The Lechmere trail - so far

[Fisherman]

I'd prefer to focus on the positive. As I said, that's a poor word. Let's just say that I find it quite unconvincing and leave it at that. I know you believe in it. I don't think it's productive to rehash it.

I disagree - when you use a wording like "laughable", I think you owe it to the accused party to defend himself. You now downgrade the scorn to "quite unconvincing", which is a bit odd.

But I am happy to present why the suggestion is anything but laughable even if you are not willing to substantiate yourself.

The so called Mizen scam deals with three purported lies served by Charles Lechmere to PC Jonas Mizen a couple of minutes after the former had left the body of Polly Nichols lying in the street up in Bucks Row, travelling together with fellow carman Robert Paul with the aim to find a PC to report their find to.

Lie number one: Charles Lechmere said at the inquest that he thought that the woman was dead. It is reasonable to suggest that he was under an obligation to tell PC Mizen that the errand was in all probability a very grave one.
But no matter which source we look at, it is clear that Mizen only professes to have been told that a woman was lying flat on her back in Bucks Row. Mizen specifically says that the carman never said anything about any murder or suicide.
In conclusion, Lechmere either played down the seriousness, or Mizen misunderstood him. Alternatively, Mizen lied.
The scam theory suggests that Lechmere lied in order not to have Mizen realizing that he may have had a grave crime on his hands. Such an insight would probably have been combined with a lot more interest from Mizens side, quite possibly detaining the carmen.
As it was, he was told a story that pointed to a drunken woman having passed out.

Lie number two: PC Mizen was adamant that he was told by Lechmere that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row. Lechmere denied having said such a thing.
The same options apply: Either Lechmere lied, Mizen misunderstood or Mizen lied.
What we can see is that Mizens actions are in complete agreement with having been told that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row.
If he had not been told this, then he would have been certain that the carmen had been the real finders of the body.
Nevertheless, his colleague Neil laid claim to have been the finder, and stated that he had not been led to the site by two men. There was such a rumour, owing to Pauls paper interview.
If Mizen had thought that the carmen had been the finders, then he would have been able to inform his superiors that Neil was wrong. It is apparent that no such information ever reached Mizens superiors, since Neil was allowed to tell the papers and the inquest alike that he found the body.
The Mizen scam theory predisposes that Lechmere lied in order to convince Mizen that his collegue had already met the carmen and decided that they were innocent passers-by - meaning that they were already checked and cleared by that colleague (who never existed).

Lie number three: Lechmere claimed that both he and Paul spoke to PC Mizen, whereas Mizen clearly stated that it was Lechmere who spoke to him. He even had to be reminded by the coroner that there was another carman in place in Bakers Row, before he remembered and acknowledged Paul.
Once again, Lechmere could have lied about it. It also applies that Mizen could have lied about it. But he could hardly have forgotten that both men spoke to him, instead claiming that Lechmere was the messenger.
It has in the other two cases of lies been suggested that Mizen stood to gain from lying in order to cover his own back, but that is not true. Mizen did not do anything that was in conflict with protocol.
And when it comes to this lie, it is hard to see that Mizen would stand to gain anything from not acknowledging that both men spoke to him.
The Mizen scam theory works from the assumption that Lechmere kept Paul out of earshot as he lied to Mizen, so that Paul could not corroborate Mizen afterwards.

So there is not just the one lie involved - there are three suggested lies, and they all are in line with a consistent behaviour of wanting to get past the police on Lechmere´s behalf.

To add to this, we know that Lechmere served the inquest a name that was not the name he always otherwise used in contacts with the authorities. It can therefore be suggested that we are looking at a number of isolated details/lies that are all in line with each other and logical parts of an overall deception.

There are very clear indictations that the carman was economic with the truth.
We also know that Jonas Mizen was a man with an impeccable service record and a religious conviction. We know that he went on to spend his life after leaving the police force, taking over and tending the family farm with great success and with no recorded problems at all.

It is anybody´s prerogative to choose actively to believe that the carman was not lying, although a very clear consistency can be pointed to if he lied.

