The Darkness of Bakers Row

[Doctored Whatsit]

Logic suggests that Mizen was always on the money - and Lechmere was lying.

Your logic may suggest that to you, but that was not the view of those who investigated the matter, who interviewed the witnesses, and who studied all of the evidence which we don't have. Swanson, Abberline and the Coroner all reached the conclusion that Lechmere and Paul sought out Mizen, and together they told him what they had seen.

What sort of logic disagrees with them when they had all of the necessary information to reach a conclusion, and we have none of it?

[Fisherman]

Your logic may suggest that to you, but that was not the view of those who investigated the matter, who interviewed the witnesses, and who studied all of the evidence which we don't have. Swanson, Abberline and the Coroner all reached the conclusion that Lechmere and Paul sought out Mizen, and together they told him what they had seen.

What sort of logic disagrees with them when they had all of the necessary information to reach a conclusion, and we have none of it?

”Those who investigated the case” failed to solve it, I ´m afraid, and therefore your point has no value. If they had been infallible, it would have been another matter, but it is very clear that they were anything but. It should not surprise us all that much; the logic of the task force that sought after Peter Sutcliffe stipulated that it was a geordie that was sought after, the logic of those who looked for Danny Rolling stipulated that they needed to find themselves a surgeon, the logic of the Duesseldorf police back in the 1920s stipulated that they were looking for three or four killers, not just the one - Peter Kürten. Admittedly, these three serial killers were all caught, but it certainly was not due to how the police logic was infallible.
I am often pointed out as being arrogant for thinking that I may have the correct soultion to the Ripper case, when all of those detectives who preceded me failed, together with scores of amateur sleuths and ripperologists. I don´t think much of that suggestion. I have a conviction and I have lots of evidence to help me along, plus a KC who says that there is a court case to be had against Lechmere, suggesting guilt.

If you don´t like it, fine. If you have decided that the amount of people who tried to solve it but failed are a guarantee for how nobody can solve it fortwith, fine. You are as entitled to that kind of thinking as I am to thinking the opposite. The real problem with your post is that it is not very productive as such. It does not evaluate the matter, it simply says that the failed attempts to solve the case guarantees us that it will stay unsolved, and that is as meagre an offering as they come.

[Doctored Whatsit]

”Those who investigated the case” failed to solve it, I ´m afraid, and therefore your point has no value. If they had been infallible, it would have been another matter, but it is very clear that they were anything but. It should not surprise us all that much; the logic of the task force that sought after Peter Sutcliffe stipulated that it was a geordie that was sought after, the logic of those who looked for Danny Rolling stipulated that they needed to find themselves a surgeon, the logic of the Duesseldorf police back in the 1920s stipulated that they were looking for three or four killers, not just the one - Peter Kürten. Admittedly, these three serial killers were all caught, but it certainly was not due to how the police logic was infallible.
I am often pointed out as being arrogant for thinking that I may have the correct soultion to the Ripper case, when all of those detectives who preceded me failed, together with scores of amateur sleuths and ripperologists. I don´t think much of that suggestion. I have a conviction and I have lots of evidence to help me along, plus a KC who says that there is a court case to be had against Lechmere, suggesting guilt.

If you don´t like it, fine. If you have decided that the amount of people who tried to solve it but failed are a guarantee for how nobody can solve it fortwith, fine. You are as entitled to that kind of thinking as I am to thinking the opposite. The real problem with your post is that it is not very productive as such. It does not evaluate the matter, it simply says that the failed attempts to solve the case guarantees us that it will stay unsolved, and that is as meagre an offering as they come.

I'm sorry, but your answer is quite irrelevant to the point being made. The failure to identify JtR in 1888, is in no way connected to your logic of reaching a conclusion without any of the evidence that the police had at that time. I have no idea why you suggest that when I point out the huge flaw in your logic, you write that my comment "does not evaluate the matter, it simply says that the failed attempts to solve the case guarentees us that it will stay unsolved, and that is a meagre an offering as they come". I simply disagreed with you, that is all.

Mizen said that Lechmere told him that he was wanted by another police officer, and that Lechmere lied. The police would take very seriously an allegation that a witness lied, especially when that claim was made by a police officer.

However, after interviewing both Lechmere and Paul, whose stories must have matched, Abberline clearly reached the conclusion that they were correct and Mizen was mistaken. It is likely, indeed, just about a certainty, that Mizen was interviewed again about this, and Abberline's conclusion was that Lechmere and Paul told Mizen what they had seen. We have none of the evidence that the police possessed at that time, so to argue that it is logical that the police were totally wrong, when we have none of that evidence, is simply inappropriate. Logic does not suggest that "Mizen was always on the money and that Lechmere was lying". Abberline, Swanson and the Coroner had evidence that we don't have and did not think so. Where is the evidence that Abberline, Swanson and the Coroner were idiots, and that Paul and Lechmere's stories did not match? When you supply that evidence, we can start to consider the possibility that Mizen was right, but until then, he was wrong, because his own colleagues said so.

