If

[Pierre]

Mizen would have assumed that Neil was the PC Lechmere had spoken of.

"Who had found" would indeed mean that Mizen thought that he had done so. Mizen would have been of the meaning that A/Neil found the body, whereupon B/ Lechmere and Paul arrived at the murder spot, Neil standing by the body whereupon C/ Neil sent the carmen for Mizen.

Of course, Neil never met the carmen, but since he was in place when Mizen arrived, it all added up in Mizens eyes anyway.

OK.

But if Lechmere had stated that he saw a policeman only with the purpose to slip away unsearched, why did he retract his statement at the inquest?

Assuming that people have motives for what they are doing (even when they are telling a lie) and that their motives are connected to rational choices - what would be the motive for retracting the statement, and especially since no one else seemed (if we can use the existing sources for the inquest for this hypothesis) to think about anyone else than of Neil when they heard of a "policeman" or a "constable"?

Why did not Lechmere just play along with Mizen?

Why did he change his statement?

What motives could he have had?

What could he have gained?

Regards Pierre

[Fisherman]

Caz: What a lot of hot air from you, Christer, while studiously avoiding my original point.

You donīt have an original point, Iīm afraid. It is all very unoriginal. And it always the same (which is the very definition of unoriginal). Howīs that for "hot air"?

Either a claim that a PC was specifically requesting Mizen's help for an undefined incident should have sent him hot-foot to the scene in case a life was in danger, or he can be excused for dilly-dallying in those exact same circumstances. You can't pick and choose depending on the source of the claim, which according to Mizen (your only source) was simply that he was wanted by a policeman in connection with a woman lying on her back in Buck's Row. That's it. That's all there is when you believe Mizen. A specific request, which you argued would have been a very compelling reason not to dilly-dally, but to drop everything and dash to where the PC needed his assistance with a potentially 'very pressing' matter.

Sigh. If Mizen was the liar - and he was decidedly not, since the evidence is against it - then he would have had less reason to make haste than he had if the carman was the liar, thatīs the long and the short of it.
As such, he could not stay put and take care of all the wake-up calls he had on his agenda if he had been told that there was another pc in place in bucks Row, requesting his help, so itīs very undertandable that he settled for finishin the errand he had already begun only, before setting off for Bucks Row.
In BOTH scenarios, he would have reason to make haste, but it was only if the carman was truthful that he would have ended up in a situation where his arrival in Bucks Row could be the difference between life and death. In the other scnario, he could rely on a colleague already being in place, so although he meeded to get to Bucks Row pronto, he did not need to get there as pronto as in the first scenario.
How hard can it be? Surely, Caz, you can understand how that works?

What a load of nonsense, Christer! Mizen said nothing of the sort, did he? If he'd had all THAT to process, why did he testify that he was simply told he was wanted by a policeman but nothing about a murder? And why wasn't Mizen also able to process that he had been royally lied to, if he was told anything like your War & Peace version above?

The nonsense here is all courtesy of you, Caz - repeatedly so. I know full well that Mizen is not recorded as having said this, and so I was hoping that you would be able to see that I was exaggerating to clarify the message. But no - you think you havce caught me out lying about what Mizen said. Great!

And you may have forgotten that Mizen lied by denying that he had continued to knock up before responding to whatever he was told.

Read the inquest reports, Caz. It helps. Mizen did not lie, he explicitly said that he finished the knocking-up errand he had started before going to Bucks Row.

Why lie if he had the perfect excuse for his own lack of urgency in the form of some cockn'bull story told by Lechmere of a PC wanting an escort for a drunk, as and when Mizen could tear himself away to provide one?

Once more: He did not lie. Once more: He was not very tardy. Once more: He did not violate the rules. Once more: If he was lied to, he acted perfectly logically and with as much haste as we could ask for.

And wasn't it his duty as a police officer to report the full details, if it must have been so obvious to him that Lechmere had lied his head off about the circumstances?

Donīt get overenthusiastic, Caz - the ensuing scenario after leaving Bakers Row was more or less exactly along the lines Lechmere had foreshadowed. So why would Mizen think that the carman lied?

And what about Paul, who must also have lied about telling Mizen the woman was, or could be dead?

In the paper interview, yes. But we know that this interview IS lacking in the truth department. At the inquest, Paul said nothing at all about having spoken to Mizen himself. He said that "we" informed the PC.

Yet instead of Mizen making a huge fuss about such lies, he lets both men off the hook by lying himself about going straight to the scene. It doesn't add up, Christer.

