The Lechmere trail - so far

[Fisherman]

Before anybody else comes to think of it, I may just as well do it myself:

Maybe Jonas Mizen believed that he had done a lousy job as a PC, and so he wanted to impress upon the inquest that he had actually gone to Bucks Row VERY quickly.

And in order to make them believe this, he INVENTED the running blood and he LIED about the coagulation.

How is that? Useful, is it not?

I have been waiting for some time for somebody to deliver this suggestion, but for some reason, there has not been ingenuity enough...?

Of course, as Mizen looked at the blood, Neil was also present, and so his fellow PC would have been able to confirm or deny what Mizen said in this context.

But is that really enough for the Lechmere deniers not to accept a truly juicy proposition like this?

Letīs see!

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,

I have read the Cross/Lechmere threads and by and large what you say is in no way, shape or form approaching evidence; and it certainly would not get as far as a court of law.

But, what you say in points 5 and 6 is interesting. I think your point is that because of the times when people arrived at the scene and the blood congealing when it did, this makes it likely that there was no other killer bjut Cross/Lechmere.

Were this true, then this is a point to be discussed because it's the only evidence being presented worth hearing. Who lived where is immaterial but science is useful.

You are correct - the blood evidence is actual physical evidence, and as such very important.

You are also correct in saying that the implications are that it is likely that the killer was Lechmere.

[drstrange169]

>>You may also see how Mizen is not criticized for any breach of protocol during the inquest.<<

Of course not, Xmere and Paul convinced Baxter that they gave Mizen the true facts, which was a serious enough reason for Mizen to go.

[Fisherman]

Hello Fleetwood Mac,

>>what you say in points 5 and 6 is interesting ... Were this true, then this is a point to be discussed because it's the only evidence being presented worth hearing.<<

Sadly it's not true.

There is no evidence to support the claim. To make it, Fisherman has "interpreted" a unclear statement in one newspaper and ignored the doctor's testimony, the Coroner's summation, all the other policemen's testimonies and ALL the other newspaper reports.

All you need to justify that post is to present one single paper where it was said that she did NOT bleed from the neck as Mizen saw her and one single paper where it said that the blood was NOT in the process of congealing when Mizen looked at it.

Tell me that I am wrong on any of these matters:

1. Mizen could not have reached Browns stable yard any quicker than five or six minutes after Lechmere was found by Paul.

2. In the papers, we have Mizen saying that there was blood running from the neck of Nichols as he saw her.

3. In the papers, we have Mizen saying that the blood was somewhat congealed in the pool as he looked at it.

4. There is not a paper denying either of these points.

[Fisherman]

>>There is not a shred of evidence that he ever used the name Cross. not a iot. Nothing.<<

Not even when he talked the police? I guess the official police records don't count.

Not even when he attended the inquest? I guess the newspaper reports don't count.

He was in the census as Cross, but of course technically he didn't call himself Cross, his guardian did.

Not a shred?
Not a jot?
Nothing?

I don't think so.

You are right.

They donīt count.

They are the very reason we are discussing the issue.

I wouldnīt have thought that anybody would make a point like this. Kafka would never have dreamt it up.

But such is the quality of your arguments!

[Fisherman]

>>The body was covered, down to over the knees.<<

According to Paul, when he saw the body the skirt was up near the stomach. This means, at the very least, most of the wounds were uncovered.

No, it does not. You are cherrypicking. There are many different wordings about it, and the other extreme says that the dress was down to over the knees.

The wordings have been listed before, and the outcome is that the wounds were covered.

If they had NOT been covered, how is it that the carmen could see the hat, but not seven deep bloodfilled gashes on white skin?

Letīs not loose it altogether.

[Fisherman]

drstrange169

Either way, if Xmere was right or Mizen's version was correct, poor old Jonas was caught in a Catch 22. He disobeyed the rules.

Mizen's first duty was to NEVER leave his beat, to do so was subject to quite a heavy penalty. Obviously there were exceptions to this rule, if something serious arose, that would take priority.

But, Mizen's testimony claimed he was told nothing serious by Xmere and Paul.

Another punishable offense was to discontinue "knocking up" people. Again the exception would be if something serious arose.

By choosing, as he claimed, to cease knocking up and leave his beat immediately, Mizen had decided that the cause he was embarking on was of sufficient gravity to risk punishment and fines.

A woman simply lying on the broad of her back, with a policeman already in attendance would not have qualified such drastic action.

All of this is compounded by the fact that he was leaving the jurisdiction of H division and entering another J division's patch.

Monty has commented on what Jonas Mizen did by saying that he followed protocol. Much as Monty and I donīt see eye to eye always, I trust he knows what he is talking about in this respect. This is his area of expertise.

You may also see how Mizen is not criticized for any breach of protocol during the inquest.

You may also note that Jonas Mizen was given an excellent service record when leaving the police.

That tallies quite poorly with the suggestion of a gullible rulebreaker.

On the whole, one of the reasons that Lechmere has not been been identified as the probable killer before is that Jonas Mizen has been unfairly painted out as an incompetent PC over the years. It fits neatly in with the many other public executions of people who were involved in the investigation in a professional capacity and said things that do not sit well with tidays Ripperological community: Killeen, Llewellyn, Phillips, Bond, Alfred Long... the list is an impressive one.

On the other hand, people who had no professional roles at all, are generally believed in spite of how we know that a case like this will generate attention seekers aplenty: Mrs Long, Cadosch, Richardson, Sarah Lewis, Prater etcetera.