I fail to see, however, that the suggestion that the carman lied his way past the police on the murder morning would be in any way laughable. It is a logical chain of events, it all serves the same purpose, he can be shown to have presented the inquest with a name he otherwise did not use with the authorities, quite possibly implicating him as dishonest.

If we are to believe that Mizen misheard what Lechmere told him, then that does not explain why he and Lechmere claim different things about who spoke to the PC on the murder night. Couple this insight with the fact that we normally do not mishear things like these (the absolute bulk of spoken messages is heard and interpreted correctly) and the implications are that the carman was the liar.

If we are to reason that Mizen lied to save his skin, then we need to produce a skin that needed saving first - he was not in conflict with protocol. It also applies that we know that Jonas Mizen was graded quite highly as a serving officer.

Once again, it seems that the only interpretation that is not in conflict with what we know, is that Charles Lechmere lied to Jonas Mizen.

It can be argued that we know of no suspicious behavior on behalf of Lechmere in his everyday life. That is true - but we do not have him overall graded as we have Mizen. All we have on Lechmere is his behaviour on the murder morning and at the ensuing inquest - and there are many things that seem to point to a suspicious behaviour in there.

Once again I ask, Patrick: What is laughable about this? Where are the logical flaws? Where are the inconsistencies? Where does the theory not hang together? Why is it a so much better suggestion that Lechmere did NOT lie, that it actually becomes laughable to suggest that he did?

It would be prudent of you to come clear on this point and not leave it hanging in the air.

[Fisherman]

Thanks for posting the above examples, Christer
Yes, there are more examples of Cross being the prop refuser, but where do these papers stand in respect of veracity in comparison to Lloyds ?

They are very much more credible, not least since they quote Lechmere ad verbatim in two cases (The Echo and The Morning Advertiser). They are independent of each other, but for two overlapping ones, otherwise they are unalike each other and in corroboration about who suggested the propping up.

The result has been that it is universally accepted that Lechmere was the man who refused to help prop Nichols up.

Lloyds and the Telegraph have the same article. That means that there is no corroboration. It also applies that the sentence following the propping up business is the exact same in both Lloyds and the Telegraph - the one about how they heard a policeman arriving. That is factually wrong, as far as we can tell, implicating that these papers are perhaps not very reliable in this errand.

[Abby Normal]

I'd prefer to focus on the positive. As I said, that's a poor word. Let's just say that I find it quite unconvincing and leave it at that. I know you believe in it. I don't think it's productive to rehash it.

Hi Patrick
We have a policeman on oath on record saying that lech told him he was wanted by another PC in Bucks row. Lech denied this. so 50/50 he said he said. Usually the court and people in general (me included) would go with the police in something like this, but well give the benefit of the doubt and leave it at 50/50.

we believe lech and well its just a simple misunderstanding (which in my opinion its all it was).

However, if Mizen was not mistaken, and Lech really did tell him that- we need to consider why. One explanation would be that it would help get him past the policeman for whatever reason-maybe he didnt want to be late for work and/or he was guilty.

Honestly IMHO the Mizen scam is one of weaker aspects of the argument, but there is no denying that there is evry possibility that Mizen could have been correct in what Lech told him. Again a discrepency that needs explaining.

[Hercule Poirot]

Police follow-up

Hi Fish,
Given the contradictions you have pointed out between Paul, Cross and Mizen's testimony (either lying, misleading or misunderstanding) and they are serious, I keep asking myself why the police didn't do any follow-up after the inquest to get things strait. It was said, if I'm correct, that although he began after Nichol's death, Abberline was at the inquest and we know he was quite methodical in his work. Scotland Yard's missing pieces of documentary evidence would probably tell us more but it's gone! Then again, no follow-up has been mentioned by the press perhaps because nothing was actually done.

May I ask you for your opinion on this aspect?

Cheers,
Hercule

[Jon Guy]

They are very much more credible, not least since they quote Lechmere ad verbatim in two cases (The Echo and The Morning Advertiser). They are independent of each other, but for two overlapping ones, otherwise they are unalike each other and in corroboration about who suggested the propping up.