Once again, he did not lie. In the Times, it says: "He denied that before he went to Buck's-row he continued knocking people up." Wow - that looks as if you are correct, Caz! But hey, wait a second: the East London Advertiser it says
"A Juryman: Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted?
Witness: No; I only finished knocking up one person."
So, Caz, unless this was an invention on account of the reporter, what we have is a situation where Mizen is asked whether he continued knocking people up, and answers that no, that he did not do - but he DID finish the errand he had begun when the carmen arrived.

This is a reoccuring mistake on behalf of those who have not done the whole homework, but instead found something they cannot be bothered to check. It is not a group of people you want to belong to. But you obviously do anyway, Caz.

It might be best if you stick to what Mizen was actually reported to have said, rather than make up stuff that would only make his conduct look more questionable than it may have been in reality.

After my last point, you need to excuse me for giggling incoherently!

By the bye, there are people who have feigned being upset about how I accuse Lechmere of murder. But it seems in order to accuse a perfectly soundly acting PC of being a half-arsed excuse for a human being?
Where did Mizen fail, if he was lied to?

I also want an answer to my question about Mizens report: Why did his superiors not accept that the carmen were the finders of the body, if the report said so? And who could it not have, if Mizen was not lied to?

Have a go on that one, Caz. Maybe you will come up with something new!

[caz]

Many words for a simple matter - if Mizen WAS told that there was another PC in place, then he would potentially have good reason to make haste. So much more so if he was told that the woman could be dead/dying. End of story...

1/ If Lechmere was not a liar, then he told Mizen that there was a potentially very grave errand to tend to in Bucks Row. Basically, the carmans story would have been along the lines "Officer, we just came from Bucks Row. Thereīs a woman lying in the street there, and she is either dead or drunk". The possibility that she was not dead but instead dying would have been very realistic.
Processing this, Mizen would have had very good reason to make haste. And we know that he did not scamper off immediately, which makes him look bad - but only if the carman was truthful.

2. If Lechmere was a lying son of a bitch and an adept killer who told Mizen the story I am suggesting, then it will have gone something along these lines: "Evening, officer! Me and my pal over there just bumped into a colleague of yours in Bucks Row. It seems he stumbled over a wretch who was unable to stand on her own two feet, and for some reason he told us to try and find a colleage who could help him. Could you tend to that, please - me and my mate need to press on now, since we are late for work, if thatīs fine with you?"
Processing THAT, Mizen will have had a lot less reason to rush off - it was probably just another ginsoaked woman who needed escorting to the police station, and at any rate, that colleague of his had the matter in hand, so letīs give Mr Jones that knock-up before we set off, shall we?

What a lot of hot air from you, Christer, while studiously avoiding my original point. This is what you wrote previously, to argue against Mizen inventing or imagining a PC who had sent the carmen for his help:

If he DID invent the "other PC" lie, he stood to BOTH be faced with both of the carmens denials, blowing him out of the water, plus having a PC in place that had specifically requested his help without defining why,and that would be a very compelling reason to make haste. It could potentially be very pressing.

Either a claim that a PC was specifically requesting Mizen's help for an undefined incident should have sent him hot-foot to the scene in case a life was in danger, or he can be excused for dilly-dallying in those exact same circumstances. You can't pick and choose depending on the source of the claim, which according to Mizen (your only source) was simply that he was wanted by a policeman in connection with a woman lying on her back in Buck's Row. That's it. That's all there is when you believe Mizen. A specific request, which you argued would have been a very compelling reason not to dilly-dally, but to drop everything and dash to where the PC needed his assistance with a potentially 'very pressing' matter.

1/ If Lechmere was not a liar, then he told Mizen that there was a potentially very grave errand to tend to in Bucks Row. Basically, the carmans story would have been along the lines "Officer, we just came from Bucks Row. Thereīs a woman lying in the street there, and she is either dead or drunk". The possibility that she was not dead but instead dying would have been very realistic.
Processing this, Mizen would have had very good reason to make haste. And we know that he did not scamper off immediately, which makes him look bad - but only if the carman was truthful.

No, not only if Lechmere was truthful, because you previously argued that Mizen's reason to make haste and scamper off immediately would also have been 'very compelling' (your own words) if specifically requested by a fellow officer!

2. If Lechmere was a lying son of a bitch and an adept killer who told Mizen the story I am suggesting, then it will have gone something along these lines: "Evening, officer! Me and my pal over there just bumped into a colleague of yours in Bucks Row. It seems he stumbled over a wretch who was unable to stand on her own two feet, and for some reason he told us to try and find a colleage who could help him. Could you tend to that, please - me and my mate need to press on now, since we are late for work, if thatīs fine with you?"
Processing THAT, Mizen will have had a lot less reason to rush off - it was probably just another ginsoaked woman who needed escorting to the police station, and at any rate, that colleague of his had the matter in hand, so letīs give Mr Jones that knock-up before we set off, shall we?