[Mark J D]

... would take very seriously ... / ... stories must have matched ... / ... Abberline clearly reached the conclusion ... / ... likely, indeed, just about a certainty... / ... evidence that the police possessed at that time... / ... Abberline, Swanson and the Coroner had evidence that we don't have...

'Strewth...

M.

[Fiver]

So here we are, once again discussing whether or not Lechmere or Mizen was the likeliest one to be telling porkies.

You ignoring facts does not make them go away. Robert Paul supported Lechmere's account and contradicted PC Mizen. It was never just Lechmere versus Mizen.

Which leaves several possibilities.
* PC Mizen misunderstood what Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul told him.
* PC Mizen lied.
* Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul lied.

Your theory requires Robert Paul to repeatedly lie in spite of having no reason to do so. Your theory makes no sense.

[Fiver]

Not two men, ONE man. Mizen was very clear on how he was approached by ONE man, and he identified that man as Charles Lechmere at the second day of the inquest.]

You repeating false claims does not make them true.

"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.

[Fisherman]

I'm sorry, but your answer is quite irrelevant to the point being made. The failure to identify JtR in 1888, is in no way connected to your logic of reaching a conclusion without any of the evidence that the police had at that time. I have no idea why you suggest that when I point out the huge flaw in your logic, you write that my comment "does not evaluate the matter, it simply says that the failed attempts to solve the case guarentees us that it will stay unsolved, and that is a meagre an offering as they come". I simply disagreed with you, that is all.

Mizen said that Lechmere told him that he was wanted by another police officer, and that Lechmere lied. The police would take very seriously an allegation that a witness lied, especially when that claim was made by a police officer.

However, after interviewing both Lechmere and Paul, whose stories must have matched, Abberline clearly reached the conclusion that they were correct and Mizen was mistaken. It is likely, indeed, just about a certainty, that Mizen was interviewed again about this, and Abberline's conclusion was that Lechmere and Paul told Mizen what they had seen. We have none of the evidence that the police possessed at that time, so to argue that it is logical that the police were totally wrong, when we have none of that evidence, is simply inappropriate. Logic does not suggest that "Mizen was always on the money and that Lechmere was lying". Abberline, Swanson and the Coroner had evidence that we don't have and did not think so. Where is the evidence that Abberline, Swanson and the Coroner were idiots, and that Paul and Lechmere's stories did not match? When you supply that evidence, we can start to consider the possibility that Mizen was right, but until then, he was wrong, because his own colleagues said so.

In 1986, Swedish prime minister Olof Palme was shot dead in the open streets of Stockholm.

In 2020, 34 years after the shots in Stockholm, the investigation was officially closed. That was because it was decided that the killer had finally been identified. He was a man called Stig Engström, one of the few people who had been proven to be at the murder site.

The one who revealed him was a journalist by the name of Thomas Pettersson. He wrote an initial article in a magazine called Filter and has since written a book on the matter.

So how could Pettersson find the truth, when the police - who had all the information and knew all there was to know about the case - could not? Well, it turned out that out of the people identified as having been present at the murder site, the one and only who was NOT in depth investigated was Stig Engström. The leader of the investigation found Engström to be a tedious attention seeker, and ordered the search light off him back in 1986. And so he was duly dropped from the investigation, never to be looked at again until Pettersson came along.

We ate talking about the largest criminal case there has ever been in Sweden. And we are talking about gross police negligence. From the ones who knew it all and had all the information. And we are talking about how a man who should have been the prime suspect all along, was never enen thoroughly investigated.
Rings a bell? No? Of course not!

I hope this answers your claims about how the diagreement between Lechmere and Mizen was thoroughly and diligently gone through and looked at from all angles, with only basic police skills and no prejuduice involved.

If it doesn´t, then it should. But not all people are willing and able to look at things from any other angle than the one they have decided upon from the outset. Which, come to think of it, mirrors quite well the problem area I am speaking of in this post.

[Doctored Whatsit]

In 1986, Swedish prime minister Olof Palme was shot dead in the open streets of Stockholm.

In 2020, 34 years after the shots in Stockholm, the investigation was officially closed. That was because it was decided that the killer had finally been identified. He was a man called Stig Engström, one of the few people who had been proven to be at the murder site.

The one who revealed him was a journalist by the name of Thomas Pettersson. He wrote an initial article in a magazine called Filter and has since written a book on the matter.

So how could Pettersson find the truth, when the police - who had all the information and knew all there was to know about the case - could not? Well, it turned out that out of the people identified as having been present at the murder site, the one and only who was NOT in depth investigated was Stig Engström. The leader of the investigation found Engström to be a tedious attention seeker, and ordered the search light off him back in 1986. And so he was duly dropped from the investigation, never to be looked at again until Pettersson came along.

We ate talking about the largest criminal case there has ever been in Sweden. And we are talking about gross police negligence. From the ones who knew it all and had all the information. And we are talking about how a man who should have been the prime suspect all along, was never enen thoroughly investigated.
Rings a bell? No? Of course not!

