The Darkness of Bakers Row

[Fisherman]

No there isn't. Scobie was misled otherwise he wouldn't have said there was a court case against Lechmere.

As I said, there is no reason to discuss with domeone who is unwilling to accept the facts. Goodbye to you.

[John Wheat]

Oh, there is. Otherwise, a KC would not say that there is a court case against him. They do not pluck such things out of thin air, the way you pluck your denial out of it. But I sense this “debate” with you is going down the standard drain that all exchanges with you tend to end up, so I will waste no more time on you.

No there isn't. Scobie was misled otherwise he wouldn't have said there was a court case against Lechmere.

[Fisherman]

There is no circumstantial evidence Lechmere was the Ripper.

Oh, there is. Otherwise, a KC would not say that there is a court case against him. They do not pluck such things out of thin air, the way you pluck your denial out of it. But I sense this “debate” with you is going down the standard drain where all exchanges with you tend to end up, so I will waste no more time on you.

[John Wheat]

There is no absolute PROOF that he was the Ripper, but that is the case for every so called suspect. So I would still like for you to explain why you only advice respect for him, and not for the other 300 suspects. Plus, of course, in Lechmeres case, the evidence - and there are tons of it, albeit circumstantial - convinced KC James Scobie that there is a court case to be had against the carman, that suggests guilt. And as we both know quite well, that is the case for one suspect and one suspect only. So, you see, the confidence I have in pointing him out has a legal backing up. As for recionsidering things, it is good to see that you no longer think the Lechmere discussion pointless and tiresome, since you eagerly take part of it. Good to see, John!

There is no circumstantial evidence Lechmere was the Ripper.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,

When are you going to stop telling me things like the police didn't identify JtR, about the murder of a politician, and now about John Christie, when the only subject that I have been discussing is that you wrote, "Logic suggests that Mizen was always on the money - and Lechmere was lying". I have said that as the police and the Coroner, with evidence that we don't have, concluded that Paul and Lechmere found Mizen and told him what they had seen. Or to put it in simple English, their version of events amounts to - logic suggests that Mizen was mistaken - and Lechmere did not lie".

Well, as long as you use non existant evidence to try and point out how the police must have delved deep into the matter about the disagreement between Lechmere and Mizen, I am going to produce examples of how the police very often FAIL to do what they would have needed to do to solve various cases.
I hope that answers your question.

I have never suggested that the police were infallible, only that they investigated and reached the opposite conclusion to yours. We don't have all of the evidence that they possessed, but we can try to put some of it together from what we know.

Yes, we can. But, believe it or not, we do not put things together the same way. If we did, we would not be having this discussion.

For Lechmere to have lied to Mizen, he had to be on his own without Paul.

No, I īm afraid that is not an absolute. Although I do not favor the suggestion, it may be that the carmen agreed to tell whichever policeman they came across that porkies story about another PC. It may be that Lechmere suggested this and told Paul that it would get them both to work in time.
So no, getting Paul out of the picture is no absolute. But I DO believe that he WAS out of earshot as Lechmere lied to Mizen, and I base that on a number of matters, matters I have already quoted.

So what was said by these two? Lechmere said that he and Paul walked on, found Mizen, and told him about Nichols. He said that he thought that she was either drunk or dead, whilst Paul said he thought she was dead.

Yes. And one has to ask oneself why Paul would have said that he thought that a warm and breathing woman was dead. As a general rule, warm and breathing women are alive. So there is a red flag to consider here.

Paul said that they walked on together, found Mizen, and told him what they had seen.

Yes: ”We told him what we had seen”. Again, if they agreed to tell a PC what they had seen, and if Lechmere was the one who - alone - walked up to Mizen and spoke to him (note the quotation from Paul in the Morning Advertiser: ”I sent the other man for a policeman”), and if Paul was then asked by a juror or the coroner ”Did you tell the policeman what you had seen?” - what was he to answer? Yes? Or no? I think there can only be one answer to that question. If you disagree, please tell me how that would work.

Paul had previously been reported as advising a journalist that he told Mizen that Nichols was dead - which agrees with what Lechmere said.

