Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[David Orsam]

I'm really sorry Ben but I disagree entirely with the analysis set out in your first paragraph. Police constable Mizen had no business interfering with the coroner's inquiry nor even involving himself with the CID investigation being conducted by Inspector Abberline. He attended at the inquest, he gave his evidence, he left and went back to work. That's it! The absolute end of his involvement. He has to leave the assessment of the evidence to others - the coroner, the jury and his superiors. He doesn't start coming up with theories. We don't even know if he read the "inquest reports" but not all newspapers reported Cross's evidence in full so while you would obviously like to believe that Mizen was aware of all the facts this is by no means certain but even if he was it's irrelevant.

As for the rest of your post, well of course there are alternative explanations for the evidence other than Cross being the murderer. In addition to the one you advance, other experienced posters have suggested that Mizen was lying to protect himself from a neglect of duty charge while others have said that Cross was probably lying in order to ensure he got to work on time. As far as I am concerned, one of these alternative explanations (including yours) is most probably correct - otherwise I would be jumping up and down along with Fisherman and Lechmere saying "We've found Jack the Ripper!" But Cross is probably not Jack the Ripper. Likewise, all the other suspects so far put forward are probably not Jack the Ripper either. Indeed, out of the top 100 suspects, 99 are definitely not Jack the Ripper and the remaining 1 probably is not!

The only point I have been trying to make (on fairly deaf ears it has to be said!) is that Cross has to be considered as a person of interest or, in other words, a suspect. And the reason I say this takes me back to my post earlier in this thread. Apologies for quoting myself:

"I would entirely agree [i.e. that Cross should just be treated as a normal witness] were it not for the evidence of a serving police constable at an official inquiry that he was told by Cross that he was wanted by a policeman at the scene of the crime (when we know that no such policeman existed)".

[harry]

I believe Mizen made notes as soon as possible after the incident,and at the inquest was reciting evidence from those notes.,while Cross was probably relying on memory alone.Not hard to accept Mizen as the more reliable of the two.Doesn't make either a liar.Hard to believe though,that Cross left home intent on murder,and that he left early in search of a victim.This really is what is being suggested,and a belief in his guilt has to start there,with that presumption.

[The Good Michael]

I believe Mizen made notes as soon as possible after the incident,and at the inquest was reciting evidence from those notes.,while Cross was probably relying on memory alone.Not hard to accept Mizen as the more reliable of the two.Doesn't make either a liar.Hard to believe though,that Cross left home intent on murder,and that he left early in search of a victim.This really is what is being suggested,and a belief in his guilt has to start there,with that presumption.

Well Harry, what you say makes a ton of sense, but those who are hellbent upon having a suspect, will tell you differently. The only people who aren't insane on this site, are those who can look at suspects as possibilities while looking at all the factors that make them implausible, and then admitting the implausibility. In short, there are only a few of use left

Mike

[The Good Michael]

The better explanation by far, as sensibly accepted by the overwhelmingly vast majority, is that Mizen was simply confused. Cross evidently said something like, "you are wanted/your presence is required in Buck's Row". It shouldn't take too much imagination to understand how this could be misinterpreted as meaning that a specific person was already there.

Absolutely, Ben. And I've said this many times with the resultant (and expected) rebuttals being such things as "he was an exemplary officer. They don't get confused, they don't lie, and because there isn't a blemish on his record, he is very close to Jesus in his immaculate behavior(paraphrased, natch)."

Now, this brings up a debatable point, that you too are connected to (and perhaps I as well), when does constant refutation...how long does the process take before delusion sets in? And by this, I don't mean some off-hand attack. I do mean the actual onset of the psychological phenomena of delusion. We all may be deluded. I don't think I am, and I would suggest, after a time, delusion is what pushes the Lechmere case along, but the deluded will never know because delusion is absolute faith. So...it could be me... and you.

Mike

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Harry

I believe Mizen made notes as soon as possible after the incident,and at the inquest was reciting evidence from those notes.,while Cross was probably relying on memory alone.Not hard to accept Mizen as the more reliable of the two.Doesn't make either a liar.Hard to believe though,that Cross left home intent on murder,and that he left early in search of a victim.This really is what is being suggested,and a belief in his guilt has to start there,with that presumption.

You'ld think a common-sense approach like that would carry some weight, wouldn't you? Alas this is ripperland...and balanced analysis goes out of the window in favour of taking up a position and sniping.

For what it's worth I think Lechmere/Cross should be regarded, tentatively, as a person of interest, (who would quite probably at the time have been investigated and cleared as a potential suspect, else we'd have surely heard), but at this stage, surely no more...of course any further investigation into a person of interest is worthwhile, but it's all too easy to read more into what's no longer there than the plain facts justify.

We can't continue to look at the LVP Met as total incompetents...within the bounds of what, forensically or otherwise, they knew, they were collectively* pretty damned good...they put in the hours, picked up on such leads/motives as there were, squeezed the informants, and did everything they knew which had previously worked...alas Jack was something new...an apparently motiveless serial killer leaving no leads...

(* - individually of course, abilities varied, but this is not what I'm referencing)

All the best

Dave

[J6123]

This ground has probably been trodden over a zillion times, but If Lechmere did lie to Mizen about a policeman being with the woman, then Mizen wouldn't have been surprised to see PC Neil with the body, obviously. But surely this lie - if it happened - would have been uncovered immediately, because surely PC Mizen would have mentioned the two carmen to PC Neil, who would have denied seeing them. This, then, should have put major suspicion on Lechmere right there and then, but apparently it didn't?

[David Orsam]

The better explanation by far, as sensibly accepted by the overwhelmingly vast majority, is that Mizen was simply confused. Cross evidently said something like, "you are wanted/your presence is required in Buck's Row". It shouldn't take too much imagination to understand how this could be misinterpreted as meaning that a specific person was already there.