The result has been that it is universally accepted that Lechmere was the man who refused to help prop Nichols up.

Lloyds and the Telegraph have the same article. That means that there is no corroboration. It also applies that the sentence following the propping up business is the exact same in both Lloyds and the Telegraph - the one about how they heard a policeman arriving. That is factually wrong, as far as we can tell, implicating that these papers are perhaps not very reliable in this errand.

Okay, thanks for your opinion.

[Patrick S]

I disagree - when you use a wording like "laughable", I think you owe it to the accused party to defend himself. You now downgrade the scorn to "quite unconvincing", which is a bit odd.

Read, Fisherman....READ! I said it was a poor choise or words. I am really trying NOT to be contentious.... Suffice it to say that I am not INTERESTED in the "Mizen Scam". And I didn't want to read another one of your exhaustive treatises...but I see you wrote one anyway.........So....what the hell.....

But I am happy to present why the suggestion is anything but laughable even if you are not willing to substantiate yourself.

The so called Mizen scam deals with three purported lies served by Charles Lechmere to PC Jonas Mizen a couple of minutes after the former had left the body of Polly Nichols lying in the street up in Bucks Row, travelling together with fellow carman Robert Paul with the aim to find a PC to report their find to.

Lie number one: Charles Lechmere said at the inquest that he thought that the woman was dead. It is reasonable to suggest that he was under an obligation to tell PC Mizen that the errand was in all probability a very grave one.

But no matter which source we look at, it is clear that Mizen only professes to have been told that a woman was lying flat on her back in Bucks Row. Mizen specifically says that the carman never said anything about any murder or suicide.

[B]No matter what source? Well....This is what Robert Paul said:

"It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head. "

What do you make of his statement? He seems fairly outraged that Mizen continued "calling people up". He thought it was a "great shame", in fact. Paul said that HE (PAUL) had just told him "the woman was dead". Further, Paul's statement implies that police weren't doing their jobs very effectively. The inference being that Nichols was on the pavement while no policemen passed through Buck's Row - as they should have - on their beats.


In conclusion, Lechmere either played down the seriousness, or Mizen misunderstood him.

Or Mizen lied to cover-up the fact - as stated OUTRIGHT by Paul - that he continued knocking up in Baker's Row. Mizen stated that he finished "knocking up where he was" and went to Buck's Row. It was clearly alledged that he continued knocking up beyond the house where he was. And this upset Paul. And he said so.

Alternatively, Mizen lied.

The scam theory suggests that Lechmere lied in order not to have Mizen realizing that he may have had a grave crime on his hands. Such an insight would probably have been combined with a lot more interest from Mizens side, quite possibly detaining the carmen.

What's more likely? That Lechmere did not simply WALK away (he didn't have to run if Paul was 40 yards off) when he heard Paul, that he invited Paul to view his handy-work, that he then went WITH Paul in search of a cop, then employed the fabled MIZEN SCAM on the fly in order to avoid detection or that Mizen was lying in order to make his actions look more appropriate?

Throughout your scenario the psychopath Lechmere is unconcerned with being caught. Now, suddenly, he whips out the Mizen Scam in order to go free. Why not continue to push it? Why not tell Mizen that he found Nichols? Why not say she's dead? Why is he cautious NOW? He went LOOKING FOR THE POLICE! Now.. and ONLY NOW..... in your MIZEN SCAM is he trying to avoid arrest! ALL of his actions to this point show him doing the opposite. In order to make his actions fit your conclusion, you have him radically change behavior. He goes from a psychopath with delusions of superiority to a common, lying, murdering crook....trying to get over on the cops.

As it was, he was told a story that pointed to a drunken woman having passed out.

He says he said "for my part I think she's dead." This jibes with what Paul said. This dovetails with Paul's outrage. There was, indeed, a Mizen scam. And it was Mizen who pulled it.

