The Darkness of Bakers Row

[Fisherman]

The ancient Romans had saying, one my favorite.. do what’s right, and let the skies fall. I do hope you were totally kidding.

I dont think he was, I think he simply missed out on how the Lechmere case involves so many pointers to the carman that are normally not there.

[Fisherman]

More bullshit is written about Lechmere than anyone else connected with the case. Lechmere was an innocent man who found a body. But the Lechmerian's seem to be on a quest to slur an innocent man's name. Its embarrassing really.

You forgot one "about" in the first sentence. You made an untenable claim in your next. You were dead wrong in the third sentence. And it is only if you were commenting on your own contributions that you got it right in the end.

Surely you could do better than this? There is a case to discuss in detail, that is a far better case than any other case has ever been in the Ripper topic. Producing the odd vomit does not help.

[Lewis C]

I am very interested in whether or not Mizen lied, and I am quite convinced that it makes a world of difference. And when you say that it is more likely that Mizen misunderstood than that he lied, you leave out the option of how he did neither. Once we choose on such grounds, we are in trouble factually.

Yes, it is possible that Mizen did neither, but I think it's much more likely that he misunderstood or misremembered. So when I say it doesn't matter if Mizen lied, I mean as far as Lechmere is concerned, because it's unlikely that Mizen's account is completely accurate, whether Mizen's error was intentional or accidental. For those interested in Mizen himself, the question of this thread does affect how we assess him, so it matters in that sense.

[Lewis C]

As I said before, there are three points to consider.

Charles Lechmere did not say "I found this body in Bucks Row...". He instead said "You are wanted in Bucks Row by a policeman. A woman has been found there..." Thereby, he effectively kept his own role as the finder from Mizen, whether intentional or not. And that applies with or without the other policeman.

According to Mizen, he was told that another PC was in place.

According to Mizen, Lechmere said nothing about murder or suicide, he only said that there was a woman flat on her back in Bucks Row.

So why is it that these three matters are the exact points of misinformation that would help to get Lechmere past the police, if he was the killer? Why are there no misunderstandings/misinformation about matters that would not have had that effect? Mizen could for example have thought that he had been told that it was a man who was found in Bucks Row ("man" is part of the word "wo-man"), so that would have been likely, perhaps? Why was it not about getting the street name wrong? About getting the position of the body wrong?

Why is it only and exclusively about three matters that would all have served to lower the attention of Jonas Mizen? The difference is monumental:

1. Look, Mr constable, I found this woman in Bucks Row, who I think is dead. She is lying there all alone.

2. Evening, constable! A colleague of yours have found this woman lying around down in Bucks Row, where I just passed. He requests help, so you may need to go there.

Which version will get attention and which will not? Which version will have Jonas Mizen urgently checking things out and which is likely to make him think there is no imminent rush?

It is all fine to happy-go-lucky reason that it is all coincidental that the there matters were tailor-made to take Lechmere past the police. But any investigator worth his salt would likely take another view altogether of it.

Since, I've addressed the 2nd point elsewhere, I'll just address points 1 and 3 here. I don't find it significant at all that Lechmere didn't explicitly say that he found a body. He was telling the PC about a body that he had found, and he couldn't have told the PC about the body that he had found if he hadn't found it first, so it was clear that he had found it. Also, the PC would have been needed regardless of who had found it.

I believe there was some doubt about whether or not the woman was dead, maybe she was just drunk, so in that case it's natural that Lechmere wouldn't have said anything about murder or suicide.

[Fisherman]

Yes, it is possible that Mizen did neither, but I think it's much more likely that he misunderstood or misremembered.

Such a thing is a personal choice, and you are entitled to it, as is anybody. I disagree totally, however. I believe the evidence is very much in favor of a guilty verdict, and I have a Kos agreement about that. And he too is entitled to his - professional - view.

So when I say it doesn't matter if Mizen lied, I mean as far as Lechmere is concerned, because it's unlikely that Mizen's account is completely accurate, whether Mizen's error was intentional or accidental. For those interested in Mizen himself, the question of this thread does affect how we assess him, so it matters in that sense.

As long as you can see what happens if Mizens account was completely accurate, I have no problems with our stance. I would recommend not to word yourself about "Mizens error" being either intentional or accidental until you can prove that Mizen made any error at all. Otherwise, we will have a case of somebody presenting a personal belief as a case fact, that somebody being you.

[Fisherman]

Since, I've addressed the 2nd point elsewhere, I'll just address points 1 and 3 here. I don't find it significant at all that Lechmere didn't explicitly say that he found a body.

If you combine it with how he said that Mizen was "wanted" in Bucks Row, it becomes rather a different matter, if you ask me. And I would say that regardless if somebody is under suspicion of being the killer, for me, it always applies that I find it odd if the finder of a body does not own up to it.
It should also be noted, that not owning up to it in Lechmeres case, provides him with the option to lead on that somebody else did the finding. And when it comes to potential case significance, it does not get much significant than that - once again, if you ask me.