I hope this answers your claims about how the diagreement between Lechmere and Mizen was thoroughly and diligently gone through and looked at from all angles, with only basic police skills and no prejuduice involved.

If it doesn´t, then it should. But not all people are willing and able to look at things from any other angle than the one they have decided upon from the outset. Which, come to think of it, mirrors quite well the problem area I am speaking of in this post.

Hi Christer,

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

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?

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?

[Doctored Whatsit]

'Strewth...

M.

Yes, you have noticed that I quote facts, and make it clear when I am making assumptions based on facts. I was dealing with an instance where a clear statement was made that ignored all of the important known facts.

[rjpalmer]

”Those who investigated the case” failed to solve it, I ´m afraid, and therefore your point has no value.

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.

[rjpalmer]

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.

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

[Abby Normal]

In 1986, Swedish prime minister Olof Palme was shot dead in the open streets of Stockholm.

In 2020, 34 years after the shots in Stockholm, the investigation was officially closed. That was because it was decided that the killer had finally been identified. He was a man called Stig Engström, one of the few people who had been proven to be at the murder site.

The one who revealed him was a journalist by the name of Thomas Pettersson. He wrote an initial article in a magazine called Filter and has since written a book on the matter.

So how could Pettersson find the truth, when the police - who had all the information and knew all there was to know about the case - could not? Well, it turned out that out of the people identified as having been present at the murder site, the one and only who was NOT in depth investigated was Stig Engström. The leader of the investigation found Engström to be a tedious attention seeker, and ordered the search light off him back in 1986. And so he was duly dropped from the investigation, never to be looked at again until Pettersson came along.

We ate talking about the largest criminal case there has ever been in Sweden. And we are talking about gross police negligence. From the ones who knew it all and had all the information. And we are talking about how a man who should have been the prime suspect all along, was never enen thoroughly investigated.
Rings a bell? No? Of course not!

I hope this answers your claims about how the diagreement between Lechmere and Mizen was thoroughly and diligently gone through and looked at from all angles, with only basic police skills and no prejuduice involved.

If it doesn´t, then it should. But not all people are willing and able to look at things from any other angle than the one they have decided upon from the outset. Which, come to think of it, mirrors quite well the problem area I am speaking of in this post.

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.

[Fisherman]

You ignoring facts does not make them go away.

This is a kind of post I like a lot. It starts out by acting that I am "ignoring facts, and since I never do, I know - without having read the rest of the post - that I can prove Fiver wrong. So lets get that overweigh nice and swift!

Robert Paul supported Lechmere's account and contradicted PC Mizen. It was never just Lechmere versus Mizen.

And there we are. I have never ignored that there are this who claim that Paul spoke to Mizen; in fact, I name the matter not once but twice in my book, and I have discussed it repeatedly on many forums. So Fiver is incorrect, just as I knew he would be.

Fiver is of course very predictable, and he will now move on to claim that it is a fact that Paul spoke to Mizen, but I'm afraid it is nom such thing at all. There are bits and pieces. that support both takes, but only one will be correct. I suspect that I am on the winning side here. Mizen specifically said that ONE man spoke to him, and he had to be reminded about Pauls presence by the coroner. If he had not been reminded, we would not have heard a single word about Paul from Mizens side. And that is not a tell tale sign of both men having spoken to Mizen.

Lechmere says that Paul told Mizen that he thought the woman in Bucks Row was dead, and that is a very good reason to question Lechmeres words - we know that Paul did NOT think that she was dead - he was able to tell that she was partly warm and that she breathed faintly. Warm and breathing people are not dead people.

Paul himself said in his inquest testimony that "we told the PC what we had seen", but that is not a guarantee that he actually spoke to Mizen at all. As I pointed out before, if the two carmen agreed that Lechmere should do the talking, then if Paul was afterwards asked "Did you inform PC Mizen about what you had said", the answer "Yes" would be the only logical one. it was n ot as if Paul would have denied Mizen being informed, even if he did not take active part in it himself. We should also remember the quotation by Paul from the Morning Advertiser: "I sent the other man for a policeman", and the quotation about Paul from the Echo: "The other man, who went down Hanbury Street ...". What we therefore have is ample reason to argue that Lechmere only spoke to Mizen and that Paul never took part in the conversation or heard what was said. It is all very, very straightforward, and it proves beyond doubt that any claim that Paul did speak to Mizen is NOT a fact.

So much for me "ignoring facts" - and for Fiver inventing them.

Which leaves several possibilities.
* PC Mizen misunderstood what Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul told him.
* PC Mizen lied.
* Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul lied.

Your theory requires Robert Paul to repeatedly lie in spite of having no reason to do so. Your theory makes no sense.

And guess what? Fiver misses out on the obvious possibility that Lechmere alone lied.

Who would have thought it? Me. I have debated with Fiver before.

[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.

[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.