The Lechmere trail - so far

[Patrick S]

I think most people would favour the testimony of a policeman over that of a person picked at random from the street. Somehow, we all want to believe that the world is explainable and possible to "read".

Funnily, in the case we are discussing, we know that we are choosing between a man who gave the wrong name to the police and a serving PC with an eminent record.

And still, the man who presented himself by an alternative name to the police is the person we give the benefit of a doubt whereas we convict the PC of whom we have no evidence of any flaws at all. And even a contemporary colleague to that PC chimes in and starts speaking about how policemen are used to covering eachs others backs.

"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." - Robert Paul, Lloyd's

"He and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's-row they met the last witness, whom they informed that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row. Witness said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on." - Nichols Inquest Testimony, Charles Cross

Funnily, we don't believe a man, even when he's corrorobated by another man, just because he used a name he was entitled to use. We know he lived life well. Married. A dozen kids. Aquired some wealth. No evidence of any flaws................and we make him Jack the Ripper.

Keep trying, Christer.

[GUT]

"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." - Robert Paul, Lloyd's

"He and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's-row they met the last witness, whom they informed that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row. Witness said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on." - Nichols Inquest Testimony, Charles Cross

Funnily, we don't believe a man, even when he's corrorobated by another man, just because he used a name he was entitled to use. We know he lived life well. Married. A dozen kids. Aquired some wealth. No evidence of any flaws................and we make him Jack the Ripper.

Keep trying, Christer.

But corroboration counts for nothing.

And I'll ad, anyone who thinks police don't lie lives in fantasy land, spend a few days in any criminal Court.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

G'day Sir John.

You do know that the reporter is Fisherman??

haha. No, I didn't. Didn't mean to offend anyone, but I will call it as I see it.

Like I said, the Nichols murder is certainly an interesting angle, but at best, it might at best destroy the theory of a single killer so far.

[harry]

It is evident from the testimony of Neil that neither Paul nor Cross were in Bucks Row,when Neil turned into Bucks Row from Thomas Street,which Neil declares as being approximately 3.45 am.The same time as that given by Paul.Now one or both must have been out on the time,but there is no suggestion either one was lying.
It's good to see that using the name Cross is no longer referred to as a lie,and unless one were to know why he used it,and there might have been good reason to him,it's of no incriminating value.He did give a correct home address and work reference,from which he could readily be identified.
To me the chance of Cross being the killer of Nichols is slim indeed,nothing of an incriminating manner can be levelled against him.The strong probability is that either the killer had finished what he intended,or he was interrupted by the arrival of Cross.

[Fisherman]

But corroboration counts for nothing.

And I'll ad, anyone who thinks police don't lie lives in fantasy land, spend a few days in any criminal Court.

What corroboration are you speaking about? Mizen freely admitted to have finished his knocking-up business before he set off to Bucks Row, so we donīt need to corroborate anything in that department.

And I fail to see that anybody has suggested that policemen never lie. Did anybody, Gut?

What I said is that Mizen had an excellent service record, and that there is not a scrap of evidence recorded anywhere that would point to any flaw about him. Surely there would have been something, somewhere, I donīt dount that - but it is not on record.

On the other hand, it IS on record that Lechmere gave the wrong name to the inquest, and we have a number of anomalies adhering to him in relation to the murder.

Why would we favour Lechmere over Mizen when it comes to who was the liar? I am constantly being told about "confirmation bias, "cherrypicking" and such things.

None of those who say that Mizen have earned the right to use those terms, simple as that.

[Fisherman]

To me the chance of Cross being the killer of Nichols is slim indeed,nothing of an incriminating manner can be levelled against him.

Not that you are correct, but how about Hutchinson, Harry - is he a better suspect...? I believe you favour him. Is that because of all the incriminating evidence pointing in his direction...?

[Fisherman]

In my post to Gut, the last sentence should read:

None of those who say that Mizen must have been the liar have earned the right to use those terms, simple as that.

[GUT]

In my post to Gut, the last sentence should read:

None of those who say that Mizen must have been the liar have earned the right to use those terms, simple as that.

Haven't said he was.

But you seem to throw the terms around a bit in relation to Paul, and how have you earned the right to that?

[Fisherman]

Haven't said he was.

