Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Please be sure to let me know when you need more paint to trap you in that corner.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Please be sure to let me know when you need more paint to trap you in that corner.

Regards,

Simon

Apologies Simon, I don't understand but I'm sure you will explain.

[Sally]

Hi Sally,

I agree and have posted much the same thing myself. The clue for me is the fact that Mizen did find a policeman at the scene - something Lechmere could not have anticipated. On the contrary, in telling such a lie, he would have been fully expecting Mizen to find a brutally murdered woman in an otherwise deserted Buck's Row, and instantly realise he'd been had - almost certainly by the killer himself. As luck would have it, PC Neil's presence would have served as confirmation, at least initially, making it seem the truth and buying Lechmere more time than he could reasonably have hoped for.

Of course, if Lechmere did manage to speak to Mizen out of Paul's earshot, he could have lied without Paul being any the wiser, even though Mizen was sure to rumble him sooner or later. But there is another potential snag with this scenario. Would Paul have said all he did to the press if he had not only not spoken to Mizen himself, but also had no idea what, if anything, Lechmere had actually told the policeman? It makes little sense that this innocent witness would have volunteered a completely invented conversation that he didn't hear and took no part in.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz - yes, exactly, the alleged 'Mizen Scam' overcomplicates what need never have been complicated to begin with and rests on a series of underlying assumptions that have no guarantee of truth.

But suppose, just for fun, we go along with the premise that Crossmere told a naughty, self-interested lie to Mizen - out of earshot of the hapless Paul, of course - well then! Crossmere - having cleverly [some might call it the mark of a psychopathic genius] deducted that Mizen was too busy knocking up to be much bothered by the prospect of a dead [but possibly drunk] woman and would therefore not hurry to the scene particularly as he believed there to be a policeman at the scene as told to him by Clever Crossmere....

Er... Where was I??

Oh yes - suppose all that worked and Crossmere managed to bamboozle the hapless cops, dissappearing into the night - or Pickfords, whatever.

He'd effectively gotten away with it, hadn't he? Mizen didn't know who he was. Paul had never seen him before - what are the chances he'd have picked him out again?

Crossmere the Evil Psychopathic Genius - who unlike Mizen, was allegedly a thoroughly bad egg - could've disappeared without a trace and today we'd all be asking: 'Who Was the Second Carman?'

And what does he do instead? He trots off to the cop shop and tells them where he lives. And where he works.

It all makes sense to me.

I rather fear that I surely must be one of those:

"small number of fantasy 'Ripperologists' who maintain in the face of all evidence that Lechmere is not a legitimate, valid and sensible suspect."

I like that so much I'm considering having it framed.

[GUT]

G'day Sally

"small number of fantasy 'Ripperologists' who maintain in the face of all evidence that Lechmere is not a legitimate, valid and sensible suspect."

Can you get one made for me too?

[Sally]

G'day Sally

Can you get one made for me too?

Sure can, Gut.

If you're interested, you can have a signed photograph of a Pickford's meat carrying cart thrown in for an extra $5 as well.

You pays you money, you takes your choice.

[Chris]

And what does he do instead? He trots off to the cop shop and tells them where he lives. And where he works.

I think I've got it! Could it be a variant of "suicide by cop" - suicide by hangman?

[Robert]

"What fools the police are. I even give them the name of the street where I am living."

[Dave O]

Rob and Dave

Thanks. I should have checked the Ultimate Sourcebook. There are statements there for (I think) all the non-medical civilian witnesses.

Dave, do you know whether it was normal practice for coroners to be provided with copies of witness statements, and if so how long it continued?

Hi Chris,

Yes, I think it would be very common that the coroner would have something before him--if not police statements, then statements that the coroner's officers obtained from their preliminary inquiries. They'd speak with relevant people and then report to the coroner and he would decide whether or not to hold an inquest.

As most inquests weren't these very big murder inquests we're more concerned with here, with very many witnesses and where I should think the coroner would greatly rely upon police work, but rather smaller affairs of just a few witnesses, it's the work of the officers that's very commonly found in Macdonald's records (Macdonald's are the records I've gone through). These statements vary in how extensive they are, but it's often that they're in the depositions themselves. It's not always possible to say what was written when, but there are plenty enough clear examples that I can say that often the officers prepared the page for Macdonald, putting out more or less a few lines for each witness and then leaving spacing for Macdonald to add information as he chose while he questioned the witness.

Sometimes the officer hadn't left enough room, and you see Macdonald's writing crowding into the margins around what the officer had set out. Or they'll be a blank spot left in the middle of a sentence that Macdonald fills in. Or Macdonald ignores what the officer has put down and just wrote down the deposition himself. On a couple of occasions, I've seen in the depositions full statements of witnesses that hadn't appeared at the inquest although they were expected. Those statements are crossed out and marked as "not attending".

