The Lechmere trail - so far

[Patrick S]

Another aspect of this whole thing that stands out to me, Christer.

You dismiss the fact that Cross lived a rather good life, taken as whole, as either proof of nothing or proof of guilt (citing examples of other serial killers (members of distinct minority) who did similarly). You discount his stable employment. You discount his marriage and family. You discount his lack of criminal record. You discount the inheritance he was able to pass on to the next generation. All irrelevant, you say. Immaterial.

Yet, when we discuss Mizen, you bring up his faith, his service record. This matters, you say. Even though lying to cover up his assuming that Buck's Row was another false alarm and not reacting appropriately wouldn't invalidate anything that may recommend Jonas Mizen for Cop of the Century or Sainthood, for that matter.....you still cite it and say, "Let's believe this man."

Then we have what you said about Abberline:

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

Now, let's look at Abberline. Was he not a long time veteran of the force? You cite this as plus for Mizen. Was he not highly regarded and decorated? Yet, he sat in court, heard Cross give testimony. And suspected him not at all. Ah! But he was, perhaps "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.Here, again, you pick and choose what matters and what doesn't. Personal history and accomplishment matter when it serves your conclusion. It doesn't what it may harm it." Too bad you weren't there instead of Abberline, Christer. You'd have nailed him!

Of course, everything works when you "try viewing Lechmere's actions with an eye on him being guilty", eh Christer?

[Patrick S]

I´m sure that this little diversion of yours is very interesting. But the issue we are speaking of is how you tried to paint me out as a dunce for saying that Paul would not have told the truth.

So returning to the question: Is it or is it not apparent that he must have lied on at least one of the occasions I quoted?

First off, Paul lying does not make Cross Jack the Ripper. But, let's play your game. I understand you're playing catch-up. You're behind on points and you're looking for a haymaker. Let's look some other possiblities:

1. Paul - in his interview - wanted to take the lion's share of the glory and excluded any reference to Chuck the Ripper. Paul showing an ego here does not make him a pathological liar and it doesn't make Cross Jack the Ripper.

2. The reporter - skilled in shorthand as he likely was - got some of the fact wrong. I know that's somethat that doesn't happen now and it didn't happen then, expecially.....but......well.....the reporter's mistake doesn't make Paul a a serial liar and it doesn't make Cross Jack the Ripp...uh...Torso Kill...you get the idea.

3. PAUL LIED! GASP! AHHHHHH! You got me. I'm beaten. You genius, you! Of course, and I know you - being a dunce, as you say - can't understand this: It. Doesn't. Matter. I don't care if he said he went into Bake's Row with the Mad Hatter, with Cross, without Cross, or with your buddy Edward........what matters is that he states - as does Cross - that Mizen knew Nichols may be dead and that Mizen wasn't particularly concerned. Mizen states he continued knocking up. Paul states Mizen continued knocking up.

Again, when it suits you one lie, overstatement, mistake or otherwise means we throw it all out in order to put a knife in Cross' (very clean) hands. When it doesn't...well....we pick and choose, don't we.

But, then....this would have been a lot harder sell had we been told the Mizen Scam (....let me catch my breath here....cant hold in the laughter) and Lechmere the most prolific serial killer ever...depended on Paul being a liar, as well. And not only that! But Paul had to be exactly the kind of liar Cross needed to have with him, shoulder to shoulder, fooling good PC Mizen in Baker's Row. Ah...but Cross had that crytal ball. Sorry. Forgot about that.

[Hercule Poirot]

I think there are enough inconsistencies through out the reporting of the murders to indicate that there problems in reporting. Rober BAUL. GEORGE Cross. Incorrect street names. Total fabrications in many cases. The point being that to call something 'blood evidence' based on what you read in the papers may be problematic, to say the least.

I just wanted to point out the existence of shorthand back then. There's probably no way to find out which reporters were on location, using shorthand VS those getting their info from first hand reporters who would certainly not provide them with their personal notes. Let's remember also that newspapers had editors who would add some 'pepper' to texts presented by journalists or soften them a bit to avoid libel. Hence inconsistencies did exist and suggest caution regarding the reliability of what has been printed.