I highly reccommend everybody to do the exercise to reassess the case from an angle where the professional witnesses are relied upon and the unprofessional ones are given less trust and forced to step down when they are in conflict with the professionals.

It opens up a whole new world.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: Who are these people?

What information were they provided with?

If their point of reference comes from Lechmerians, then, as with most 'experts' recruitment by suspect-based Ripperologists, they've probably been led to that conclusion.

I never read the compilation of the case that James Scobie was provided with. I did, however, see that Andy Griffiths was given the exact same compilation that I got myself from the film team. And that one had all the many relevant paper articles in it, together with the police reports. The material was chronologically listed.

Since Griffiths got this type of relevant and unbiased material - which he was very well read up on - I tend to think that Scobie too was provided with the relevant material in a relevant manner.

I also think that speculating that either man was mislead or lied to with the purpose of trying to get comments from them that were in line with one view of the case only is way out of what anyone should allow himself, no matter how biased against Lechmere one is.

Finally, I am certain that if a tilted material was fed to Scobie and Griffiths, then that would leave the whole production open to being severely compromized. The disclosure of either man saying "But they never told me that" or "But they said it was the other way around" would result in the proposal of Lechmere as the killer would suffering a devastating blow.

It is another thing that neither man could possibly be asked to read everything there is to read on the case - it would mean that the documentary would be put up until the autumn of 2096.
Paul Begg commented on this when the debate started and a not very well read up ex-copper implied that Scobie had perhaps not been given all the material that militated against Lechmere as the killer. Begg said that such a thing could never be demanded, and that since Scobe was asked to weigh the evidence for Lechmere being the killer, then that evidence was what he needed to see.
If there had been something that meant that Lechmere could not be the killer, he would have needed to see that too - but we all know that there is no such beast. And Scobie would himself be able to realize that Lechmere may have had alternative reasons for using the name Cross when speaking to the police, that he may have not have walked Old Montague Street when Tabram died, etcetera - after all, the manīs job is to assess the evidence value of different matters!

I think the whole discussion would move considerably forward if people were decent enough not to throw these kinds of accusations around them before they had conclusive evidence to back it up. Or circumstantial evidence. Or any evidence at all.
The exact same thing is demanded of me - it is so often said that I need to really back up my suspicions against Lechmere with facts and evidence, and that is what I have spent many years doing.

So why would you be free to loftily suggest that Scobie and Griffiths were lied to when you have nothing at all to show for it, Harry? Exactly how would that work?

Please answer this question. It is by far one of the most inportant questions we have to deal with.

[drstrange169]

Hello Fleetwood Mac,

>>what you say in points 5 and 6 is interesting ... Were this true, then this is a point to be discussed because it's the only evidence being presented worth hearing.<<

Sadly it's not true.

There is no evidence to support the claim. To make it, Fisherman has "interpreted" a unclear statement in one newspaper and ignored the doctor's testimony, the Coroner's summation, all the other policemen's testimonies and ALL the other newspaper reports.

[drstrange169]

>>There is not a shred of evidence that he ever used the name Cross. not a iot. Nothing.<<

Not even when he talked the police? I guess the official police records don't count.

Not even when he attended the inquest? I guess the newspaper reports don't count.

He was in the census as Cross, but of course technically he didn't call himself Cross, his guardian did.

Not a shred?
Not a jot?
Nothing?

I don't think so.

[drstrange169]

>>... a body that was still bleeding from the neck wounds around six minutes after Lechmere had left it.<<

Sigh, I guess if you keep repeating it long enough, some uniformed person might actually believe it.

[drstrange169]

>>The body was covered, down to over the knees.<<

According to Paul, when he saw the body the skirt was up near the stomach. This means, at the very least, most of the wounds were uncovered.

[drstrange169]

>>... why wasn't that reflected in the message Mizen supposedly got from Cross?<<

And there's the rub Caz, why indeed, an astute observation.


>>Mizen followed protocol<<

Except he didn't, Christer.
Either way, if Xmere was right or Mizen's version was correct, poor old Jonas was caught in a Catch 22. He disobeyed the rules.

Mizen's first duty was to NEVER leave his beat, to do so was subject to quite a heavy penalty. Obviously there were exceptions to this rule, if something serious arose, that would take priority.

But, Mizen's testimony claimed he was told nothing serious by Xmere and Paul.

Another punishable offense was to discontinue "knocking up" people. Again the exception would be if something serious arose.

By choosing, as he claimed, to cease knocking up and leave his beat immediately, Mizen had decided that the cause he was embarking on was of sufficient gravity to risk punishment and fines.

A woman simply lying on the broad of her back, with a policeman already in attendance would not have qualified such drastic action.

All of this is compounded by the fact that he was leaving the jurisdiction of H division and entering another J division's patch.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Fisherman,

I have read the Cross/Lechmere threads and by and large what you say is in no way, shape or form approaching evidence; and it certainly would not get as far as a court of law.

But, what you say in points 5 and 6 is interesting. I think your point is that because of the times when people arrived at the scene and the blood congealing when it did, this makes it likely that there was no other killer bjut Cross/Lechmere.

Were this true, then this is a point to be discussed because it's the only evidence being presented worth hearing. Who lived where is immaterial but science is useful.

[Shaggyrand]

A trial at a Ripper Con could be interesting. Set up as an Evidentiary Hearing, maybe? Could stream it online for everyone interested as well.
Just saying, if someone is spoiling for a showdown why not give it them? Not that I think you have, just it would be an interesting twist to the debate.