But you seem to throw the terms around a bit in relation to Paul, and how have you earned the right to that?

Never said you did ... Others do, however.

You need to be more specific, Gut. How have I earned the right to do what, precisely?

[Patrick S]

Never said you did ... Others do, however.

You need to be more specific, Gut. How have I earned the right to do what, precisely?

Try following along, Christer. It's not hard. YOU said those calling 'Mizen' a liar have not earned the right to do so. So, the question to you was: How have you earned the right to call PAUL a liar?

Remember, we were all recently brought up to speed on the Mizen Scam....and it seems that now, in order for this thing to work out for you, Paul must now be a police-grudge-holding-glory-hogging liar.

To quote Hugh Laurie's Dr. Gregory House, "Everyone lies." Especially when given a good enough reason reason and opportunity.

MIZEN'S REASON FOR LYING was simple. He lied to protect himself from scrutiny after he failed to act as he knew that both his superiors and the public would have expected him to have acted once he'd been informed of a woman lying in Buck's Row.

Paul stated that he told Mizen that Nichols was likely dead. Cross stated that he told Mizen that he thought Nichols was dead. Paul tells us that he continued knocking up and went on to react with outrage at Mizen's nonchalance. Cross said that he told Mizen that she was either drunk or dead but that, "for my part, I think she's dead'. He tells us that Mizen said, "All right", and walked on.

Now, I realize that in your scenario these two are not to be believed because Paul is lying and Cross was Jack the Ripper. Somehow, to you, this seems the more elegant solution to what should seem obvious: Mizen was not honest about his interaction with Cross and Paul in order to protect his actions after the fact from scrutiny. He began with a.....

LIE OF OMISSION. After being told that a woman, likely dead, was lying in Buck's Row he continued knocking up. What he himself reports when he arrived at the body supports the fact that he continued knocking up beyond JUST the house he was at when told of the body (which was what he inferred at the inquest - he stated that he 'continued knocking up where I was....'. According to Mizen himself he sees Neil alone the body. This means that Neil has found the body, inspected the body, found the wounds, summoned Thain, dispatched Thain to get Llewellyn.

If we look outside Mizen's testimony we see that the timing of his arrival may have been closer to 4:15am. 30 minutes after he spoke to Paul and Cross. If the slaughterman were with Neil when Mizen arrived in Buck's Row then the later time is accurate. The workers stated and Thain's testimony agrees: They went to view the body after being told of it, by Thain, around 4:15, when he spoke to them as he stopped by to retreive his cape.

Regardless, Mizen did not tell Neil about Cross and Paul finding the body. Did not mention it in Buck's Row at all, to anyone. Didn't mention it at the mortuary at all, to anyone. Didn't mention it at all Friday or Saturday at all, to anyone. Neil was allowed to testify that he and he alone found the body. This testimony stood, unchallenged. No mention of Paul or Cross. Mizen is mentioned, not by name, no mention of his speaking with two men in Baker's Row. Neil states he saw another PC in Baker's Row and dispatched him to get an ambulance.

So, clearly we have Mizen, knowing that his inaction after being told of the body in Buck's Row, not informing his superiors, his colleagues, or the press of his enounter in Baker's Row. Then, Paul's interview was published in Lloyd's on Sunday. This, to quote Christer's internationally sent documentary, was a bombshell. But not to Cross, as he believes. To Mizen and the police. This led Mizen to tell a few.....

OUTRIGHT LIES in order to avoind embarrassment for himself and the police.

He claimes that Paul and Cross said a woman was lying in Buck's Row and that no one stated that she may be dead. Both Cross and Paul disagree on this point. Further, Mizen goes on to state that one of the men stated that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row. This could have been a misunderstanding on Mizen's part. But, it's likely just more misinformation to avoid embarrassment. In the end, Mizen and the and his superiors both likely realized that even had he run to Buck's Row immediately, the outcome would not have changed: Nichols would still be dead. The killer would not have been caught. No new evidence would have been found. The only thing that would have been achieved was more embarrassment would have been come upon the police and Mizen. As has been stated, Mizen was a veteran cop with a good record. There was no need to tarnish his record because he had a natural reaction. Put yourself in his position. Tabram was killed almost two months prior. His guard was likely down to some extent. Its likely that - in his many years of service - he had seen far more drunk people lying on the ground than murder victims. Thus, we have a less than frantic reaction to Paul's and Cross' report.