But NOT with what Paul knew about the woman! We cannot award as much credence to a newspaper article as we award to the sworn inquest testimony, if the two sources are not in sync. Plus, and this is an important plus, Paul DOES tell the inquest that he DID think that the woman was dead - up until he felt her chest moving and realized that she was still warm. It seems to me that the reporter is only giving us the first segment of that story. Whether that was on account of the reporter cutting away parts of the story or on account of Paul only providing half of the story himself, we cant tell. But we CAN tell that Paul at the inquest spoke about the moving chest and the warmth of the body, and so we DO know that he did NOT think that Nichols was dead. Again, if you disagree, please tell me how that would work.

Mizen apparently said at the inquest that Lechmere told him he was wanted in Baker's Row, the bit about another policeman being added later, and when Lechmere spoke to him he was accompanied by another man. So the available evidence from all three of them seems to confirm that Lechmere and Paul were together when they found Mizen.

If you cut half of the evidence away, then yes. But if you add that Mizen said that ONE man spoke to him and had to be reminded of Pauls presence by the coroner, if you look at how the Morning Advertiser quoted Paul as saying that he sent the other man for a policeman and if you remember the passage in the Echo that describes Paul as ”the other man, who went down Hanbury Street”, we get a VERY different picture, and we realize that Mizens answering ”yes” to the coroners sentence ”there was another man in company with Cross as you spoke to him” must not mean that the two were in close enough company to be able to hear what the other one said. But you forgot these things, Doctored Whatsit, did you not?

That is my evidence for doubting your statement, please don't give me any more stories, or try to convince people that I have claimed that the police were infallible. Please just provide the evidence which destroys the facts that we all know, and which demonstrate your claim that "logic suggests that Mizen was always on the money - and Lechmere lied".

And that was my evidence for why you should not doubt my statement. As I say, two different pictures can be construed from the material (and I am not the one to conceal that fact), and so we need to accept that. As should be very obvious to anybody who has read our exchange, I have never said that you believe the police to be infallible. What I have said is that it must be recognized that they are not infallible, and that has been led on by your suggestion that the police would have checked out and discarded any suggestion that the carman could have been lying. To make that suggestion is not the same as saying that the police were infallible, but it nevertheless requires that we take a look at police work in general, so that we may conclude if you must be correct about your assumption or not. And to that end, the examples I have given are extremely useful, not least since they were all examples from many decades after the Ripper scare - and I do not hesitate to say that mistakes on behalf of the poilice will be more likely with every added decade of time. They knew much less, they were much more prejudiced and they will have been more likely to make mistakes. Again, if you disagree with that, let me know how that works, Doctored Whatsit. By now, you should also be able to see why I am saying that logic suggests that Mizen was on the money and Lechmere a liar. That does not mean that you must agree with it. But it DOES mean that you need to weigh all of the evidence up without forgetting vital parts of it, before you try to conclude things. I believe you have failed rather badly in that rrespect so far.

[Fisherman]

There is no evidence Lechmere was the Ripper whatsoever. As for the other suspects anyone pointing a finger at any suspect who isn't a proven murderer as confidently as the Lechmere is the Ripper brigade might want to reconsider there stance.

There is no absolute PROOF that he was the Ripper, but that is the case for every so called suspect. So I would still like for you to explain why you only advice respect for him, and not for the other 300 suspects. Plus, of course, in Lechmeres case, the evidence - and there are tons of it, albeit circumstantial - convinced KC James Scobie that there is a court case to be had against the carman, that suggests guilt. And as we both know quite well, that is the case for one suspect and one suspect only. So, you see, the confidence I have in pointing him out has a legal backing up. As for recionsidering things, it is good to see that you no longer think the Lechmere discussion pointless and tiresome, since you eagerly take part of it. Good to see, John!

[Doctored Whatsit]

No, it is not impossible that they were all total idiots, that is true. Moreover, it is evident that one hundred years of Ripperology ALSO seems to have produced people who were all total idiots - me included - because Lechmere was overlooked for all of that time. By ALL of us!