Most of Macdonald's officers were in place prior to his election, and he continued on with them for awhile. So likely his officers had previously worked under Wynne Baxter as well before the coroner's district was divided. At least one, Thomas Chivers (with Macdonald for about a month in Bow), continued to work with Wynne Baxter in Poplar.

I'm afraid I can't give you a timeline, but I've read of a complaint in a Home Office committee report of 1936 of some coroners reading these sort of statements out loud and using them in lieu of depositions.

Hope that helps,
Dave

[Barnaby]

I rather fear that I surely must be one of those:

"small number of fantasy 'Ripperologists' who maintain in the face of all evidence that Lechmere is not a legitimate, valid and sensible suspect."

I like that so much I'm considering having it framed.

I suppose it should be a "large number."

We should be skeptical of any proposed suspect, of course, but here we are, well over a century after the murders, with no killer identified. Perhaps it is time to go back and reanalyze everyone tangentially associated with the murders who could be the killer. Seems reasonable, as we haven't identified the killer yet. In Lechmere we have someone who can be placed at the crime scene within literally moments of the time of death. Who then gave a false name during the inquest. I don't think it is unreasonable to take a long look at Lechmere.

[Sally]

Hi Barnaby,

I suppose it should be a "large number."

Indeed - demonstrably so.

In Lechmere we have someone who can be placed at the crime scene within literally moments of the time of death. Who then gave a false name during the inquest.

In Lechmere we have someone who found a murder victim, so yes, he can be 'placed' at the crime scene. Does that imply guilt?

As for the 'false' name argument - it was his to use, so I'm not sure how it can be claimed as 'false'. The written record - used here in an attempt to promote the notion of a 'false' name - does not necessarily demonstrate 'real' life - as has been illustrated recently with a number of examples.

I don't think it is unreasonable to take a long look at Lechmere

A long look has been taken - I mean, he's been a constant presence here [and there] for the last two years!

Isn't that long enough??

[Fisherman]

So that was all it took?

I stay away from the boards for a couple of days, and when I come back everything is neatly resolved and agreed upon:

Back in 1888, the Mizen scam was closely and thoroughly investigated, as was Lechmere himself, and the conclusion was reached that Mizen had made the mistake that caused the confusion.

This is officially agreen upon by those who think themselves in a position to ridicule anybody who is of a different meaning.

The absolute fact that the existing evidence points to an unresolved discrepancy is thrown overboard for a completely fictitious invention about how it was all cleared up 126 years ago, with no other bolstering than the inventors assertions that this surely MUST have happened ... and then those who conjured up that story tell those who did not conjure up a story but instead went by the existing evidence that they need to present their takes in the fiction department.

Thatīs prime Ripperology for you!

Letīs look at how the evidence is presented! Hereīs part of post 327, by Robert:

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.

The police would have asked Neil for the menīs details? And then, when he failed to recognize any men having been present, they would turn to Mizen instead, only to find out that he had not taken the menīs names? And it would all have come out on August the 31:st...?

How would this happen, Robert? Why would it happen? We know that Neil was put on the stand on the 1:st of September as the man who had found the body. We know that he denied having been shown to the body by two men in an interview that was made on the 2:nd and printed the 3:rd. In it, he persisted in saying that he had found the body.

If he had known about the carmen as per Mizen, he would not have been in a position to deny their claim to have been first in place.

So he didnīt know. Because he had not been told. Effectively, this means that as late as the 2:nd of September 1888, John Neil and his superiors had not accepted that there were two carmen involved in finding Nichols. And that is spelt out in the interview.

So how could it have been cleared up on the 31:st? Answer: it couldnīt.

On the 31:st, there were three people only who knew that there were two carmen involved, and that was the carmen themselves and Mizen. Mizen, however, would not have known that the carmen had actually found the body first. He instead thought that another PC had found the body first.

If the order had been the reversed - the carmen find the body, wherupon the second PC arrives - then that PC would not have sent the carmen away to look for Mizen or any other PC. That would have been gross negligence, since the carmen in such a scenario would have been alone with a woman who was freshly killed before the second PC arrived. In that case, that second PC would instead have detained the carmen.

The fact that he apparently did not must have told Mizen that the PC had been first to find the body, and the carmen had arrived later and sent on to fetch him. It could only have made sense to Mizen in that order.

Mizen would of course have accepted that the PC spoken of by the carman was the one he himself found with the body: PC Neil.

All in all, any suggestion that the facts would have been on the table on the 31:st is totally untenable.

And then, the newfound mantra is of course added:

"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."

This is the new suggestion: we donīt have to waste time on the discrepancy, since the police and inquest would of course have noted the inconsistency beforehand and they would have straightened things out.