Just to give you an example, take a look at Michael Hawley's article in Ripperologist 133 : 'Francis Tumblety and the Yellow Press’. He gives a fair explanation of the difference in Tumblety's press coverage in the USA vs UK.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

[Patrick S]

I just wanted to point out the existence of shorthand back then. There's probably no way to find out which reporters were on location, using shorthand VS those getting their info from first hand reporters who would certainly not provide them with their personal notes. Let's remember also that newspapers had editors who would add some 'pepper' to texts presented by journalists or soften them a bit to avoid libel. Hence inconsistencies did exist and suggest caution regarding the reliability of what has been printed.

Just to give you an example, take a look at Michael Hawley's article in Ripperologist 133 : 'Francis Tumblety and the Yellow Press’. He gives a fair explanation of the difference in Tumblety's press coverage in the USA vs UK.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

Thanks, Mr. Poirot. I'm sure it was widely used and I'm sure there were many reports skilled in the art. Shorthand, as you likely know dates back to late Republican Rome (it's thought at Cicero's slave Tiro used a form of it). Alas, my point was simple. I don't want to appear argumentative toward you as I understand the point you're making, and I appreciate it. As we've seen though, Christer is now forced to seize upon anything that he feels may aid his cause even in cases - like this - where no such thing is possible. The point remains. Many things were reported in error thought he killings. Names incorrect. Profession incorrect. Inaccuracies were pervasive. And the 'Mizen Scam' makes me laugh.

[Fisherman]

Patrick!

I have found a way to save time: I will just take the first point you make in each post, and since it is inevitably wrong, that will go to implicate the quality of the rest.

Deal?

Here goes:

You dismiss the fact that Cross lived a rather good life, taken as whole, as either proof of nothing or proof of guilt (citing examples of other serial killers (members of distinct minority) who did similarly). You discount his stable employment. You discount his marriage and family. You discount his lack of criminal record. You discount the inheritance he was able to pass on to the next generation. All irrelevant, you say. Immaterial.

Wrong. I do not discount it and I say nothing of the sort. I have no proof either way; that´s why.

And over to the next post:

First off, Paul lying does not make Cross Jack the Ripper. But, let's play your game. I understand you're playing catch-up. You're behind on points and you're looking for a haymaker.

Wrong. I am not behind on points. I am the guy who has a worldwide sent documentary and who has achieved press coverage in India and Pakistan, for example.

THAT is a haymaker, Patrick.

You are the bitter poster with lacking insights into the Ripper case and a habit of getting it wrong. I don´t think that counts as a haymaker. Maybe as a whopper, though?

But you DO make the odd funny point; "stable employment", for instance. Thats a good pun.


Seriously, Patrick, you cannot keep on misrepresenting me, and leve yourself open to being exposed. Ask me before you claim things on my behalf. I know the answers, you don´t.

[Patrick S]

Patrick!

I have found a way to save time: I will just take the first point you make in each post, and since it is inevitably wrong, that will go to implicate the quality of the rest.

Deal?

Here goes:

You dismiss the fact that Cross lived a rather good life, taken as whole, as either proof of nothing or proof of guilt (citing examples of other serial killers (members of distinct minority) who did similarly). You discount his stable employment. You discount his marriage and family. You discount his lack of criminal record. You discount the inheritance he was able to pass on to the next generation. All irrelevant, you say. Immaterial.

Wrong. I do not discount it and I say nothing of the sort. I have no proof either way; that´s why.

And over to the next post:

First off, Paul lying does not make Cross Jack the Ripper. But, let's play your game. I understand you're playing catch-up. You're behind on points and you're looking for a haymaker.

Wrong. I am not behind on points. I am the guy who has a worldwide sent documentary and who has achieved press coverage in India and Pakistan, for example.

THAT is a haymaker, Patrick.

You are the bitter poster with lacking insights into the Ripper case and a habit of getting it wrong. I don´t think that counts as a haymaker. Maybe as a whopper, though?

But you DO make the odd funny point; "stable employment", for instance. Thats a good pun.


Seriously, Patrick, you cannot keep on misrepresenting me, and leve yourself open to being exposed. Ask me before you claim things on my behalf. I know the answers, you don´t.