Lie number two: PC Mizen was adamant that he was told by Lechmere that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row. Lechmere denied having said such a thing.

Look. I think it's clear that Paul's interview had some bearing on what Mizen said after the fact. It is likely - from my perspective - that Mizen DID simpy finish knocking up where he was. That didn't strike Paul as appropriate. And he said so in print. Do you think Mizen's superiors just let it pass and didn't say anything? Doubtful. Thus...the Mizen Scam. Not yours. The real one.

The same options apply: Either Lechmere lied, Mizen misunderstood or Mizen lied.

What we can see is that Mizens actions are in complete agreement with having been told that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row.

Or complete in agreement with a cop not taking information seriously. It's likely that Mizen was much more accustomed to finding drunk woman lying about than dead woman. The killings were just getting underway at that point. Still you had Millwood, Wilson and Smith through April and Tabram in August. On that night it has been nearly two months since Tabram. I'm certain that there were far more false alarms in that time that actual murders or even attacks. Thus, Mizen's reaction may be somewhat understandable..yet would be embarrassing to him personally and the police in general...considering the reality lying in Buck's Row.

If he had not been told this, then he would have been certain that the carmen had been the real finders of the body.


Nevertheless, his colleague Neil laid claim to have been the finder, and stated that he had not been led to the site by two men. There was such a rumour, owing to Pauls paper interview.

And it all worked out for Cross the Ripper....and the crystal ball he seems to have consulted through it all! His action ONLY makes sense when you know the outcome. Everything he did - with the exception of your MIZEN SCAM - leads to more danger (approaching Paul, inviting Paul to see the body, going with Paul to find a cop)....only now..when his crystal ball tells him that a cop really is already in Buck's Row....does he construct the MIZEN SCAM to get him off the hook.

If Mizen had thought that the carmen had been the finders, then he would have been able to inform his superiors that Neil was wrong. It is apparent that no such information ever reached Mizens superiors, since Neil was allowed to tell the papers and the inquest alike that he found the body.

Neil thought he found the body. It is possible that Mizen didn't report his interactions with Cross and Paul until Paul spoke the press and voiced his outrage?

The Mizen scam theory predisposes that Lechmere lied in order to convince Mizen that his collegue had already met the carmen and decided that they were innocent passers-by - meaning that they were already checked and cleared by that colleague (who never existed).

Did you recover the crystal ball Lechmere used? That may be pretty damning if you did.

Lie number three: Lechmere claimed that both he and Paul spoke to PC Mizen, whereas Mizen clearly stated that it was Lechmere who spoke to him. He even had to be reminded by the coroner that there was another carman in place in Bakers Row, before he remembered and acknowledged Paul.

Paul seems to have rememebered it.

Once again, Lechmere could have lied about it. It also applies that Mizen could have lied about it. But he could hardly have forgotten that both men spoke to him, instead claiming that Lechmere was the messenger.
It has in the other two cases of lies been suggested that Mizen stood to gain from lying in order to cover his own back, but that is not true. Mizen did not do anything that was in conflict with protocol.

GOOD GOD! This just goes on and on. If you have to use this many words....then this is the most complex and convoluted scam in history. Of couse, Cross was an evil genius........

And when it comes to this lie, it is hard to see that Mizen would stand to gain anything from not acknowledging that both men spoke to him.
The Mizen scam theory works from the assumption that Lechmere kept Paul out of earshot as he lied to Mizen, so that Paul could not corroborate Mizen afterwards.

Mizen. This innocent lamb. We must assume that Mizen was 100% correct in his actions and honest in his recollections at all times......and if he was, Cross is the Ripper. Bah!

So there is not just the one lie involved - there are three suggested lies, and they all are in line with a consistent behaviour of wanting to get past the police on Lechmere´s behalf.

THREE Mizen Scams. This gets better. And more complicated. I mean, why consider the OBVIOUS: Mizen told what was in the end a harmless lie in order to make his actions after being told about Nichols seem more appropriate to both the public and his superiors.