But if the jury already knew that this was a non-issue, then why did a juryman ask about it?
Bacause it was not straightened out at all.

Why did the coroner ask if Lechmere had seen Neil in Buckīs Row, if he already knew that Mizen had gotten it wrong? (just like you, Robert, I think this is basically the same question as the one the juryman posed).
Because the errand was not straightened out at all.

How does the suggestion that the police and inquest would have gone to the bottom of this issue dovetail with how author after author, writing about the Ripper case, have left the discrepancy out of their books? If the police and inquest would easily have recognized the need get this straightened out, then why does not one single author recognize the same thing?

Did they all think it was so very obviuos that they didnīt even need to present this glaring disagreeement between a key witness and a PC - and explain the possible implications it to their readers?

Or did they simply skip it over since they could not make heads or tails of it?

If - and that is only if - the police and inquest were as observant as we are being told that they were, then surely they would equally have been able to see that if Lechmere was cast in the guilty partīs role, then the discrepancy seemingly pointed to a lie, tailormade to take the carman past the police?

Then why was not Lechmere thoroughly enough investigated for them to get his name?

The suggested answer would probably be that the police and inquest arrived at the conclusion that Mizen was wrong and that Lechmere was right, and therefore they did never suspect the carman of anything.

Okay.

Why, then, did that juryman ask about it?
Why did the coroner ask about it?
Why was Mizen allowed to state that the carmen had spoken of another PC, if there was an agreement that Mizen was wrong?

If this was agreed upon, then Mizen apparently disagreed, and stressed his take on it at the inquest.

So if there WAS an agreement before Mizen and Lechmere testified that Mizen was the failing part, then that agreement was reached in spite of Mizen standing firmly by the carman having informed him about another PC.

In other words, the police and inquest would have completely dissed their own man in favour of Lechmere, and without having Paul to ask what applied.

Is this the normal procedure?

Or is it a complete invention?

Next post: Number 331, by Frank O:

"...Mizen should already have felt that something wasn’t quite right arriving at the crime scene and discovering the woman’s throat had been severely cut. Why wouldn’t the 2 men have told him the woman was dead when this was so very clearly the case? If Mizen had no doubts whatsoever about what he had been told, at least he had a number of opportunities to set the record straight, but he didn’t."

At the inquest, Mizen is recorded as pointing out to the jury and coroner that the carman had not said a word about any murder or suicide.
To me, that tells me very clearly that Mizen was baffled by the ommission on Lechmereīs behalf to mention this. He thus DID "set the record straight"!

Since he mentions this ommission at the inquest, I think it is only fair to reason that he may have done so when being questioned before the inquest too.

At the murder site, he was immediately sent for an ambulance, so he did not have the time to discuss the particulars of the case with Neil. But even if he had had that time, we must keep in mind that he would have found himself in a situation where he accepted that Neil was in charge and that he (Neil) would have made the calls that lay behind the carmen having come for him. He would have worked from an assumption that Neil would have taken all the appropriate steps, and even if the carman had not mentioned the cut neck, then Neil would not have been to blame for that.

Additionally, it could well be that Mizen identified a possible reason for the anomaly. He could have thought that the carman had expressed himself poorly, and he could have thought that Neil had not disclosed what had happened to the woman, in order not to stir too much attention from the public.

At any rate, Mizen DID remark on the matter at the inquest!

Post 335, by David Orsam:

"... the argument that has been put forward in this thread is that because the contradiction was apparently unresolved it must have been resolved!"

Exactly. And in spite of this, it was David (!) who was directed to the fiction department by one of those who reasoned in the circular manner described masterfully here. Ripperology - the land behind the mirror ...

Post 340, by Chris:

"It is very difficult to believe the police wouldn't have been acutely aware of the contradiction between Mizen's claim that someone had told him he was wanted by another policeman, and Neil's knowledge that he hadn't encountered anyone at the crime scene - particularly in the period before Cross/Lechmere and Paul came forward."

This makes the assumption that Mizen told his superiors about the carmen and Lechmereīs lie at a very early stage, enabling the police to realize that something was wrong.

If this happened, then why do we have Neil saying in the 2:nd of September interview that it is not true that he was called to the site by two men, and that he therefore was the man who found Nichols first - on his own accord? Why did his superiors sit through the same interview without saying anything about the carmen, if they had known about - and accepted - their presence as the first finders?

And, as I asked before, if the police would easily make out the contradiction and become "acutely aware" of it - then why has not one single author been equally acutely aware of it? Because they realized that it was resolved even before the inquest, and because they realized that their readers would reach that standing point effortlessly too?

And - once again - why would a juryman and the coroner ask about it, if they had already dissed Mizen in favour of Lechmere?

Once again, this suggestion of yours is pure and utter conjecture, and it is totally unsupported by the existing evidence. But it is the order of the day - that much I do realize!

