All roads lead to Lechmere.

[Mark J D]

Miller's Court was about one quarter of the way along Dorset Street from the Commercial Street end of it and does not now exist, so, when using
information about distances online, I am using distances between landmarks that exist now.

I can't remember where I got the 1 1/3 mile estimate from, but there is a distance given online between Christchurch Spitalfields and Old Broad Street as 1.4 miles.

According to https://www.rome2rio.com/map/Commerc...d-Broad-Street

Old Broad Street is a 15 minute walk from Commercial St, London E1 6BW, UK
Old Broad Street is a 14 minute walk from Commercial St, London E1 6LZ, UK

Those walking times suggest a slightly longer distance than yours - about 0.8 miles, not 0.8 km.

God Almighty...




M.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

1 1/3 miles is 2140m.

M.

Miller's Court was about one quarter of the way along Dorset Street from the Commercial Street end of it and does not now exist, so, when using
information about distances online, I am using distances between landmarks that exist now.

I can't remember where I got the 1 1/3 mile estimate from, but there is a distance given online between Christchurch Spitalfields and Old Broad Street as 1.4 miles.


According to https://www.rome2rio.com/map/Commerc...d-Broad-Street

Old Broad Street is a 15 minute walk from Commercial St, London E1 6BW, UK
Old Broad Street is a 14 minute walk from Commercial St, London E1 6LZ, UK

Those walking times suggest a slightly longer distance than yours - about 0.8 miles, not 0.8 km.

I can read the name of the starting point - Duval Street - which suggests an early twentieth century map.

Am I right?

Would you share with us the name of software you used to make the measurement?

[Elamarna]

1 1/3 miles is 2140m.



M.

Very good post, I was about to post the same, but no point in duplication.
So at average walking speed of 3.1 mph he's going to get the the known entrance in Eldon street in under 10 minutes and the proposed entrance in skinner street in 9 minutes


Steve

[Mark J D]

If he was working that day, he would have had to spend two hours of working hours mutilating Kelly and then walked 1 1/3 miles to his place of work

1 1/3 miles is 2140m.

... These arguments are so powerful...

M.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

From what I've read over the years, the supposition is that Lechmere (if the killer) was a psychopath. Psychopaths are calm in fear-inducing situations and engage in risk-taking behaviour. Lechmere engaged Paul in order to control the scene and then hoodwinked Mizen in order to slip away. Obviously this was only a trick Lechmere could pull off once, as he would be under heavy scrutiny if linked to another murder scene. Not saying that's a theory I subscribe to, but it's one that's been put out there.

'Obviously this was only a trick Lechmere could pull off once, as he would be under heavy scrutiny if linked to another murder scene.'

That is a point I have made to Christer Holmgren and others.

The murder of Mary Kelly is the one that would have completely cleared Lechmere.

If he was working that day, he would have had to spend two hours of working hours mutilating Kelly and then walked 1 1/3 miles to his place of work, arriving with bloodstains on him and Kelly's heart seeping blood through his clothes.

Arriving at work in that condition on the morning of a murder would have aroused suspicion and, since he was already known to the police, led to police questioning and discovery of his knife and Kelly's heart.

These arguments are so powerful that when I put them to Christer, he eventually fell back on the argument that Lechmere might not have gone to work that day.

He DIDN'T!

It was a public holiday.

Lechmere was in bed with his wife after tucking his nine children into bed.

He had a cast-iron alibi.

[Harry D]

The Mizen Scam being that Lechmere told Mizen that a policeman was already with the body, in order to get past Mizen?

Wouldn't it have been easier for Lechmere not to find a policeman at all, in which case there would be no need to get past one by making something up?

The most likely explanation is Mizen's memory played tricks on him, and he attributed to Lechmere knowledge of the policeman whom Mizen later found with the body being with the body.

Mizen's testimony on that point was not corroborated.

From what I've read over the years, the supposition is that Lechmere (if the killer) was a psychopath. Psychopaths are calm in fear-inducing situations and engage in risk-taking behaviour. Lechmere engaged Paul in order to control the scene and then hoodwinked Mizen in order to slip away. Obviously this was only a trick Lechmere could pull off once, as he would be under heavy scrutiny if linked to another murder scene. Not saying that's a theory I subscribe to, but it's one that's been put out there.

[Fiver]

Even if they had checked him, I am far from convinced that he would actually have any noticible blood on him, maybe his hands of cuffs, but even that's not certain.

My point being that a lack of obvious blood, does not rule him out.

Steve

There certainly would have been much less blood than the Tabram or Kelly murders, but Nichols killer probably wouldn't have known how much blood was on himself and his clothing. Plus the knife definitely would have been bloody unless it was cleaned off, in which case the rag used to clean it would have been bloody. It since this was the first murder, or at least the first with strangulation before cutting the throat, the killer wouldn't have the experience to estimate how much blood was on their hands and clothes. Darkness would have made it harder to see bloodstains, but it would have been complete folly for the killer to approach anyone until they had the chance to check themselves in good light, preferably in front of a mirror.