He was telling the PC about a body that he had found, and he couldn't have told the PC about the body that he had found if he hadn't found it first, so it was clear that he had found it. Also, the PC would have been needed regardless of who had found it.

Oh yes, he could quite well have told the PC about the body even if he himself was not the original finder. He could have done so, if, for example, he had arrived at a site where a police officer had found a dead woman and sent him on to fetch the nearest constable. Let's not loose sight of that option, since it is the exact thing that Jonas Mizen was seemingly informed had happened.
As it happens, any person who meets a policeman and tells him that there is a woman lying on the broad of her back in the adjacent street, will immediately seem to be the finder - that is the logical guess until any information surfaces that alters the picture. In our case, that information arrived with PC Mizen, telling us that he was informed by Lechmere that another PC was in place in Bucks Row. Mizen was also able to inform us that the man he spoke to did not say that he was needed in Bucks Row, but instead that he was wanted there, the implication being that he was wanted there by somebody. That ties in perfectly with the phantom PC.
Things are not always as simple as we would perhaps like for them to be.

I believe there was some doubt about whether or not the woman was dead, maybe she was just drunk, so in that case it's natural that Lechmere wouldn't have said anything about murder or suicide.

But Lechmere said himself at the inquest that he told Paul over the body that he thought she was dead, he said himself at the inquest that he informed Mizen that he thought that she was dead. So there can be no doubt that Lechmere made this claim. Whether he actually told Mizen this is another matter - according to Mizen, he was only told of a woman on the broad of her back. And as I said a number of times, it is hugely interesting - and I myself think it very relevant - that Lechmere omitted to tell Mizen who found the body, that Mizen says that he was told of another PC, and that Mizen said that he was not told of any possibly grave errand. This I find relevant for the simple reason that all three matters were so perfectly suited to take Lechmere past the police. Was that just a coincidence - or three of them? To add to the many more coincidences? James Scobie did not like these stacked up coincidences, nor did he think that a jury would take kindly to them. If you want to do so, then - again - that is a personal choice to which you are entitled. Me, I am just as entitled to thinking that Scobie is spot on; Charles Lechmere is the exact kind of suspect no jury would like. They would arguably feel that they had been lied to, just as I do - and James Scobie.

[Lewis C]

As long as you can see what happens if Mizens account was completely accurate, I have no problems with our stance. I would recommend not to word yourself about "Mizens error" being either intentional or accidental until you can prove that Mizen made any error at all. Otherwise, we will have a case of somebody presenting a personal belief as a case fact, that somebody being you.

In the same sentence where I said "Mizen's error", I said, "it's unlikely that Mizen's account is completely accurate". I think that indicates that I'm making an assessment rather than stating a fact.

[Abby Normal]

But Lechmere said himself at the inquest that he told Paul over the body that he thought she was dead, he said himself at the inquest that he informed Mizen that he thought that she was dead. So there can be no doubt that Lechmere made this claim. Whether he actually told Mizen this is another matter - according to Mizen, he was only told of a woman on the broad of her back. And as I said a number of times, it is hugely interesting - and I myself think it very relevant - that Lechmere omitted to tell Mizen who found the body, that Mizen says that he was told of another PC, and that Mizen said that he was not told of any possibly grave errand. This I find relevant for the simple reason that all three matters were so perfectly suited to take Lechmere past the police. Was that just a coincidence - or three of them? To add to the many more coincidences? James Scobie did not like these stacked up coincidences, nor did he think that a jury would take kindly to them. If you want to do so, then - again - that is a personal choice to which you are entitled. Me, I am just as entitled to thinking that Scobie is spot on; Charles Lechmere is the exact kind of suspect no jury would like. They would arguably feel that they had been lied to, just as I do - and James Scobie.

Hey fish
why would he tell Paul over the body that he thought she was dead, if according to you, he was trying to minimize the whole situation? You know.. pulling the skirt down over the wound, not telling mizen he thought she was dead etc??
you would think with all his on the spot masterful conning, the last thing he would do was tell Paul he thought she was dead, no??

[Fisherman]

In the same sentence where I said "Mizen's error", I said, "it's unlikely that Mizen's account is completely accurate". I think that indicates that I'm making an assessment rather than stating a fact.

You first say that you consider it unlikely that Mizen was completely correct. That means that you are of the meaning that he was in all likelihood not giving us the true version of events. I am fine with that wording, but less fine when you say that it matters not whether Mizens error was accidental or intentional, and when you do so, you once again forget to produce the third option - that there was never any error at all. That is how I see it, and I do not like being deprived of it being listed as an option. I can see where you are coming from, though, but I still do not like hearing about ”Mizens error” as if it was an established matter.