It is easy enough to say today that "They MUST have checked that out!", but keep in mind that we were ALL at a total loss to see the potential explosive power of the Lechmere bid for all of that time. Loosing track of that today, and making claims that an idiot would see his potential culpability would be the ultimate arrogance. We missed out, all of us, and we need to accept that.

A little more "idle chat" for you: When John Christie was interviewed in relation to the many murders that had occurred in his vicinity, the police accepted his innocence - after all, he WAS an ex copper, albeit a war time extra copper - and so they said "Thank you very much, Mr Christie!" and went out his front door and passed down his garden path. That garden path was lined with a fence, held up by wooden poles - and a female femur bone, that the police failed to note.

Some little time after, the police got Christies neighbor Timothy Evans hung for the murders Christie had committed.

So what do we call these policemen, Doctored Whatsit? Knowledgeable and vigilant professionals? Hard-core detectives, who knew all there was to know about the case?

Or total idiots?

Let me know what you decide.

Hi Christer,

When are you going to stop telling me things like the police didn't identify JtR, about the murder of a politician, and now about John Christie, when the only subject that I have been discussing is that you wrote, "Logic suggests that Mizen was always on the money - and Lechmere was lying". I have said that as the police and the Coroner, with evidence that we don't have, concluded that Paul and Lechmere found Mizen and told him what they had seen. Or to put it in simple English, their version of events amounts to - logic suggests that Mizen was mistaken - and Lechmere did not lie".

I have never suggested that the police were infallible, only that they investigated and reached the opposite conclusion to yours. We don't have all of the evidence that they possessed, but we can try to put some of it together from what we know. For Lechmere to have lied to Mizen, he had to be on his own without Paul. So what was said by these two? Lechmere said that he and Paul walked on, found Mizen, and told him about Nichols. He said that he thought that she was either drunk or dead, whilst Paul said he thought she was dead. Paul said that they walked on together, found Mizen, and told him what they had seen. Paul had previously been reported as advising a journalist that he told Mizen that Nichols was dead - which agrees with what Lechmere said. Mizen apparently said at the inquest that Lechmere told him he was wanted in Baker's Row, the bit about another policeman being added later, and when Lechmere spoke to him he was accompanied by another man. So the available evidence from all three of them seems to confirm that Lechmere and Paul were together when they found Mizen.

That is my evidence for doubting your statement, please don't give me any more stories, or try to convince people that I have claimed that the police were infallible. Please just provide the evidence which destroys the facts that we all know, and which demonstrate your claim that "logic suggests that Mizen was always on the money - and Lechmere lied".

[John Wheat]

You seem not as keen on people having respect for the other 300 dead ”suspects”, John? Oh, and just a brief reminder: being a witness does not preclude being a killer. Criminal history has abundant examples of criminals who masquerded as witnesses. And another brief reminder: If you want to say that Lechmere is being ”fit up” for the Ripper crimes, you need to either prove your claim or rephrase yourself. That is how a respectful and sound debate is conducted. And those who find a topic ”pointless and tiresome” should perhaps not debate it at all.

There is no evidence Lechmere was the Ripper whatsoever. As for the other suspects anyone pointing a finger at any suspect who isn't a proven murderer as confidently as the Lechmere is the Ripper brigade might want to reconsider there stance.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere was a witness and the crusade to fit Lechmere up for the Ripper crimes is both pointless and tiresome. Have some respect for the dead.

You seem not as keen on people having respect for the other 300 dead ”suspects”, John? Oh, and just a brief reminder: being a witness does not preclude being a killer. Criminal history has abundant examples of criminals who masquerded as witnesses. And another brief reminder: If you want to say that Lechmere is being ”fit up” for the Ripper crimes, you need to either prove your claim or rephrase yourself. That is how a respectful and sound debate is conducted. And those who find a topic ”pointless and tiresome” should perhaps not debate it at all.

[John Wheat]

Exactly. What irks me most about that criticism is that today, so many people are som very sure about how the police could not have missed out on Lechmere - who these posters THEMSELVES missed out on totally until Michael Connor and Derek Osborne came along.

What ever happened to humility?

Lechmere was a witness and the crusade to fit Lechmere up for the Ripper crimes is both pointless and tiresome. Have some respect for the dead.