Robert Paul, by his own testimony, was afraid of being attacked and tried to avoid Lechmere. I'd expect that fear would make Paul a lot more alert to bloodstains on Lechmere and the two walked together for about 15 minutes.

PC Mizen would have had a light source, which would have made it much easier to see bloodstains. And someone who had never met Mizen would have no reason to expect just how unobservant he would be.

I do agree that the lack of obvious blood does not rule Lechmere out as a suspect, but the willing interactions with Paul and Mizen point to either astounding levels of stupidity or the actions of an innocent man.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

Mizen retired with a spotless record. The scenario you lay out above is what I think actually happened, although Mizen should have at least taken names and addresses.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

While it would have been good to take names/addresses, I get the impression that Cross/Lechmere and Paul overstate how strongly they believed she was dead. I rather suspect they thought she was drunk, but something was a bit ... creepy maybe. So while I don't doubt they did at some point say "I think she's dead", I get the sense they weren't all that compelling. As such, PC Mizen is going to have seen them as just slightly excited fellows reporting a drunk in the street. While we today might think the police should go directly to assist, we can see that attitudes were very different (note, for example, how the police don't bat an eye when Eddowes says she'll get a hiding when she gets home, but rather tell her it serves her right type thing). Anyway, once Mizen gets there and realises things are not as he thought they were, then that is a situation ripe for re-evaluation of things resulting in a memory alternation. Same with Cross/Lechmere and Paul, when they find out through the news she was dead, they will remember mentioning they thought she was but tend to forget that they weren't really all that insistant (I mean, they did just head off to work after talking to PC Mizen for probably less than a minute and may even only have just paused and said "There's a drunk woman laying in Buck's Row and you're needed there" and With Paul adding "I think she could be dead". Something like that isn't going to light a fire under PC Mizen, or any other constable, because it's not coming across as an emergency.

But, for all parties involved, hindsight changes how they recall their own actions, etc.

Anyway, I hope it's clear this is just speculation on my part as I obviously don't know the above is how things went. It's just the impression I get reading between the lines. But of course, my impressions are entirely subjective.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Hi Steve,

I've suggested a simple memory type error before. Basically, when the carmen are saying he is need in Buck's Row, meaning there's a situation that needs dealing with, and he arrives to find PC Neil already there, who in turn needs him to go get the ambulance, it would be very easy for him to misconstrue the carmen as saying he was needed by PC Neil. So one could call that a memory error, or a miscommunication perhaps. In the end, though, the error on that point appears to be PC Mizen's, but I'm not convinced it should be viewed as him lying (though of course he could be) given I think it's probably a mistake on his part as to what Cross/Lechmere and Paul meant. Being told his presence was required in Buck's Row and finding a constable there already could easily result in him presuming the carmen knew of PC Neil's presence, resulting in his reinterpretation for the information he had just been told, which technically could be described as altering his memory.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Mizen retired with a spotless record. The scenario you lay out above is what I think actually happened, although Mizen should have at least taken names and addresses.

Best regards, George

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi Steve,

Nice coverage of the possibilities, and I agree with your view of the probabilities. I tend to think the misunderstanding is the most likely. It's technically a memory error because the most probable reason for him to misconstrue the carmenthat's statements occurs once he gets to Buck's Row and finds PC Neil there in need of assistance. As such, at the time Cross/Lechmere and Paul are talking to him he probably doesn't think they mean he's needed by a policemen, only that there's a woman (probably drunk - even if they said she might be dead he's likely to think they're mistaken given they themselves don't come across as having been convinced she was). Once he gets there, though, he's likely to have re-evaluated what he was told, and therefore is overwriting the original memory of what he thought they meant with a new interpretation, which later gets described as what he remembers them initially telling him.

Anyway, if that is what happened, and I personally see that as very plausible, then nobody has actually lied because nobody is telling a deliberate falsehood. Rather, PC Mizen appears to have misunderstood what the carmen originally were saying, and Cross/Lechmere's disagreement with PC Mizen reflects that it was a misunderstanding.

Too often we can be quick to point the finger and accuse someone of lying, but when statements conflict like this I think the first step is to determine if the conflict may simply represent a simple misunderstanding and/or mistake. Those types of explanations, however, tend to be boring and don't allow for building of further arguments towards one conclusion or another, and where's the fun in that?

- Jeff

I think you're saying more or less what I said here and on other forums, namely that Mizen's memory played a trick on him and he reinterpreted Lechmere's 'wanted' to mean 'wanted by a policeman' after coming across a policeman with the body.