I'm pretty sure that Cornwell has had a worldwide sent documentary (or two) and who has achieved press coverage in India and Pakistan (and probably Peru, too), for example.

I guess Sickert and Cross did it togther, if that's the metric we're using.

I'm worried now, though. Do I sound bitter? I'm rather enjoying this. Remember the part where you refused to engage because you had to take your leave, regroup, and come up with new material. That was delightful! But, you do it from time to time. Alas, you are correct about one thing....there is a scam afoot.

[Patrick S]

Again. Rather than argue, it's easier to concede things, true or not, because they are irrelevant.

You say I'm a bitter poster, lacking insight. Okay. Good. I'm bitter. I'm stuid. I lack ANY knowledge of Jack the Ripper, Charles Cross, or that fact that you and your sidekick are peddling a stinker as so many before you have .

And that does, what, exactly? That give you facts? That makes your "Mizen Scam" something other than hilarious?

None of this changes that the Mizen Scam now depends on Paul being up to no good......lying...holding a grudge against the cops! It's new info! Is that in your little Youtube thing? I saw this video on Youtube of a woman falling into a fountain because she was looking at her phone. Is your video as good as that one?

[Patrick S]

Christer,

Let's return to civil debate and put the acrimony to bed, at least for now. First, though....I would like to ask you a few honeset questions. I don't expect honesty, but I'm hopeful. Here goes:

Going forward, now that you should - in good conscience - include the 'Paul is lying' components in your "Mizen Scam" analyses, do you think that it becomes more believable, or less believeable?

If you feel it's now less believable, is that why you've excluded Paul up to now?

Because, in the end, what you're doing here is indicting Robert Paul, as well. Not as a killer, but as a liar, and an unwitting accomplice in allowing Cross to get away with murder. In all my exposure to your Lechmere conclusion and the "The Mizen Scam", up until yesterday, I'd not heard anything questionable with respect to Paul's comments or involvement. I'd never have heard them - I suspect - had I not posted Paul's quote.

One further question: Will the "Paul lied, too" element now be presented in all future iterations of the "Mizen Scam", on Youtube or otherwise?

[Fisherman]

It is a bit like standing in a waterfall, this...

Patrick, you are now asking honesty from me, but saying that you don´t expect it. That is a bit rich.

You are given to making points like "That does not make Paul a pathological liar".

I have of course never said that Paul was a "pathological liar" at all. I have pointed to how the two stories he told are mutually gainsaying each other.

One - at least - therefore has to be wrong.

My take on things is that the Llloyds article was where Paul was economical with the truth. This is because Paul himself, Lechmere and Mizen all say that the carmen arrived in Bakers Row together.

So I make the call that Llloyds present a story that deviated from the truth, and I accept that Paul could have lied. There is also the possibility that the reporter spiced it up. We cannot know for sure which version applies.

What I do is to apply a critical and logical perspective, and I arrive at the same conclusion that I know almost every other soundly reasoning person will arrive at.

And what happens? I get you breathing down my neck, somehow leading on that I would have called Paul a pathological liar.

I rarely see things like these. Not even out here - and that is saying a lot.

After having suffered a complete breakdown in logic and courtesy, you now suddenly suggest that we return to a civil debate. Actually, I never left it. I have criticised you heavily, but I have had extremely good reasons to do so. You have even threatened to provide a "barrage" when I want to discuss the Mizen scam. It borders on things that have eerie and unpleasant names.

I will provide you with honest and clear anwers to the questions you ask. I do that not primarily to serve you - I don´t think you have earned the right to any such thing - but instead to serve the overall purpose of a sane discussion. If you take notice of what I say and chime into the debate on a less hostile note, you are very welcome. You can be extremely critical and quite courteous at the same time. You did make some initial efforts in the discipline at the outset of your return to the boards, so intermittently, it seems you have it in you.

Going forward, now that you should - in good conscience - include the 'Paul is lying' components in your "Mizen Scam" analyses, do you think that it becomes more believable, or less believeable?