To add to this, we know that Lechmere served the inquest a name that was not the name he always otherwise used in contacts with the authorities. It can therefore be suggested that we are looking at a number of isolated details/lies that are all in line with each other and logical parts of an overall deception.


There are very clear indictations that the carman was economic with the truth.

If was assume that Mizen was 100% correct in his actions and honest in his recollections at all times and there were no simple misunderstandings.....then Cross was the Ripper....THAT'S the conclusion? Bah.

We also know that Jonas Mizen was a man with an impeccable service record and a religious conviction. We know that he went on to spend his life after leaving the police force, taking over and tending the family farm with great success and with no recorded problems at all.

AH! So Mizen's post murder life matters greatly. Lechmere's does not. He had stable employment, raised a family, and left them an inheritence. All discounted by you. Beyond that, Mizen lying in about Baker's Row does not make him evil. It does not make him a pagan. It makes him a guy who didn't want to get in trouble. Just as if Lechmere lied or didn't properly recount the conversation it doesn't make him a killer. It may just make him a guy who didn't want to be any later for work than he already was.

It is anybody´s prerogative to choose actively to believe that the carman was not lying, although a very clear consistency can be pointed to if he lied.

I fail to see, however, that the suggestion that the carman lied his way past the police on the murder morning would be in any way laughable.

You don't have to see. It makes me laugh. I'm laughing now.

It is a logical chain of events, it all serves the same purpose, he can be shown to have presented the inquest with a name he otherwise did not use with the authorities, quite possibly implicating him as dishonest.



If we are to believe that Mizen misheard what Lechmere told him, then that does not explain why he and Lechmere claim different things about who spoke to the PC on the murder night. Couple this insight with the fact that we normally do not mishear things like these (the absolute bulk of spoken messages is heard and interpreted correctly) and the implications are that the carman was the liar.

If we are to reason that Mizen lied to save his skin, then we need to produce a skin that needed saving first - he was not in conflict with protocol. It also applies that we know that Jonas Mizen was graded quite highly as a serving officer.

Once again, it seems that the only interpretation that is not in conflict with what we know, is that Charles Lechmere lied to Jonas Mizen.

It can be argued that we know of no suspicious behavior on behalf of Lechmere in his everyday life. That is true - but we do not have him overall graded as we have Mizen. All we have on Lechmere is his behaviour on the murder morning and at the ensuing inquest - and there are many things that seem to point to a suspicious behaviour in there.

Once again I ask, Patrick: What is laughable about this? Where are the logical flaws? Where are the inconsistencies? Where does the theory not hang together? Why is it a so much better suggestion that Lechmere did NOT lie, that it actually becomes laughable to suggest that he did?

It would be prudent of you to come clear on this point and not leave it hanging in the air.

I'm not going to read the rest what comes afer my last comment. I'm out of patience and energy. Your Mizen Scam is more.....silly...is that nicer?....that I thought it was. Thanks for explaining it.

I didn't want to do this in the first place but you keep pushing. I have no idea WHY you keep pushing. I'd also point out that you should look at the timing of when Cross and Paul met Mizen in Baker's Row. You say it was a max of two minutes for the tree to meet in Baker's Row. Thus, it should have been four mintues after Cross and Paul left Nichols that Mizen returned to her body. Yet, Mizen himself says that when he reached Buck's Row he saw " PC John Neil, some local residents and the body of Nichols". This means that in four minutes all of this happened:

1. PC Neil discovered the body of Mary Ann Nichols whilst on beat duty
2. Hearing PC John Thain walking along Brady Street, he summoned him with his lamp
3. Thain was sent by Neil to get Dr. Llewellyn
4. Some residents had heard the commotion and come to view the body

Now, like you I can draw many conclusion based on this information. Ulike you, I consider the obvious explanations before I start yelling "Case Closed" ala Patricia Cornwell.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,
Given the contradictions you have pointed out between Paul, Cross and Mizen's testimony (either lying, misleading or misunderstanding) and they are serious, I keep asking myself why the police didn't do any follow-up after the inquest to get things strait. It was said, if I'm correct, that although he began after Nichol's death, Abberline was at the inquest and we know he was quite methodical in his work. Scotland Yard's missing pieces of documentary evidence would probably tell us more but it's gone! Then again, no follow-up has been mentioned by the press perhaps because nothing was actually done.