I just want to respond to this point specifically because of The Good Michael's post at #319. I don't think it's right - at least in the context of a discussion as to whether Cross is a suspect - to say that this is "the better" explanation. It is certainly one of the alternative explanations and not implausible but there is no evidential basis for it and it is only "better" if you are starting from the assumption that Cross is innocent. This then makes the argument circular: Cross was telling the truth because he is innocent, therefore he didn't lie to Mizen, therefore he is innocent.

The point I have been trying to make - with no-one so far directly responding to it - is that one of the explanations of the evidence at the inquest is the Cross was lying and if he was lying then one of the explanations for him doing so is that he murdered Nichols. It frankly doesn't matter what any of us think the explanation for the discrepancy is, because that is pure supposition based on no evidence. The fact of the matter is that there is an unexplained contradiction in the evidence and it is something that means that he has to be considered a suspect - because any sensible investigator has to start off with a suspicious frame of mind. Not that he did it but is a suspect like all the other suspects. If those who strongly disagree that Cross was Jack the Ripper would accept this relatively minor point, it would create a little more consensus on the board!

[The Good Michael]

The fact of the matter is that there is an unexplained contradiction in the evidence and it is something that means that he has to be considered a suspect -

No, the fact of the matter is that we don't know enough to know that a contradiction was unexplained. It is unexplained for us, but we have no idea. So, the idea that there is a contradiction is a problem, yes, but that doesn't a suspect make. Now, after that supposition, that there was a contradiction that was never addressed (because we have no idea what was said to Mizen by superiors, or if anyone spoke to Cross or Paul about any contradictions), then a case is built that allows for Lechmere to be in all places at all murder times...and that...is untenable. This kind of thing is what makes Graham Hancock and Von Daniken novels. To take it back a step: A man is seen in the middle of the road who says something like, "Hey. I think there's a woman lying over there," and then a series of things are created that lead to the murderer of several women. Now, to pause at the end and say, "This could have happened." isn't so bad, but to push it so hard to try and get people to believe it and to takes sides is really kind of disgusting to me. But, if delusion is the result of following such a trail for a few years, then I have no complaints. Madness is what it is. And I as I said, perhaps my looking for what I find to be logical alternatives, may be delusion too. I wouldn't know, because I would be insane.

Mike

[Chris]

I've never really understood the amount of time that's spent debating whether people should be classified as suspects, persons of interest or whatever.

It reminds me a bit of Dr Johnson's saying "Sir, there is no settling the point of precedency between a louse and a flea."

[The Good Michael]

I've never really understood the amount of time that's spent debating whether people should be classified as suspects, persons of interest or whatever.

It reminds me a bit of Dr Johnson's saying "Sir, there is no settling the point of precedency between a louse and a flea."

I don't think there's any difference. I just don't want to be sold a used car with no engine. I would like to see real proof before people tell a Hancockian tale. Maybe that's too much too ask, but it's what makes ripperology closer to biblical archaeology than anything else.

Mike

[DVV]

DVV! So great to see you here again!

Thanks, my friend !
I even don't know where I've been these last months.

[Robert]

If I remember correctly, the dispute over the name arose because Team Lechmere insisted that Crossmere had lied to Mizen, his motive being that if he'd told Mizen simply that he had discovered Nichols, then Mizen would have been required to take Crossmere's details and possibly search him. So to sidestep this, Crossmere told Mizen that another policeman already had the matter in hand.

The inquest began on September 1st, so the police would have asked Neil for the men's details in order for them to be summoned. Neil of course would have said that he never met the men, and the police would then have asked Mizen for the details, who would have replied that he didn't have them as he'd been told that another policeman was handling the matter. It all would have come out on August 31st and Mizen would have been aware that he'd been lied to (assuming that he had really been lied to, of course).

My guess is that the police would have been rather irritated, to put it mildly, that they now had two unknown men to trace. I think they'd have been keenly interested in the apparent Crossmere/Mizen discrepancy, and anxious to resolve it. It strains credulity that they would not have questioned Crossmere about the matter when he gave his police statement, and possibly re-questioned Mizen too. They may also have questioned Paul about it when he in turn gave his police statement.

As late as October the police were pondering discrepancies in the slaughterers' stories, so I don't see why Crossmere would have been immune.

[Robert]

Hi David

Great to see you back!

"I even don't know where I've been these last months."

Watch out! Fish and Ed might want a word with you!

[DVV]

Hello my dear Robert !

Fish and Ed are 6ft7 away from the right track, I'm afraid.

[Chris]

If I remember correctly, the dispute over the name arose because Team Lechmere insisted that Crossmere had lied to Mizen, his motive being that if he'd told Mizen simply that he had discovered Nichols, then Mizen would have been required to take Crossmere's details and possibly search him. So to sidestep this, Crossmere told Mizen that another policeman already had the matter in hand.

The inquest began on September 1st, so the police would have asked Neil for the men's details in order for them to be summoned. Neil of course would have said that he never met the men, and the police would then have asked Mizen for the details, who would have replied that he didn't have them as he'd been told that another policeman was handling the matter. It all would have come out on August 31st and Mizen would have been aware that he'd been lied to (assuming that he had really been lied to, of course).

My guess is that the police would have been rather irritated, to put it mildly, that they now had two unknown men to trace. I think they'd have been keenly interested in the apparent Crossmere/Mizen discrepancy, and anxious to resolve it. It strains credulity that they would not have questioned Crossmere about the matter when he gave his police statement, and possibly re-questioned Mizen too. They may also have questioned Paul about it when he in turn gave his police statement.

As late as October the police were pondering discrepancies in the slaughterers' stories, so I don't see why Crossmere would have been immune.

That seems like common sense. It can't be right.