It has always belonged to my thinking that Paul did not give an honest picture of what had happened in the press interview. I have commented on it before, on JTR Forums as well as here, and I have always said the same: The paper interview seems to point to a less than honest Paul.

If you feel it's now less believable, is that why you've excluded Paul up to now?

What would be less believeable? I don´t understand what you are asking here. And I have - as I just said - not changed my view on Paul!

Because, in the end, what you're doing here is indicting Robert Paul, as well. Not as a killer, but as a liar, and an unwitting accomplice in allowing Cross to get away with murder. In all my exposure to your Lechmere conclusion and the "The Mizen Scam", up until yesterday, I'd not heard anything questionable with respect to Paul's comments or involvement. I'd never have heard them - I suspect - had I not posted Paul's quote.


You need to wade through four years of posted material, Patrick, and you will see what I think of Paul. Are you up to it?
I think Lechmere himself used Paul in the role of unwitting accomplice so the role was not a new one to him. However, the lie Paul seemingly made himself guilty of was in a sense more of a vice than a lie: Pride.
I think that Paul wanted to steal some limelight, and I don´t see it as very damning. I think he had a lot oc accomplices in that context - My own take is that a number of the Ripper witnesses were anything but honest, wanting to get their fifteen minutes of fame.
By the way, having avoided to hear anything questionable about Paul does not rhyme with claiming any true knowledge of the Lechmere theory. It always worked from the notion that Paul was economic with the truth, disliked the police and would perhaps favour scorning them over telling things truthfully, and also being something of a wimp and wanting fame.
Read the many Lechmere threads and you will see.

One further question: Will the "Paul lied, too" element now be presented in all future iterations of the "Mizen Scam", on Youtube or otherwise?

As you will have gathered by now, it is not a new element. The theory has always worked from the presumption that Paul either lied in the Lloyds weekly article, or was made out by the reporter to be the whole and sole hero of the piece.

There you are, a hundred per cent honest answers to your questions. What are you going to do with them? Call me a phantasist? Claim that I am peddling a new "stinker"? Or anything else along those lines? Or will you be part of a sensible discussion?

Take your time. Use it well.

[Patrick S]

It is a bit like standing in a waterfall, this...

Patrick, you are now asking honesty from me, but saying that you don´t expect it. That is a bit rich.

You are given to making points like "That does not make Paul a pathological liar".

I have of course never said that Paul was a "pathological liar" at all. I have pointed to how the two stories he told are mutually gainsaying each other.

One - at least - therefore has to be wrong.

My take on things is that the Llloyds article was where Paul was economical with the truth. This is because Paul himself, Lechmere and Mizen all say that the carmen arrived in Bakers Row together.

So I make the call that Llloyds present a story that deviated from the truth, and I accept that Paul could have lied. There is also the possibility that the reporter spiced it up. We cannot know for sure which version applies.

What I do is to apply a critical and logical perspective, and I arrive at the same conclusion that I know almost every other soundly reasoning person will arrive at.

And what happens? I get you breathing down my neck, somehow leading on that I would have called Paul a pathological liar.

Ah! Again the red herring, the strawman! Look over here! Don't look over there! Once more, this is totall irrelevant and beside the point. Fine. Poor choice of words. Awful use of hyperbole. I abused both editorial and poetic license and you NEVER said Paul was a pathological liar.

I rarely see things like these. Not even out here - and that is saying a lot.

I'm ashamed. But, I see you're struggling......

After having suffered a complete breakdown in logic and courtesy, you now suddenly suggest that we return to a civil debate.

I'm fine if we don't. I can do either.

Actually, I never left it.

Hilarious. You are incapable of common courtesy...oh...unless you're complimenting someone who you perecieve - usually incorrectly - as agreeing with you.

I have criticised you heavily, but I have had extremely good reasons to do so. You have even threatened to provide a "barrage" when I want to discuss the Mizen scam. It borders on things that have eerie and unpleasant names.


Oh, dear. That sounds bad.

I will provide you with honest and clear anwers to the questions you ask. I do that not primarily to serve you - I don´t think you have earned the right to any such thing - but instead to serve the overall purpose of a sane discussion. If you take notice of what I say and chime into the debate on a less hostile note, you are very welcome. You can be extremely critical and quite courteous at the same time. You did make some initial efforts in the discipline at the outset of your return to the boards, so intermittently, it seems you have it in you.