May I ask you for your opinion on this aspect?

Cheers,
Hercule

Of course you may!

Abberline attended days two and three of the Nichols inquest, so he would have seen and heard Lechmere speaking.

There is also the fact that a member of the jury asked Lechmere if it was really true that he had told Mizen that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row, so the issue as such was highlighted.

So of course, the police should have made further checks on the carman, tht is no doubt true.
Yet, it seems they did not. Not did the press take any interest in him. And there must have been reasons for this.

I have already said in numerous posts that 1888 was a year of criminal anthropology. In fact, it seems as if England stood under its spell more now than in any other time. And most of all, the people employed in the practical branches of the legal system seems to have been most influenced, whereas there was more doubt in academic circles.

That is one of the reasons why he was not further investigated, I suspect - he did not answer up to the physiognomy that was required to fit the villain´s role.

Another reason wil be how he twice contacted the police, seemingly out of his own free will. Not many criminals do that. Today, that has probably changed, and the media has driven on a development where people try to become the serialist with the most victims and the serialist who conned the police and so on. It may sound ridiculous, but I do think tht media has a lot to answer for in this context.

A third reason would perhaps be that Lechmere´s personality - or at least the personality that came across at the inquest - disagreed with the notion that he could be the killer. I think that people overall expected some kind of flamboyancy from the killer - that he was exotic, looked dangerous, was a criminal mastermind, lashed out at the audience at the inquest, something like that.
But going by what we have, Lechmere seems to have come across as a simple, rough, perhaps mumbling, colourless character, a working horse with no charisma at all. A boring man. A grey man.

Taken together, I think this was what got him off the hook before he even got on it.

[Fisherman]

Okay, thanks for your opinion.

You are welcome. Are you also in agreement, or must Lloyds be the better bet...?

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: I'm not going to read the rest what comes afer my last comment. I'm out of patience and energy. Your Mizen Scam is more.....silly...is that nicer?....that I thought it was. Thanks for explaining it.

You are just a bad judge of things, Patrick. Fair enough. Read what Abby said and try to digest it.

I'd also point out that you should look at the timing of when Cross and Paul met Mizen in Baker's Row. You say it was a max of two minutes for the tree to meet in Baker's Row.

What do you mean? That they spent two minutes together? That it took two minutes to walk from Browns to where Mizen stood?
Either way, you have apparently not read what I have said. And that makes sense. It fits with how you misunderstand things generally sometimes - like the Mizen scam.

Mei Trow said in his book that it takes three minutes to walk the stretch. Careful measuring and comparing with an elevated walking speed speaks more for two and a half minutes. And then we must add some time for the conversation with Mizen, perhas half a minute. That means that we more likely have around five and a half minutes and not four.

This means that in four minutes all of this happened:

1. PC Neil discovered the body of Mary Ann Nichols whilst on beat duty
2. Hearing PC John Thain walking along Brady Street, he summoned him with his lamp
3. Thain was sent by Neil to get Dr. Llewellyn
4. Some residents had heard the commotion and come to view the body

As I said, no, five and a half minutes or something like tht is more likely to be true. Neil could have been in place around two, three minutes after the carmen left. He then immediately summoned Thain, who would take a minute to reach the stable door. That´s three to four minutes gone.
Thain then is informed and leaves, rounding the schoolhouse, add another thrity seconds. We are looking at three and a half to four and a half minutes. Then Mizen comes down Bucks Row, is seen by Neil who flashes his lamp towards him.
It is no rocket science - there is ample time for the schedule to work. And we know that both Baxter and Swanson said the body was found around 3.45.

Now, like you I can draw many conclusion based on this information. Ulike you, I consider the obvious explanations before I start yelling "Case Closed" ala Patricia Cornwell.