[Fisherman]

interesting fish. i had never heard of it. reminds me of other killers, who were known by police but never looked at thoroughly or mistakenly taken off the list.. nilsen, ridgeway etc. main zodiac suspect Allen (who i personally beleive was probably the zodiac) was discovered to have been previously questioned and forgotten, when he later became the main suspect. very well could have happened to lech.

i find your analogy relevant and i disagree with posters who apply the police must have been idiots arguments to miss it. it happens.. like anyone else the police are human, and make mistakes, and detective work is difficult. its hard to solve many if not most cases.

Exactly. What irks me most about that criticism is that today, so many people are som very sure about how the police could not have missed out on Lechmere - who these posters THEMSELVES missed out on totally until Michael Connor and Derek Osborne came along.

What ever happened to humility?

[Fisherman]

Unfortunate typo. I don't think Albert Einstein was also Duke Ellington!

Then again you are not a policeman, so you WOULD suss that out.

"Big Band Theory". Like it!

[Fisherman]

This is a false equivalency, Christer.

Dr. Whatsit is not asking Abberline, Swanson, and the Coroner to solve 11 seemingly motiveless street murders. He's merely asking them to notice and unravel a simple discrepancy between a police constable and two citizens--all of whom were available to interview and question.

One might as well argue that since Albert Einstein didn't come up with the Big Band Theory, he can't be trusted to do simple physics equations.

What Doctored Whatsit argued was that the men in charge of the case were totally unlikely to miss out on how Lechmere would be a prime suspect if he had lied to Mizen. There is therefore nothing remotely "false" in pointing out that the police - in whom Doctored Whatsit puts so much retrospective faith - ultimately failed to solve the murders.Similarly, there is nothing "false" about pointing out that the police have a looooong history of missing out on very simple matters through the history of crime, and of getting things incredibly and inexplicably wrong at times.

It goes to show that the suggestion Doctored Whatsit makes - that the matter was looked into and found to be in favor of Lechmeres veracity - is a very premature suggestion, based on expectations on the police force that they have before and since shown themselves unable to fill.

As a matter of fact, if we were to treat the exact issue only as viable for explaining these things, we would never get an explanation, since the matter remains unresolved. Therefore, all we can do is to ask ourselves "Could the police have missed out on this?", and the answer is always going to be yes, regardless of the degree of credibility various people will ascribe to the matter - and we WILL ascribe various degrees of credibility to it. In the end, I have no problems to say that they SHOULD have looked into it, and likewise that I believe that today, most similar matters ARE looked into. But NOT all of them, EVEN today!
And back then? It is a very different ballgame, I can say that much.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,

Let's get back to the point that is actually being discussed, and not idle chat about other issues.

I have produced no "idle chat" about anything. You, on the other hand, made the claim that the police were infallible enough to never have missed out on Lechmere. And we both know that the police historically have made tons and tons of extremely poor mistakes, so maybe we should be careful with the expression "idle chat".

You wrote, "Logic suggests that Mizen was always on the money - and that Lechmere was lying". That is the only subject of our discussion.

I keep saying that it is not logical to believe that, because Mizen's colleagues, with evidence that we don't have, didn't believe him, so why should we?

Where is you evidence that Mizens colleagues disbelieved him? Strictly speaking, there is no such evidence. So we cannot invent it today.

What there is, is of course what seems to be a failure to follow up on the lie Lechmere seemingly told to Mizen. But we must be careful about wringing that into a claim that Mizens colleagues disbelieved him. It may be that they never got around to forming any verdict at all.
It may well be that Mizen - IF his colleagues pressed the point, which we don't know - said "I must have misheard the carman" or something such. Maybe he was TOLD "You must have mishear the carman", and simply accepted that there was little he could do about it, once his colleagues had decided on it.
The possibilities are many, and your suggestion about a thorough investigation into the matter is but one of them - and such an investigation SHOULD have entailed checking the carman out in depth, and we know that they clearly never did - the name "Cross" in the October report, and the lack of the name "Lechmere" in the same report puts that beyond reasonable doubt.

