Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[David Orsam]

Sorry i meant specifically no29 hanbury street.

If you were going to compile a list of suspects who are known to have had some kind of connection or to have been familiar with 29 Hanbury Street then, off the top of my head, I am pretty confident in saying you will end up with a list with no names on it.

[Rob Clack]

If you were going to compile a list of suspects who are known to have had some kind of connection or to have been familiar with 29 Hanbury Street then, off the top of my head, I am pretty confident in saying you will end up with a list with no names on it.

James Hardiman

[David Orsam]

James Hardiman

Thanks Rob!! Having had to google this person, he looks more like someone who once lived at 29 Hanbury St (and basically that's it!) than an actual suspect.

[Ben]

John Richardson is another.

As a witness who is sometimes considered a potential suspect, his "status" is no different to Crossmere's.

It's just that more noise has been made about the latter recently.

[DVV]

Be honest, Ben

Still, Crossmere is my favourite Swedish suspect.

[David Orsam]

John Richardson is another.

As a witness who is sometimes considered a potential suspect, his "status" is no different to Crossmere's.

I would entirely agree 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).

[Ben]

But David, the fact that Mizen was fully aware that Lechmere contradicted him, but didn't make an issue if it suggests, as Frank points out, that he accepted his confusion. The idea that a dispreceny as glaring and as public as this was not satisfactorily cleared up is obvious nonsense.

DVV! So great to see you here again!

[David Orsam]

But David, the fact that Mizen was fully aware that Lechmere contradicted him, but didn't make an issue if it suggests, as Frank points out, that he accepted his confusion. The idea that a dispreceny as glaring and as public as this was not satisfactorily cleared up is obvious nonsense.

In what way was Mizen "fully aware" that Lechmere had contradicted him? By the time this had happened Mizen had left the witness box and for all we know was not even in the room while Cross was giving evidence. If the discrepancy was so "glaring", how come the reporter for the Times did not even report it? The fact is that there are always inconsistencies with witness evidence and I don't think that in this case the potential significance of it was appreciated, hence it was never satisfactorily cleared up.

[Trevor Marriott]

Please tell me where I said that it was insignificant! As far as I remember, I always thought it a significant part of the case.

The best,
Fisherman

Scobies says it is insignificant !

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4QS0H0

[Ben]

In what way was Mizen "fully aware" that Lechmere had contradicted him?

By not being inexplicably oblivious to the inquest transcripts published in the papers, assuming he'd somehow missed it on the day if his inquest appearance, which is just as implausible. Why didn't the Times report it? Most probably because it wasn't deemed necessary to report the detail that some innocent confusion had occurred and been clarified. Not really report-worthy. The fact that the entire newspaper-reading public had an opportunity to register the supposed "discrepancy" makes a nonsense of the notion that everyone missed it. Speaking of nonsense, are we expected to believe that Crossmere was fully anticipating everyone to just gloss over the inconsistency?

[David Orsam]

Ben, I don't understand your answer. If Mizen happened to read the Times and left court after he gave his evidence he wouldn't even have known there was a discrepancy, so how can you say with such certainty that he was "fully aware"? It's perfectly clear that this discrepancy was never resolved because that resolution would have had to have been communicated to the jury in open court and we know from the press reports that this never happened. If I had been a juryman listening to Cross I might have thought "oh perhaps it was the second man who mentioned the policeman". Two weeks later I might have forgotten all about it. The fact that Paul was never questioned about what he heard Cross say to Mizen indicates to my mind that the whole thing was overlooked. A reader of, say, the Daily Telegraph might well have noticed the discrepancy but no doubt there are discrepancies in the witness evidence throughout all the reports of the inquests. I think it does take a bit of working out to realise that a reason for the discrepancy was that Cross might have needed to get away without being detained or search. I don't think that would necessarily have been glaringly obvious at the time, hence I conclude (from the absence of any discussion of it) that it must have been ignored.

[David Orsam]

Speaking of nonsense, are we expected to believe that Crossmere was fully anticipating everyone to just gloss over the inconsistency?

If Cross was the killer, and he had told Mizen there was a policeman with the body, then it doesn't matter what Cross was anticipating. He had no choice but to deny it.

[Ben]

Hi David,

If Mizen was certain of his recollection of events, he would have known at some point that he had been lied to. He would have read the inquest reports - essentially the same material that some people to use to form the basis of their Crossmere suspect theories. This is absolutely irrefutable. It would have come to Mizen's attention. That being the case, it is inconceivable that Mizen should not have informed his superiors of Crossmere's lies and recommended him for investigation accordingly. It doesn't take any "working out" to spot a contradiction. If Cross lied to Mizen, and Mizen knew it, it wouldn't matter in the slightest what motive he might have had for lying. It would have been a case of: Cross lied to a policeman shortly after a murder was committed, and he warrants suspicion for that reason. That would have happened eventually, if Mizen stuck rigidly to his version of events, unless everyone at the time was incompetent, blind, deaf and insane.

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.

Paul was obviously present at the time of the exchange. Mizen would not have allowed carman #1 to do all the talking while mysterious carmen #2 wanders off into the darkness without ever being asked to verify carmen #1's version of events. Evidently therefore, Paul WAS present at the time of the exchange, and would certainly have smelt a rat if this new acquaintance of his started lying to a PC over the circumstances of the body's discovery.

If a theory relies on everyone other than the proposed "suspect" behaving in an illogical, incompetent manner, it's usually the theory that requires re-thinking, not the mental captivity of the key players at the time.

[J6123]

It's a shame his life story doesn't seem to rub well with the behavioural evidence, because apart from that detail I think it's a very attractive theory and would have more going for it than most. I suppose that's not a problem if you favour a very organised Ripper who showed no sign of being a violent and depraved loser in other areas of his life.

Have we got to the bottom of whether Lechmere really lied to PC Mizen yet? Has anyone much cleverer than me worked it out yet?

I like the theory so much I am almost willing to allow my judgement to get clouded over it.

[J6123]

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.

Good thought. That could well be what went down.