Obviously this a less cynical and sinister view than the "Everyone is lying except Mizen' angle. I don't view Mizen negatively. I'd likely have had a similar reaction. Its only in hindsight that his actions look rather bad. And as we know, hindsight, crystal balls, things of that sort..they play a big role in Crossmere and Paul the Liar.

[drstrange169]

Hello Abby,

"wouldn't Mizen not mentioning Paul and cross seem to corroborate his version of what happened?"

If you look at what people reported to the inquest, you'll see Neil had to note whether he saw anybody in his report. Thain had to note whether he saw anybody. The various watchmen from all around the area on that night were specifically asked if they saw or heard anything. The horse slaughterers were asked if the saw or heard anything. Door to door knock ups were instituted to see if ANYBODY saw or heard anything.

Basic 101 of police investigation is to ask EVERY witness if they saw any thing. It seems inconceivable to me that Mizen would not be asked the same question.

The first obvious question for an experienced officer like Neil to ask, 20 years service at that point, would be, "Did you pass anybody on you way here?"

Add to that, all the policemen Mizen came into contact with were from J Division and would have known each other, the obvious question to Mizen would be, "What are you doing here?" To which Mizen would have replied ... what?

Moving on to the daytime, Neil tells the inquest he was alone and Mizen still does not correct him?

That day, stories about two men being around the crime scene start surfacing, Neil flatly denies the story and still Mizen doesn't correct the situation. In fact quite the opposite he is reported as flatly denying seeing two men.

Sunday morning the biggest selling Sunday newspaper features Paul's story and still Mizen says nothing?

No, something is seriously amiss here.

[GUT]

Moving on to the daytime, Neil tells the inquest he was alone and Mizen still does not correct him?

That day, stories about two men being around the crime scene start surfacing, Neil flatly denies the story and still Mizen doesn't correct the situation. In fact quite the opposite he is reported as flatly denying seeing two men.

Sunday morning the biggest selling Sunday newspaper features Paul's story and still Mizen says nothing?

No, something is seriously amiss here.

Where is the like button.

It just doesn't pass the sniff test (or pub test) as the politicians keep saying here

[GUT]

Never said you did ... Others do, however.

You need to be more specific, Gut. How have I earned the right to do what, precisely?

Try following along, Christer. It's not hard. YOU said those calling 'Mizen' a liar have not earned the right to do so. So, the question to you was: How have you earned the right to call PAUL a liar?

Remember, we were all recently brought up to speed on the Mizen Scam....and it seems that now, in order for this thing to work out for you, Paul must now be a police-grudge-holding-glory-hogging liar.

To quote Hugh Laurie's Dr. Gregory House, "Everyone lies." Especially when given a good enough reason reason and opportunity.

MIZEN'S REASON FOR LYING was simple. He lied to protect himself from scrutiny after he failed to act as he knew that both his superiors and the public would have expected him to have acted once he'd been informed of a woman lying in Buck's Row.

Paul stated that he told Mizen that Nichols was likely dead. Cross stated that he told Mizen that he thought Nichols was dead. Paul tells us that he continued knocking up and went on to react with outrage at Mizen's nonchalance. Cross said that he told Mizen that she was either drunk or dead but that, "for my part, I think she's dead'. He tells us that Mizen said, "All right", and walked on.

Now, I realize that in your scenario these two are not to be believed because Paul is lying and Cross was Jack the Ripper. Somehow, to you, this seems the more elegant solution to what should seem obvious: Mizen was not honest about his interaction with Cross and Paul in order to protect his actions after the fact from scrutiny. He began with a.....

LIE OF OMISSION. After being told that a woman, likely dead, was lying in Buck's Row he continued knocking up. What he himself reports when he arrived at the body supports the fact that he continued knocking up beyond JUST the house he was at when told of the body (which was what he inferred at the inquest - he stated that he 'continued knocking up where I was....'. According to Mizen himself he sees Neil alone the body. This means that Neil has found the body, inspected the body, found the wounds, summoned Thain, dispatched Thain to get Llewellyn.

