeres work at Pickfords. And I think to myself: these murders could have happened anywhere in London, or at least in the East End, so it is very strange that they took place in the smallish area of Spitalfields. Even stranger is that they also seemd to have taken palce at roughy the same hourws as when the carman would have passed through Spitalfields. And even stranger is that the two murders that did NOT take place in Spitalfields but instead in St Georges and Aldgate actually did NOT take place on what would arguably have been working days for Lechmere. Instead they took place on the night between a Saturday and a Sunday and at much earlier hours - and the first of them was perpetrated around a hundred or so yards from where Lechmereīs mother lived together with one of his daughters, while the other one was perpetrated in Mitre Square - which was situated along his old working route from St James Street to Pickfords.
                              And what about Andy Griffiths and his observation? Well, what Lechmere said, according to PC Mizen, was that there was another PC in place in Bucks Row, asking for assistance.

                              Once I have gotten that far in my thinking, I say to myself: "That Fisherman is a clever fellow! He may well have it all cleared up!!"
                              Last edited by Fisherman; 01-08-2021, 07:03 AM.

                              Comment


                              • What other cases like the Nichols case was Griffith reffering to ?Did he say?
                                'It all comes down to what people say' What does Griffith mean by that remark? Did he say?
                                Cross says he (Cross) was on his way to work when he found Nicholls body,and Paul says he came upon Cross who was standing in the road.What is incriminating about those two statements.Did Griffith say?
                                Was there a PC in Bucks Row requiring assisstance?Appears so,from evidence given.What does Griffith say about that?
                                That fisherman is a clever fellow.What does Griffith say about that?You write as though you believe Griffith a cleverer fellow than you,now I would believe that if Griffith say's so

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X