You should also be aware that my pickyness in these matters are based to a large degree on having had much of what I say pointed out as misinformation and deception. It is not a schooling that makes you a very forgiving pupil.

[Fisherman]

Hey fish
why would he tell Paul over the body that he thought she was dead, if according to you, he was trying to minimize the whole situation? You know.. pulling the skirt down over the wound, not telling mizen he thought she was dead etc??

Telling Paul that he thought she was dead would serve him very well when later claiming that he had told Mizen that he thought that she was dead, Abby. It would create a conformity that served him well if he was the killer. I would also say that he may hade wanted Paul not to make too close an examination, and being told that you are touching a dead person will make many disinclined to touch the body.

you would think with all his on the spot masterful conning, the last thing he would do was tell Paul he thought she was dead, no??

As per the above, I actually donīt think so. But the weighings we are left to do on these matters is a difficult one, with many options and angles open to us. I am only trying to point to a counterpicture to your thinking.

[Lewis C]

You first say that you consider it unlikely that Mizen was completely correct. That means that you are of the meaning that he was in all likelihood not giving us the true version of events. I am fine with that wording, but less fine when you say that it matters not whether Mizens error was accidental or intentional, and when you do so, you once again forget to produce the third option - that there was never any error at all. That is how I see it, and I do not like being deprived of it being listed as an option. I can see where you are coming from, though, but I still do not like hearing about ”Mizens error” as if it was an established matter.

You should also be aware that my pickyness in these matters are based to a large degree on having had much of what I say pointed out as misinformation and deception. It is not a schooling that makes you a very forgiving pupil.

I suggest that the best way to read a sentence is to read it as a whole, and understand that part of a sentence may provide context for the rest of the sentence.

[Lewis C]

But Lechmere said himself at the inquest that he told Paul over the body that he thought she was dead, he said himself at the inquest that he informed Mizen that he thought that she was dead. So there can be no doubt that Lechmere made this claim. Whether he actually told Mizen this is another matter - according to Mizen, he was only told of a woman on the broad of her back. And as I said a number of times, it is hugely interesting - and I myself think it very relevant - that Lechmere omitted to tell Mizen who found the body, that Mizen says that he was told of another PC, and that Mizen said that he was not told of any possibly grave errand. This I find relevant for the simple reason that all three matters were so perfectly suited to take Lechmere past the police. Was that just a coincidence - or three of them? To add to the many more coincidences? James Scobie did not like these stacked up coincidences, nor did he think that a jury would take kindly to them. If you want to do so, then - again - that is a personal choice to which you are entitled. Me, I am just as entitled to thinking that Scobie is spot on; Charles Lechmere is the exact kind of suspect no jury would like. They would arguably feel that they had been lied to, just as I do - and James Scobie.

On the first point, it seems that finding it suspicious that Lechmere didn't explicitly state that he found the body depends on believing that he told the PC that there was another PC at the body.

I said that there was some doubt about whether or not the woman was dead, you said that he thought she was dead. Yes, thought she was dead, but wasn't sure. Even if he had been sure that she was dead, I wouldn't find it suspicious that he didn't speculate about her cause of death.

[Abby Normal]

As per the above, I actually donīt think so. But the weighings we are left to do on these matters is a difficult one, with many options and angles open to us. I am only trying to point to a counterpicture to your thinking.

yes but at that point with paul he dosnt know hes going to run into mizen. at this point paul is like a mini mizen, someone lech would be trying to con and get past too, so saying she was dead would only heighten the seriousness of the problem. but saying to paul.. ahh looks like another passed out drunk to me...would minimize everything and get them both on their way (and lech out of potential trouble)faster and easier.

[Fisherman]

I suggest that the best way to read a sentence is to read it as a whole, and understand that part of a sentence may provide context for the rest of the sentence.

That is a very good method of reading and understanding sentences. If the wording is clear and unambigous and if the writers intentions are accompanied by a good grip of the language, it almost always makes for a good outcome.

Aside from that, we now both know where we stand, and that should be a good thing.

[Fisherman]

On the first point, it seems that finding it suspicious that Lechmere didn't explicitly state that he found the body depends on believing that he told the PC that there was another PC at the body.

IUt is an explosive combination. And when we look at how Mizen remembered and described the exchange, with Lechmere opening the conversation by claiming that another PC wanted Mizens presence in Bucks Row, I think the by far likeliest thing is that Mizen was giving a correct picture. I think the idea that Mizen would have misheard ”You are needed in Bucks Row” as ”You are wanted by a policeman in Bucks Row”, holds very little water.

I said that there was some doubt about whether or not the woman was dead, you said that he thought she was dead. Yes, thought she was dead, but wasn't sure. Even if he had been sure that she was dead, I wouldn't find it suspicious that he didn't speculate about her cause of death.

Actually, I think that Lechmere knew that she was dead. I donīt think he merely thought she was. If I am correct, the thinking part of the equation is acting only.