If we look outside Mizen's testimony we see that the timing of his arrival may have been closer to 4:15am. 30 minutes after he spoke to Paul and Cross. If the slaughterman were with Neil when Mizen arrived in Buck's Row then the later time is accurate. The workers stated and Thain's testimony agrees: They went to view the body after being told of it, by Thain, around 4:15, when he spoke to them as he stopped by to retreive his cape.

Regardless, Mizen did not tell Neil about Cross and Paul finding the body. Did not mention it in Buck's Row at all, to anyone. Didn't mention it at the mortuary at all, to anyone. Didn't mention it at all Friday or Saturday at all, to anyone. Neil was allowed to testify that he and he alone found the body. This testimony stood, unchallenged. No mention of Paul or Cross. Mizen is mentioned, not by name, no mention of his speaking with two men in Baker's Row. Neil states he saw another PC in Baker's Row and dispatched him to get an ambulance.

So, clearly we have Mizen, knowing that his inaction after being told of the body in Buck's Row, not informing his superiors, his colleagues, or the press of his enounter in Baker's Row. Then, Paul's interview was published in Lloyd's on Sunday. This, to quote Christer's internationally sent documentary, was a bombshell. But not to Cross, as he believes. To Mizen and the police. This led Mizen to tell a few.....

OUTRIGHT LIES in order to avoind embarrassment for himself and the police.

He claimes that Paul and Cross said a woman was lying in Buck's Row and that no one stated that she may be dead. Both Cross and Paul disagree on this point. Further, Mizen goes on to state that one of the men stated that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row. This could have been a misunderstanding on Mizen's part. But, it's likely just more misinformation to avoid embarrassment. In the end, Mizen and the and his superiors both likely realized that even had he run to Buck's Row immediately, the outcome would not have changed: Nichols would still be dead. The killer would not have been caught. No new evidence would have been found. The only thing that would have been achieved was more embarrassment would have been come upon the police and Mizen. As has been stated, Mizen was a veteran cop with a good record. There was no need to tarnish his record because he had a natural reaction. Put yourself in his position. Tabram was killed almost two months prior. His guard was likely down to some extent. Its likely that - in his many years of service - he had seen far more drunk people lying on the ground than murder victims. Thus, we have a less than frantic reaction to Paul's and Cross' report.

Obviously this a less cynical and sinister view than the "Everyone is lying except Mizen' angle. I don't view Mizen negatively. I'd likely have had a similar reaction. Its only in hindsight that his actions look rather bad. And as we know, hindsight, crystal balls, things of that sort..they play a big role in Crossmere and Paul the Liar.

Thanks Patrick, exactly what I was referring to.

[drstrange169]

Dr Llewllyn

Why did I leave out Dr Llewellyn from my post?

My post dealt exclusively with the best evidence available, sworn testimony and police files, not speculation, interviews known to be unreliable and conspiracy theories.

History has not treated Dr Llewellyn well. The scant evidence we have about him makes him appear incompetent. If we could see his full reports and full testimony he might come out looking better, but as it is, that's not the case.

Fish raises the spectre of a mythical 13 minute gap between Thain and Llewellyn. Let's look at what we REALLY know, or to be precise, that we don't know.

We don't know when Thain left the body to fetch the doctor. 3:46? 47? 48? 40? 50?

We don't know if Thain went to the slaughters or not. If he did, how long was he there? 1 minute? Two? three?

We don't know how long Thain knocked on the door before it was answered. Given the late hour, obviously the occupants would have been asleep. Thirty seconds? One minute? Two?

On to Llewellyn.

What time did he say Thain arrived? Most papers were vague, around 4 o'clock. Some, like the Evening Post were specific, "five to four".

Who answered the door? was it a servant or, as in Blackwell's case his assistant?
When did Llewellyn note the time? As he got out of bed? Clocks in bedrooms are common now but back in Victorian times not so common. Did he note the time after he got dressed and got down stairs? How long was that? Five minutes? four? three?
Unfortunately, Llewellyn's timing woes don't end there. He claims the victim was alive about a half hour before his arrival but he doesn't say when he arrived, rendering his estimate useless.

[Fisherman]

drstrange169: Why did I leave out Dr Llewellyn from my post?

That is a very good question. You specifically warned about picking only selected pieces of evidence. Leaving Llewellyn out rhymes very badly with that commendable intent.

My post dealt exclusively with the best evidence available, sworn testimony and police files, not speculation, interviews known to be unreliable and conspiracy theories.