Post 368, by Frank O:

"If Mizen had no doubts whatsoever about what he'd been told by Cross and he knew for a fact that the man who had found the body had lied to him, what police officer would he have been to not at least tell his superiors? Certainly if he believed he would be regarded as a liar or worse. There would be every reason for him to set the record straight."

But he TOLD his superiors! He took the stand at the inquest, and he told the coroner and jury that Lechmere had said that another PC awaited him in Buckīs Row.

How is that NOT telling his superiors? .

But you need to look at the context too, Frank! When he told that Lechmere had said that another policeman awaited him in Bucks Row, he did so against the background of actually having found another PC in place. To Mizen, the statement of another PC was not a lie - it was a truth. He had it confirmed in Buckīs Row.

Lechmere would have reported into the inquest at a very late stage, Sunday or Monday. There was little time. What is suggested here is that somebody in the police would have seen the discrepancy before Mizen and Lechmere took the stand, and have acted upon it.

But that swears against what was played out at the inquest. There is very little scrutinizing of the matter, it is quickly inquieried into by a juryman and by the coroner, and then it is let go.

Does that encourage any ideas that the police had payed great attention to the matter beforehand, and that they had seen the same potential implications as Edward and I have pointed out? Effectively not - if they had, then there would have been some severe questioning about this. But there wasnīt.
Similarly, it was not a resolved matter before the inquest, because there WAS some little questioning about it by that juryman and by the coroner.

The only credible explanation is that the police, the jury, the coroner and the press were all equally baffled by the matter as the latter-day authours who have written about the case. "Some sort of misunderstanding", would have been the verdict, quickly followed by "Now, letīs move on!".

Post 407, by Chris:

"As for your dismissing as "pure speculation" the idea that a police officer would tell his superiors what had happened on the night of a murder, I can't believe you're serious."

What is the alternative, as long as we do not have a shred of evidence that he DID? Of course it is "pure speculation". How could it be anything else?

As such, it can be good speculation or bad speculation, but it is speculation nevertheless. And elevating speculation to fact is something we should not dabble with.

Once again, observe the difference between Mizen having been lied to and Mizen having been told the truth:

If he was never told that there was another PC in place, then he should have gone to his superiors and told them that Neil was wrong in leaving the carmen out of the story, only to claim that he had found Nichols first.

If he WAS lied to about the other PC, then what Neil said would have been in accordance with what Mizen had been told: Neil WAS the man who found Nichols, and he was NOT shown the way to the site by two men.

It only pans out in the second version. And in that version, Mizen would not have had any reason at all to tell his superiors about the carmen, since he would rely on Neil having done that. So it is a suggestion that can be made with utter seriousness.

Also observe how it is said in the press by the police that they had spoken to the men they had on beats nearby the murder scene, whereupon these PC:s said that they had seen nobody leaving the scene so as to evoke suspicion. In Mizenīs world, the carmen would not have evoked suspicion at all - the other PC had vouched for them, and they had performed their duty as responsible citizens. So they were anything but suspicious.

But this ONLY applies if Mizen was lied to!! Only then.

So all in all, the "progress" that has been made on this thread since I left is that people have misunderstood and misinterpreted the evidence, jointly agreeing that they were correct to do so, and declaring that the matter is now resolved (it was "straightened out" 126 years ago).
Those who disagree are vociferously and mockingly attacked and those who helped out with the dissing pat each otherīs backs and decide they have accomplished something. They have finally established that truth that has so long illuded them in the evidence material. Once they all agree that it would have happened, then it would have happened.

And maybe it will all go away, who knows?

Besides, he would have run anyway. We all know that.

The best,
Fisherman

PS. To Sally:

A long look has been taken - I mean, he's been a constant presence here [and there] for the last two years! Isn't that long enough??

Not for you and the anti-Lechmereians. But for a barrister and an ex murder squad detective, it took very little time to realize the full implications. The same goes for lots and lots of people who watched the documentary.

But given your superior knowledge of the case and your unbiased stance, you are probably correct.

PPS. Time for the next hiatus on my behalf. Itīs a lovely world out there.

[Sally]

But given your superior knowledge of the case and your unbiased stance, you are probably correct.

PPS. Time for the next hiatus on my behalf. Itīs a lovely world out there.

Oh undoubtedly the case

Have a nice time in the real world Fish

[Fisherman]

Have a nice time in the real world Fish

I will. You should try it too sometime!

Fisherman

[Observer]

Oh undoubtedly the case

Have a nice time in the real world Fish

Undoubtedly you have a superior knowledge of the case? Or it's undoubtable that it's a lovely world out there?

[Sally]

I will. You should try it too sometime!

Fisherman

Well, maybe I will, Fish! Thanks for the tip!