I have it in me, without fail, at all times. Unless someone demonstrates that they don't deserve it. Alas, I even attempt to start fresh with the likes of you, Christer. I think you are oblivous to how you behave, let alone how you are perceived. I'm going to be charitable and conclude that the tone of what you say is lost as it's being written. Otherwise, I'd have to conclude that you're something else.....something that may be an eerie or unpleasant name.

Going forward, now that you should - in good conscience - include the 'Paul is lying' components in your "Mizen Scam" analyses, do you think that it becomes more believable, or less believeable?


It has always belonged to my thinking that Paul did not give an honest picture of what had happened in the press interview. I have commented on it before, on JTR Forums as well as here, and I have always said the same: The paper interview seems to point to a less than honest Paul.

Belonged to your thinking and found a few of your more than 10,000 posts and at JTR Forums. But, not part of your documentary?

If you feel it's now less believable, is that why you've excluded Paul up to now?

What would be less believeable? I don´t understand what you are asking here. And I have - as I just said - not changed my view on Paul!

You don't understand? Honestly...... You don't understand that when you continue to heap preconditions upon anything, much less the already fragile and unfortunately named 'Mizen Scam' the less credible it becomes. Just off the top of my head we must believe:

1. Cross approached Paul, touched him, and asked him to view the body because

1a. He knew Paul wasn't a cop
1b. He knew Paul would not detect the fatal injuries or any blood on his person
1c. He knew Paul wasn't someone he knew who might say, "Charlie! What the devil are you doing here?"
1d. He knew that Paul didn't know the deceased and would have a freakout right there on the spot calling the cops and all the neighbors to see him...and the woman he just sliced up
1f. He knew Paul would not pull and out whistle because he was a watchman on his way home from work and begin blowing it, calling the cops to the body.
1g. He knew Paul didn't have a match that he'd light and see the injuries Cross had just inflicted.....or any blood on Cross

I'll stop here...

2. He walked with Paul, seaching for a cop because he knew that

2a. Paul didn't secretly suspect him and would turn him in as soon soon as they found a cop
2b. When they found said cop he would not search him
2c. When they found said cop he would not ask him to return to the murder scene

Now we are required to believe

3. Cross knew this brilliant Mizen Scam would work because Paul would lie - for his own (police hating) reasons - corroborating the Mizen Scam -allowing Cross to get away with it all, as he planned, unsuspected, even as he testifies in front of Abberline, et al.


Because, in the end, what you're doing here is indicting Robert Paul, as well. Not as a killer, but as a liar, and an unwitting accomplice in allowing Cross to get away with murder. In all my exposure to your Lechmere conclusion and the "The Mizen Scam", up until yesterday, I'd not heard anything questionable with respect to Paul's comments or involvement. I'd never have heard them - I suspect - had I not posted Paul's quote.


You need to wade through four years of posted material, Patrick, and you will see what I think of Paul. Are you up to it?

Nope. I'm not. Because - again - what you THINK of Paul is irrelevant. What I think of Paul is irrelevant. What Paul WAS - in reality - is irrelevant. What's relevant is that you've erected another barrier to your own theory, another precondition to the already fantastical Mizen Scam, included another bad actor unconsciously conspiring to allow Cross the get away with murder.

You mentioned sooner or later all the coincidences add up, thus they can no longer be coincidences. Sooner or later all these variables and "if statements' cause this Mizen Scam to collapse completely (provided anyone bought it in the first place).

I think Lechmere himself used Paul in the role of unwitting accomplice so the role was not a new one to him. However, the lie Paul seemingly made himself guilty of was in a sense more of a vice than a lie: Pride.

He did? Because he could tell what Paul would to the police in the three mintues they spent together before they met Mizen? Wow. He had one of those really high-tech crystal balls. I wonder....did Lechmere practice mind control? I think he must have. I take it all back. You cracked it.


I think that Paul wanted to steal some limelight, and I don´t see it as very damning.