No, it did not. Llewellyns testimony is testimony from the perhaps most important man in the investigation. Furthermore, he is more likely to be in possession of a timepiece than the rest of the people in the drama.
Saying that you chose the best evidence is simply ridiculous, since you know quite well that it is impossible to find consensus about which sources are the "best". Leaving out one or more sources will inevitably lead to accusations of cherrypicking not least if the sources you leave out are - surprise! - the ones that are not in accordance with the story you are trying to sell.

History has not treated Dr Llewellyn well.

That depends on the sources we use, once again. You could equally say that history hads not treated Bond well, history has not treated Phillips well, history has not treated Killeen well etcetera. "History" in this case is equivalent to "Ripperology", and I would NEVER buy a used car from Ripperology.

The scant evidence we have about him makes him appear incompetent.

No, it does not. There are, though, many who want him to look bad, since he is not in accordance with what they think. There is a word for such things.

Fish raises the spectre of a mythical 13 minute gap between Thain and Llewellyn. Let's look at what we REALLY know, or to be precise, that we don't know.

We don't know when Thain left the body to fetch the doctor. 3:46? 47? 48? 40? 50?

10? 15? What we can do is to fit the pieces together in a manner that makes sense. We cannot know exactly when he left, but why would we allow for ridiculous suggestions on account of that?

We don't know if Thain went to the slaughters or not. If he did, how long was he there? 1 minute? Two? three?

We donīt know if he went to the slaughterers or not? Really? Could you then please explain this snippet from the Daily Telegraph:

"Police-constable John Thail stated that the nearest point on his beat to Buck's-row was Brady-street. He passed the end every thirty minutes on the Thursday night, and nothing attracted his attention until 3.45 a.m., when he was signalled by the flash of the lantern of another constable (Neale). He went to him, and found Neale standing by the body of the deceased, and witness was despatched for a doctor. About ten minutes after he had fetched the surgeon he saw two workmen standing with Neale. He did not know who they were. The body was taken to the mortuary, and witnessed remained on the spot. Witness searched Essex Wharf, the Great Eastern Railway arches, the East London Railway line, and the District Railway as far as Thames-street, and detected no marks of blood or anything of a suspicious character.

By the Jury: When I went to the horse-slaughterer's for my cape I did not say that I was going to fetch a doctor, as a murder had been committed. Another constable had taken my cape there."

But of course you are correct. "We" (as in "the two of us") didnīt know.

We don't know how long Thain knocked on the door before it was answered. Given the late hour, obviously the occupants would have been asleep. Thirty seconds? One minute? Two?

Nine? Eleven?

On to Llewellyn.

What time did he say Thain arrived? Most papers were vague, around 4 o'clock. Some, like the Evening Post were specific, "five to four".

Most sources say around 4. Some say slightly before 4. The Evening Post says 5 to 4. If anybody could arrive at another conclusion from this than Thain having arrived in the last minutes leading up to 4 AM, Iīd be interested to hear how it was done.

Who answered the door? was it a servant or, as in Blackwell's case his assistant?

We only know that he said that "he was called up by a policeman with whom he went to Buck's row", so there is no mentioning of any servant. He specifically says that the PC called him up. I am not the type of person who would argue that this rules out a servant, however, but I know of a few people who would use a quote like this in that exact manner...
In the end, it matters not, since there are other timings given in a number of sources that provide the solution to the errand.

When did Llewellyn note the time? As he got out of bed? Clocks in bedrooms are common now but back in Victorian times not so common. Did he note the time after he got dressed and got down stairs? How long was that? Five minutes? four? three?
Unfortunately, Llewellyn's timing woes don't end there. He claims the victim was alive about a half hour before his arrival but he doesn't say when he arrived, rendering his estimate useless.

Useless? No. There is not a single thing he says that is useless. And in the end, although there will always be some uncertainty about the timings, it is quite possible to lay the puzzle and get an overall understanding. There are timings that help us along the way, and there is factual information that rules things in and out. And that factual information is all-important to have a grasp of.

If we donīt have that grasp, "we" will get lost, to a smaller or larger extent. I can present a schedule for LLewellyn that will not be far off the mark. I wonīt do so, however, for reasons that should be pretty obvious.