You are doing yourself a disservice by lying. I have not said case closed. I say that Lechmere is the prime suspect and the probable killer of Nichols. I also say that I have no conclusive proof, but instead circumstantial ditto.
Please stick to the truth.
Plus regarding Lechmere as the probable killer of Nichols IS the obvious explanation. Ghost killers are much less obvious than the carman.

[Hercule Poirot]

Of course you may!

Abberline attended days two and three of the Nichols inquest, so he would have seen and heard Lechmere speaking...


...Taken together, I think this was what got him off the hook before he even got on it.

Thank you very much for your opinion which I share. May I mention if this might help that I just remembered having a littrary source saying that under Abberlines's instruction, three men were interviewed in the days following Nichols' death: Henry Tomkins, Charles Brittain and James Munford who worked at the Barbers Knaker's Yard as slaughtermen who had left their job around midnight on August 31. No mention of Cross or Paul. So it seems the police didn't go very far.


However, I'm not in a position to say if this source is reliable.
Source: Inspector Frederick George Abberline, The reality behind the myth, Peter Thurgood

Respectfully yours,
Hercule

[Abby Normal]

I'm not going to read the rest what comes afer my last comment. I'm out of patience and energy. Your Mizen Scam is more.....silly...is that nicer?....that I thought it was. Thanks for explaining it.

I didn't want to do this in the first place but you keep pushing. I have no idea WHY you keep pushing. I'd also point out that you should look at the timing of when Cross and Paul met Mizen in Baker's Row. You say it was a max of two minutes for the tree to meet in Baker's Row. Thus, it should have been four mintues after Cross and Paul left Nichols that Mizen returned to her body. Yet, Mizen himself says that when he reached Buck's Row he saw " PC John Neil, some local residents and the body of Nichols". This means that in four minutes all of this happened:

1. PC Neil discovered the body of Mary Ann Nichols whilst on beat duty
2. Hearing PC John Thain walking along Brady Street, he summoned him with his lamp
3. Thain was sent by Neil to get Dr. Llewellyn
4. Some residents had heard the commotion and come to view the body

Now, like you I can draw many conclusion based on this information. Ulike you, I consider the obvious explanations before I start yelling "Case Closed" ala Patricia Cornwell.

Hi Patrick
You seem to be placing all the problems/mistakes on the police.

I don't see how anyone can read pauls interview with the paper and not see that this guy had some kind of beef with the police beforehand. Oh yes she was so cold she must have been there forever while the police are not doing their job...blah blah blah.
And on and on.

Also, your onus is all on Mizen screwing up/lying etc.

well what if the guy was actually honest and correct?

And Nothing in Fishes response to you was remotely personal or even scathing for that matter. Not sure why you are freaking out.

You've brought up a lot of good debating points-would like to see it continue-with less vitriol.

[Fisherman]

What I find interesting is the consistency in the three suggested lies. They form a cluster that is so extremely well suited to disengage Mizen and shield Lechmere.

I also think that the discrepancy between Mizen and Lechmere when it comes to whether one or two of the carmen informed him is crucial. Here we have a point where Mizen stood to gain absolutely nothing by not admitting that both men spoke to him.
Lechmere, on the other hand, would gain a lot if it was believed that this was what happened - it would mean that nobody could speculate that he had lied to the PC, since Paul would have been able to give him away afterwards.

To me, this looks very much like the clincher in the question about who lied.

[Patrick S]

Hi Patrick
You seem to be placing all the problems/mistakes on the police.

I don't see how anyone can read pauls interview with the paper and not see that this guy had some kind of beef with the police beforehand. Oh yes she was so cold she must have been there forever while the police are not doing their job...blah blah blah.
And on and on.

Also, your onus is all on Mizen screwing up/lying etc.

well what if the guy was actually honest and correct?

And Nothing in Fishes response to you was remotely personal or even scathing for that matter. Not sure why you are freaking out.

You've brought up a lot of good debating points-would like to see it continue-with less vitriol.

The vitrol comes from exhaustion.