[JeffHamm]

Jeff, see my reply to PI 1

Hi Steve,

Nice coverage of the possibilities, and I agree with your view of the probabilities. I tend to think the misunderstanding is the most likely. It's technically a memory error because the most probable reason for him to misconstrue the carmen's statements occurs once he gets to Buck's Row and finds PC Neil there in need of assistance. As such, at the time Cross/Lechmere and Paul are talking to him he probably doesn't think they mean he's needed by a policemen, only that there's a woman (probably drunk - even if they said she might be dead he's likely to think they're mistaken given they themselves don't come across as having been convinced she was). Once he gets there, though, he's likely to have re-evaluated what he was told, and therefore is overwriting the original memory of what he thought they meant with a new interpretation, which later gets described as what he remembers them initially telling him.

Anyway, if that is what happened, and I personally see that as very plausible, then nobody has actually lied because nobody is telling a deliberate falsehood. Rather, PC Mizen appears to have misunderstood what the carmen originally were saying, and Cross/Lechmere's disagreement with PC Mizen reflects that it was a misunderstanding.

Too often we can be quick to point the finger and accuse someone of lying, but when statements conflict like this I think the first step is to determine if the conflict may simply represent a simple misunderstanding and/or mistake. Those types of explanations, however, tend to be boring and don't allow for building of further arguments towards one conclusion or another, and where's the fun in that?

- Jeff

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

I've suggested a simple memory type error before. Basically, when the carmen are saying he is need in Buck's Row, meaning there's a situation that needs dealing with, and he arrives to find PC Neil already there, who in turn needs him to go get the ambulance, it would be very easy for him to misconstrue the carmen as saying he was needed by PC Neil. So one could call that a memory error, or a miscommunication perhaps. In the end, though, the error on that point appears to be PC Mizen's, but I'm not convinced it should be viewed as him lying (though of course he could be) given I think it's probably a mistake on his part as to what Cross/Lechmere and Paul meant. Being told his presence was required in Buck's Row and finding a constable there already could easily result in him presuming the carmen knew of PC Neil's presence, resulting in his reinterpretation for the information he had just been told, which technically could be described as altering his memory.

- Jeff

Jeff, see my reply to PI 1

[Elamarna]

Thanks for your reply.

I can't think of any other explanation and wonder which ones you have thought of.

I think I list 7 variations in my book on Bucks Row.

That includes that Mizen told the truth, and Lechmere lied because HE was guilty.

That Lechmere lied because he was running late, and wanted to get to work

Neither of which I consider likely, but other do.

I look at the possibility that Mizen told a white lie, to cover what HE may have perceived as his less than urgent reply.

The least controversial scenero is that there was a genuine misunderstanding . An assumption on Mizen's part when he found Neil on site

I give several different takes on how this may have occurred.

Steve

[JeffHamm]

Hi PI

There are many possible scenero's to why the Evidence from Mizen is different from.the carmen, but it's the first time I have heard his memory played tricks on him, I must say.

He would have written up a report at the end of his duty, and he's giving evidence just over 72 hours later.

I agree his evidence was not corroborated, and the police report of 19th September does not even mention Mizen's version it says
"and on arriving at the corner of Hanbury St. and Old Montague St. they met P.C. 55 .H Mizen and acquainted him of what they had seen"

No mention of another officer.

Before you ask, I certain do not think he was told another officer wanted him.

Steve

Hi Steve,

I've suggested a simple memory type error before. Basically, when the carmen are saying he is need in Buck's Row, meaning there's a situation that needs dealing with, and he arrives to find PC Neil already there, who in turn needs him to go get the ambulance, it would be very easy for him to misconstrue the carmen as saying he was needed by PC Neil. So one could call that a memory error, or a miscommunication perhaps. In the end, though, the error on that point appears to be PC Mizen's, but I'm not convinced it should be viewed as him lying (though of course he could be) given I think it's probably a mistake on his part as to what Cross/Lechmere and Paul meant. Being told his presence was required in Buck's Row and finding a constable there already could easily result in him presuming the carmen knew of PC Neil's presence, resulting in his reinterpretation for the information he had just been told, which technically could be described as altering his memory.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi PI

There are many possible scenero's to why the Evidence from Mizen is different from.the carmen, but it's the first time I have heard his memory played tricks on him, I must say.

He would have written up a report at the end of his duty, and he's giving evidence just over 72 hours later.

I agree his evidence was not corroborated, and the police report of 19th September does not even mention Mizen's version it says
"and on arriving at the corner of Hanbury St. and Old Montague St. they met P.C. 55 .H Mizen and acquainted him of what they had seen"

No mention of another officer.

Before you ask, I certain do not think he was told another officer wanted him.

Steve

Thanks for your reply.

I can't think of any other explanation and wonder which ones you have thought of.