Of course it isn't absolutely impossible that the entire Metropolitan police force and the Coroner all were total idiots, and that the statements made by Paul and Lechmere didn't tally, and no-one noticed ..... but is it so likely that it is only logical to believe this, and totally illogical to think that they might have been right?

No, it is not impossible that they were all total idiots, that is true. Moreover, it is evident that one hundred years of Ripperology ALSO seems to have produced people who were all total idiots - me included - because Lechmere was overlooked for all of that time. By ALL of us!

It is easy enough to say today that "They MUST have checked that out!", but keep in mind that we were ALL at a total loss to see the potential explosive power of the Lechmere bid for all of that time. Loosing track of that today, and making claims that an idiot would see his potential culpability would be the ultimate arrogance. We missed out, all of us, and we need to accept that.

A little more "idle chat" for you: When John Christie was interviewed in relation to the many murders that had occurred in his vicinity, the police accepted his innocence - after all, he WAS an ex copper, albeit a war time extra copper - and so they said "Thank you very much, Mr Christie!" and went out his front door and passed down his garden path. That garden path was lined with a fence, held up by wooden poles - and a female femur bone, that the police failed to note.

Some little time after, the police got Christies neighbor Timothy Evans hung for the murders Christie had committed.

So what do we call these policemen, Doctored Whatsit? Knowledgeable and vigilant professionals? Hard-core detectives, who knew all there was to know about the case?

Or total idiots?

Let me know what you decide.

[Fisherman]

You repeating false claims does not make them true.

Another post to love: I of course never make OR repeat false claims - and I will prove Fiver wrong again. He really should not make these allegations - it is not only wrong, but also disingenuous, since I am always Abe to prove him wrong.

"Cross, when he spoke to witness about the affair, was accompanied by another man. Both went down Hanbury-Street." - PC Mizen, 3 September 1888 Star.

"There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness. The other man, who went down Hanbury-Street, appeared to be working with Cross." - PC Mizen, 3 September 1888 Echo.

"The Coroner - There was another man in company with Cross? The Witness - Yes. I think he was also a carman." - 4 September 1888 Morning Advertiser

"police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-Street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying." - 4 September 1888 Daily Telegraph

"When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-Street." - PC Mizen, 4 September 1888 Times

PC Mizen made it very clear that he was approached by Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul.

That was easy: Mizen NEVER says ANYTHING about Paul "approaching" him. Anybody with reading skills is able to see that. The two men were in each other's company, but I have pointed out many times before that the term "being in each others company" is not something that allows us to establish a certain distance. I went to Sicily last autumn, in company with my wife. We were not always within earshot of each other, but we WERE in company of each other nevertheless. I could produce a thousand other examples, but I have made my point by now.

Using the examples Fiver uses, it may SEEM as if the two were close together, and it may SEEM as if both men spoke to Mizen. However, what Fiver AVOIDS to post is how Mizen says that he was approached by A man. ONE man. NOT two men.

Now, if he WAS approached by two men, who both spoke to him, then why on earth would he not say that? Why would he persistently claim that ONE man approached him? Does Fiver have any viable explanation for that?

Again, we have Paul quoted as saying that he "sent the other man for a policeman", and we have it on record about Paul that he himself was "the other man, who went down Hanbury Street".

Now, do I say that Fiver is making false claims, since I have it on record that Paul sent Lechmere for the PC and went down Hanbury Street himself, just as I have multiple records of Mizen saying that ONE man approached him?
No, I don't. And I don't do that because I find it a very, very sad way of "debating". I know that there are records that can be used to argue in BOTH directions, and so I simply settle here for showing everybody that Fiver is not being entirely truthful - and to boot, he accuses me of "repeating false claims".

What I do repeat is my interpretation of the evidence, not "false claims", and I am very much entitled to do so. Moreover, since nobody else through the decades has identified the interpretation I and many others make nowadays, I am of the meaning that important new angles have - at long last - been brought to the table. Trying to stop them reaching the table by way of claiming personal takes on things as "facts" is not going to work.

Others do not agree with you Fiver, just as there are those who do not agree with me. I suggest we both learn to live with it. And I am already there.