And now we are asked to make another assumption to buy into the Mizen Scam:

1. Mizen is telling the truth
2. Mizen acted appropriately once he was told about Nichols
3. Cross was Jack the Ripper and lied about interacation with Mizen to cover his tracks (when up to now he wanted to lead people TO his tracks...now he wasnts to cover them...with the Mizen Scam)
4. Paul was embittered toward the police/had an axe to grind, that's why he gave the interview and misrepresented his interaction with Mizen (supporting Cross in the process)

"My" version puts the onus on Mizen screwing up/lying (while leaving open the possibiliy for misunderstanding). Fisherman's version puts all the onus on Cross being Jack the Ripper.

Key difference: I'm not calling ANYONE Jack the Ripper. There are MILES to go before we can start to believe that any strange behavior, by anyone in Buck's Row means they killed someone, much less all the victims..thus....Jack the Ripper. But Fishmerman sees things differently. Again. That's fine for him. But, we've all been abused, casitigated, condescended to, and chided for not buying this thing lock, stock, and barrel. And I'm freaking out becuase I got drawn into this again when I said I wanted to stay positive...and now I've got to go kick my dog.....well...my dog died recently so.....I don't know what I'll do. I figure it out, though.

[Patrick S]

What I find interesting is the consistency in the three suggested lies. They form a cluster that is so extremely well suited to disengage Mizen and shield Lechmere.

I also think that the discrepancy between Mizen and Lechmere when it comes to whether one or two of the carmen informed him is crucial. Here we have a point where Mizen stood to gain absolutely nothing by not admitting that both men spoke to him.
Lechmere, on the other hand, would gain a lot if it was believed that this was what happened - it would mean that nobody could speculate that he had lied to the PC, since Paul would have been able to give him away afterwards.

To me, this looks very much like the clincher in the question about who lied.

Pure foolishness. Address the Paul statement please as it relates this statement by you:

Lie number one: Charles Lechmere said at the inquest that he thought that the woman was dead. It is reasonable to suggest that he was under an obligation to tell PC Mizen that the errand was in all probability a very grave one.

But no matter which source we look at, it is clear that Mizen only professes to have been told that a woman was lying flat on her back in Bucks Row. Mizen specifically says that the carman never said anything about any murder or suicide.

To refresh your memory, Paul said this the following. Thus, Mizen WAS told that Nichols was likely dead.

"It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head. "

[Abby Normal]

The vitrol comes from exhaustion.

And now we are asked to make another assumption to buy into the Mizen Scam:

1. Mizen is telling the truth
2. Mizen acted appropriately once he was told about Nichols
3. Cross was Jack the Ripper and lied about interacation with Mizen to cover his tracks (when up to now he wanted to lead people TO his tracks...now he wasnts to cover them...with the Mizen Scam)
4. Paul was embittered toward the police/had an axe to grind, that's why he gave the interview and misrepresented his interaction with Mizen (supporting Cross in the process)

"My" version puts the onus on Mizen screwing up/lying (while leaving open the possibiliy for misunderstanding). Fisherman's version puts all the onus on Cross being Jack the Ripper.

Key difference: I'm not calling ANYONE Jack the Ripper. There are MILES to go before we can start to believe that any strange behavior, by anyone in Buck's Row means they killed someone, much less all the victims..thus....Jack the Ripper. But Fishmerman sees things differently. Again. That's fine for him. But, we've all been abused, casitigated, condescended to, and chided for not buying this thing lock, stock, and barrel. And I'm freaking out becuase I got drawn into this again when I said I wanted to stay positive...and now I've got to go kick my dog.....well...my dog died recently so.....I don't know what I'll do. I figure it out, though.

Hi Patrick
all good and valid points. Especially about the Mizen scam being a simple misunderstanding-which I also believe was probably the case.

One thing-dosnt Paul contradict himself though between what he told the papers and at the inquest re how long Nichols was lying there, how cold she was etc.?

sorry to hear about your dog. seriously. recently been through it. My sympathies.