What a load of nonsense, Christer! Mizen said nothing of the sort, did he? If he'd had all THAT to process, why did he testify that he was simply told he was wanted by a policeman but nothing about a murder? And why wasn't Mizen also able to process that he had been royally lied to, if he was told anything like your War & Peace version above?

And you may have forgotten that Mizen lied by denying that he had continued to knock up before responding to whatever he was told. Why lie if he had the perfect excuse for his own lack of urgency in the form of some cockn'bull story told by Lechmere of a PC wanting an escort for a drunk, as and when Mizen could tear himself away to provide one? And wasn't it his duty as a police officer to report the full details, if it must have been so obvious to him that Lechmere had lied his head off about the circumstances? And what about Paul, who must also have lied about telling Mizen the woman was, or could be dead? Yet instead of Mizen making a huge fuss about such lies, he lets both men off the hook by lying himself about going straight to the scene. It doesn't add up, Christer.

It might be best if you stick to what Mizen was actually reported to have said, rather than make up stuff that would only make his conduct look more questionable than it may have been in reality.

Love,

Caz
X

[John G]

Correction: That should be "cite" not "site" Keppel! Another predictive text/ semi illiteracy/ subliminal (I'd previously referred to "site") issue!

[John G]

Originally Posted by David Orsam:

For anyone also confused about how the killer could possibly be said to have had an MO from a single murder, I am sure Pierre will explain everything to your entire satisfaction.



There is nothing strange about this. Serial killers can show different MO characteristics from one murder to another. See for instance Keppel, Robert D., Ted Bundy and I Hunt for the Green River Killer (2004), p 125.

Regards, Pierre

Hello Pierre,

I realize a serial killer's MO characteristics can change but, in respect of murder site locations, I see no sign of this- apart from possibly Kelly, but in that instance he was probably just fortunate that she had access to her own room.

In fact, it's interesting that you site Keppel, because that is clearly his view as well:

"Victims Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes were all attacked outdoors. When the opportunity presented itself, however, the killer moved indoors, into Kelly's residence, to carry out a more brutal and time consuming experience in private. This is not a significant deviation from his characteristic pattern, but rather a natural progression of the killer's needs. In several of the murders, that of Stride and Eddowes in particular, the killer had been interrupted by the arrival of witnesses on the scene. And the killer changed his MO during the murder of Mary Jane Kelly, in that the murder took place indoors and the victim was attacked from the front as she was lying in bed." ( Keppel et al, 2005).

[GUT]

I find it strange too, but that seems to be the gist of Pierreīs take on things. It involves Lechmere telling Mizen that a colleague of his awaits him in Bucks Row, although Lechmere is quite aware that the killer cop is no longer there, as far as I understand.
It makes very little sense to me, to be fair.

Not much Pierre says makes sense to many people, I'm afraid.

I've had heated debates with a few people here about their theories (not you of course Fish) but can respect their well articulated ponts of view even when I don't agree.

But half the time I'm not sure what Pierre is even trying to say and he is saying very little at that, at least most people spell out their hypothesis so it can be debated, not Pierre I'm afraid.

[Fisherman]

So Lech did see a policeman in bucks row, tells Mizen the same, but then changes his story at the inquest to a lie that he didn't see a policeman in bucks row?

Is this is what your saying?

I find it strange too, but that seems to be the gist of Pierreīs take on things. It involves Lechmere telling Mizen that a colleague of his awaits him in Bucks Row, although Lechmere is quite aware that the killer cop is no longer there, as far as I understand.
It makes very little sense to me, to be fair.

[Elamarna]

"And since there is evidence for the police official being the killer, I find it easier to hypothesize that Lechmere did see a policeman in Buckīs Row."


May one ask what evidence this is?
there is certainly speculation, but I see no EVIDENCE!


"Supportive of the hypothesis that Lechmere became a witness to the killer would then also be the fact that the killer changed his MO after Nichols and stopped killing and mutilating his victims out on the street. After that he started using courtyards and a "square"."


No, it has been suggested that the killer changed his MO, is is not a fact; it is an opinion which may be part of an hypothesis, but it is just that!
To refer to it as a FACT is dishonest, morally and academically.

I see that its now and "a square", so i suppose that is a step in the right direction.
However when will the Pierre realise that a square in England is normally seen as a street, indeed the houses in the square had proper street addresses.
The square was an open public thoroughfare. it was not private, but regularly patrolled by two police officers and had an active night watchman in one of the warehouses.

Pierre has been told this numerous times now, and his only reply was to post a plan of the square, which could for the uninitiated make it look like a closed yard, and on the same post to say it was a square, which is more like a yard than a street.