Exactly. I said this myself. That's the point. Oh. I forgot your established MO...look over here. This is a straw man. Here is a red herring. Let's discuss this....and forget all about something as silly as Robert Paul having to lie in order for the Mizen Scam to pass muster.

I think he had a lot oc accomplices in that context - My own take is that a number of the Ripper witnesses were anything but honest, wanting to get their fifteen minutes of fame.

All accept Mizen. 100% honest him. That's odd, nay?

By the way, having avoided to hear anything questionable about Paul does not rhyme with claiming any true knowledge of the Lechmere theory. It always worked from the notion that Paul was economic with the truth, disliked the police and would perhaps favour scorning them over telling things truthfully, and also being something of a wimp and wanting fame.

It has? So that's in your film then? Because I had to find the relevant Paul interview myself in order to hear anything from you regarding Paul and his unwilling role in the Mizen Scam. I don't claim to have uncovered anything new, here. I'm sure others have brought it up. I just find it odd that I've read your regurgitation of the Mizen Scam again and again.......never hearing about Prideful Paul before yesterday.

Read the many Lechmere threads and you will see.

Irrelevant. As I said. Beyond that. NO. THANK. YOU.

One further question: Will the "Paul lied, too" element now be presented in all future iterations of the "Mizen Scam", on Youtube or otherwise?

As you will have gathered by now, it is not a new element. The theory has always worked from the presumption that Paul either lied in the Lloyds weekly article, or was made out by the reporter to be the whole and sole hero of the piece.

Not new. Just one you don't like to talk about.

There you are, a hundred per cent honest answers to your questions. What are you going to do with them? Call me a phantasist? Claim that I am peddling a new "stinker"? Or anything else along those lines? Or will you be part of a sensible discussion?

No. You're peddling the same stinker. It just smells worse now.

Take your time. Use it well.

I took my time. I think my brain and fingers probably work a little faster than yours, though. So......I'll go take a nap.

[Fisherman]

I took my time. I think my brain and fingers probably work a little faster than yours, though. So......I'll go take a nap.

You do that. Have a beautiful life, Patrick.

[Patrick S]

You do that. Have a beautiful life, Patrick.

Is this a fake hang-up? It feels like a fake hang-up. Hello?

[Hercule Poirot]

With all due respect and not that I don't enjoy what Fish and Patrick are bringing up, but I wonder what they will be saying to each other in a year from now in terms of arguments pro/con. LOL

They're the Lechmere/JTR 'Odd couple' of the year. It really helps us get a better understanding of the case with an awesome ambiance.

[harry]

Paul says,"I w as 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". He does not say what Cross's reaction was.
Now Cross's reaction,and it is born out by evidence,was to follow and and arrive with Paul when they together met Mizen.
So where is the lie?
A t the Inquest."The man walked with me to Montague street and there we saw a policeman".
That statement does not say they walked together all the way.It allows that Paul started off alone,was followed and joined by Cross,and they met Mizen in each others company.
Wheres the lie?

[Fisherman]

Paul says,"I w as 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". He does not say what Cross's reaction was.
Now Cross's reaction,and it is born out by evidence,was to follow and and arrive with Paul when they together met Mizen.
So where is the lie?
A t the Inquest."The man walked with me to Montague street and there we saw a policeman".
That statement does not say they walked together all the way.It allows that Paul started off alone,was followed and joined by Cross,and they met Mizen in each others company.
Wheres the lie?

Robert Paul says "I went on". He does not say "We went on". That VERY clearly implicates that he is talking of himself only.

You could perhaps argue that he for some reason did not feel up to mentioning that the other man walked with him. It would nevertheless be strange to leave the other man out, if he actually walked with you.

The key to understanding it all is how Paul also says that he "told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw."

When did he say that? As they walked together? Was that when he told Lechmere that he aimed to send the first policeman he saw to Bucks Row? Or is he saying that he went off on his own after having told Lechmere that he would send a PC as quickly as he could?

Much of the criticism against the theory involves this sort of "clever" constructions. Semantic constructions are turned upside down and what is a very clear wording is given an "alternative interpretation" that demands extreme stretches.

In a sense, I find it sad. Then again, if it is all that can be thrown at the theory, who am I to complaint...