This closed thinking, coupled with the severe lack of general knowledge of the murders exhibited , allows for no advances in any form of research, be that scientific or historical.

Steve

[drstrange169]

Re: Two men,

By the time PC Niel took the stand at the inquest, stories of two men being involved had been printed in newspapers across the UK.

By the time his denial was printed in Monday's papers, Paul's story had already been published in Sunday's biggest circulated paper.

Since Niel didn't see Xmere and Paul his denial is not surprising.

The same cannot be said for the reports of Mizen's denial in the same papers.


Re: Xmere being frightened by the killer,

Why did he go to the police (the killer) and offer his story?

[Abby Normal]

Hi,

Well, I think there are other aspects of this historical problem that could be discussed to develop some thinking and questions about it.

Firstly, just a small detail:

Mizen said that Cross had informed him that Mizen was wanted by “a policeman” in Buckīs row – not “a constable”.

The juryman, on the other hand, asked Cross if he told Mizen about a “constable”.

But Cross refers to what Mizen said instead, and does not use the word “constable” to answer the question of the juryman. Instead he says that he did not see “a policeman” there.

“Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body.
…
A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?
Witness: No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row.”

http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...t_nichols.html

I donīt say that this is important. I just want to mention it and hear if some of you have some thoughts about that.

From my point of view, looking at the case from the perspective of the theory about a police official being the killer, I find it hard to explain why Lechmere (Cross) would have lied to Mizen, since there is no evidence for Lechmere being the killer.

And since there is evidence for the police official being the killer, I find it easier to hypothesize that Lechmere did see a policeman in Buckīs Row.

And one good reason for lying in court would then be the risk of the killer finding Lechmere (Cross) and his family, since, If Lechmere saw the killer, he would have been able to identify him.

Supportive of the hypothesis that Lechmere became a witness to the killer would then also be the fact that the killer changed his MO after Nichols and stopped killing and mutilating his victims out on the street. After that he started using courtyards and a "square".

Regards, Pierre

So Lech did see a policeman in bucks row, tells Mizen the same, but then changes his story at the inquest to a lie that he didn't see a policeman in bucks row?

Is this is what your saying?

[Fisherman]

OK, I see.

But didnīt Mizen just assume that Neil was the policeman who Lechmere had referred to?

("Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance.

At that time nobody but Neil was with the body." =

"I was summoned to Bucks Row by PC Neil, who had found the murdered woman lying on the pavement there"."

And could "who had found" not mean that Neil HAD found her - and that Cross also had found her?

Is there anything I write here above that you find totally impossible?

Regards, Pierre

Mizen would have assumed that Neil was the PC Lechmere had spoken of.

"Who had found" would indeed mean that Mizen thought that he had done so. Mizen would have been of the meaning that A/Neil found the body, whereupon B/ Lechmere and Paul arrived at the murder spot, Neil standing by the body whereupon C/ Neil sent the carmen for Mizen.

Of course, Neil never met the carmen, but since he was in place when Mizen arrived, it all added up in Mizens eyes anyway.

[David Orsam]

What I particularly like about Pierre's way of thinking is that he is able to discern a pattern, or method of operating, by a serial killer in that serial killer's very first murder. Most police enforcement officials would need at least two murders to identify a modus operandi but Pierre is able to do it from the very first murder. That is just one reason why I am now his biggest supporter, nay disciple.

[Pierre]

The carmen were not mentioned, since Mizen will have worded himself in a manner that allowed hm to leave them out. For example: "I was summoned to Bucks Row by PC Neil, who had found the murdered woman lying on the pavement there".

If Mizen was lied to, he could have left the carmen out.
If he was not lied to, he could not have left the carmen out.

OK, I see.

But didnīt Mizen just assume that Neil was the policeman who Lechmere had referred to?

("Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance.

At that time nobody but Neil was with the body." =

"I was summoned to Bucks Row by PC Neil, who had found the murdered woman lying on the pavement there"."

And couldnīt "who had found" mean that Neil had found her - and that Cross also had found her?

There is no statement in the text about being "first".

Is there anything I write here above that you find totally impossible?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Serial killers can show different MO characteristics from one murder to another.

That's exactly the type of unassailable answer I was hoping for from Pierre. A serial killer whose modus operandi is that he uses different a method of operating when carrying out each murder. It's perfect.

[Fisherman]

OK. And what is this explanation?

(Sorry but I still donīt get the picture).

Regards, Pierre

The carmen were not mentioned, since Mizen will have worded himself in a manner that allowed hm to leave them out. For example: "I was summoned to Bucks Row by PC Neil, who had found the murdered woman lying on the pavement there".

If Mizen was lied to, he could have left the carmen out.
If he was not lied to, he could not have left the carmen out.