If

[drstrange169]

Wise words, Caz.

The whole Mizen thing goes nowhere.

To date the evidence supports Xmere and casts doubt on Mizen and basically is the end of it, unless something new comes up.

To be fair, for Xmererites the relevance relies on it being combined with other factors and to date the lack of actual evidence in those factors leave me cold.

Most suspect theories rely on apparent "coincidences" but anyone looking for coincidences will always find them.

[caz]

Lechmereīs motive to lie on the murder night was to pass by Mizen unsearched and undetained. Lechmereīs motive to deny the lie at the inquest was his knowledge that Paul would deny that there had been another PC in Bucks Row, thus revealing Lechmere for what he was: a liar.

That doesn't really work, Christer.

Mizen would know Lechmere was a liar the instant he flatly denied telling him a policeman at the scene wanted him. Why would Lechmere worry about anything Paul had claimed in the newspaper, or might claim at the inquest, since Paul had already revealed himself to be a liar, according to you? He had already claimed to be the one who spoke to Mizen - a lie, if only Lechmere did. He had already claimed that he told Mizen the woman was dead - a lie, if Mizen was not told this by either man. Do you want me to find some more lies, or will that suffice for now?

What do you think your killer would prefer? His word against this police-hating workman, who had proved himself a liar from the moment he had opened his mouth? Or his word against your solidly upright, scrupulously honest PC Mizen?

All Lechmere had to say, if challenged over why he had told Mizen a PC wanted him, when there was no evidence for it, was: "I was concerned that Mizen might only leave his beat and help the woman if a colleague requested it" [and according to you he should not have done so on the flimsy grounds of being told a drunk woman was lying on the path of someone else's beat!].

My view is that Mizen was almost certainly told that the woman could be dead, because both men were expecting him to drop what he was doing and go to her. He didn't do so straight away, or one of the men would have seen him go, but he did leave his beat and he did render assistance. If Lechmere killed Nichols, he wouldn't have cared less whether Mizen set off immediately, had a bacon sarnie and mug of tea first, or didn't bother going at all. "A drunk woman, on someone else's beat and out of my area? I can't leave mine just for that. I'd need a written note from the officer concerned."

All Lechmere would have cared about was getting away undetained, unquestioned, unsearched, unidentified. Mizen wasn't even told that he had been at the scene before Paul. There would only be Paul's word for that, and the first thing Paul did was lie his head off in the paper!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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?

Oh yes, I can understand how you make it work, Christer. You have admitted to looking at all the available info from the point of view that Lechmere killed Nichols and seeing what sort of case can be built. Clearly if he did kill her, and then felt the need or desire to come forward and confirm that he found the body first, not PC Neil, he'd have told as many lies at it would take to keep himself clear of suspicion.

Whatever Mizen was told, he does not come out of it smelling of roses. At best, he put a bit more knocking up before responding to a specific request for help from a fellow officer, when both the officer and the woman in question might have been facing, or shortly to face, a life or death situation for all Mizen knew. He certainly couldn't have known there was any time for the officer to fanny about taking personal details from the men before sending them. At worst, Mizen was told the woman was lying alone, possibly dead (and therefore possibly dying, or at least in potential danger from any rough sorts passing by) and he carried on knocking up after muttering "All right", without taking a single detail from either witness.

Either way, Mizen's response (as portrayed in Paul's press interview), followed by finding the woman horribly murdered and PC Neil in need of an ambulance for her, gave him a jolly good motive for playing down what he was told about the gravity of the situation to spare his blushes for a) not responding appropriately to a potentially life-threatening situation, and b) keeping quiet about the two men alerting him until 'outed' by one of them as the tardy PC.

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!

Lechmere's message was short and sweet according to Mizen and didn't need to be exaggerated or clarified by you, let alone changed out of all recognition and turned into a saga that would better justify his seeming lack of urgency upon hearing it. I don't 'think' I have caught you out lying. You caught yourself out, by being 'creative' with the message to make it work for you.

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?

Oh come on, Christer. If Lechmere told him he was wanted by (apparently) PC Neil, he'd have soon learned that a) Neil didn't send the men to fetch him and b) the witness denied saying any such thing, making it clear that the man who had 'discovered' the victim had lied to a police officer shortly afterwards and had lied again at the inquest. Did Mizen not have the brains he was born with, or was it better for him not to make a fuss and put his own role under the spotlight again?

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.

Precisely. So Paul was an unreliable witness when it came to who said what to whom, and Lechmere knew it if he read the interview. Had he not come forward, Paul would have been an equally unreliable witness for who actually found the body first. He was jolly lucky that Lechmere popped up to confirm this part of his story, or he could have been suspected of lying to cover his tracks. He was acting like the perfect fall guy until Lechmere bailed him out and admitted to being with the woman before any policeman, before Paul, before anyone. That was rather sporting of him, don't you think, when it had only been Paul's dodgy word for it that PC Neil had not got there first.

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.

So he was told about the woman in mid-knock, was he? This is getting rather ridiculous. Paul claimed he saw Mizen continuing to knock up after being alerted. That was either true or it wasn't, and Mizen was clearly put on the spot when trying to deny he had 'continued' with what he was doing. He presumably stopped knocking to listen to the message, but instead of going straight off to Buck's Row he must have resumed the knocking at least until both men were out of sight. What's the difference whether he called it finishing, resuming or continuing? He didn't have to stay there knocking until he got a response from that particular house, so why did he? And why not half a dozen more while he was at it? He only admitted to what Paul and Cross could have seen, and only then because Paul had spoken up about it. No wonder Paul was less than impressed with Mizen's lack of urgency.

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?

Sorry, but I'm not sure I follow that. We don't know what, if anything, Mizen wrote about the men in his report. It doesn't seem likely that he even mentioned them, and he should have done, regardless of what he was told. If he had, the police could have cleared up the initial questions surrounding who was really the first to discover Nichols, and the proper sequence of events from the two men alerting Mizen, and PC Neil finding her alone, to Mizen responding and finding Neil there. It appears that Paul's press interview started the ball rolling and coaxed both Mizen and Lechmere into giving their versions of the same story. Up until then, the only story was that Neil found the body on his own, and there was no mention of seeing Mizen's two men before or after his discovery.

Love,

Caz
X

[curious4]

Hi Steve,

Sure he has. And he has been working seriously with it.

I have a theory as well. And as soon as my work is finished I will give you the result.

And I can assure you that my theory has NOTHING taken from any ideas of others. It is independent of the ideas of others.

One thing I find interesting also is that I believe that when you do find the killer, like I believe I have done, things become simple. You do not need to write long catalogues of facts.

Another thing that I havenīt been discussing here is that I have found a new source from his life. It is interesting because it sheds light on some aspects of the murders that I havenīt been thinking about, since I didnīt know about them.

So I learn a lot about him. But not from other "ideas". I learn from the sources.

And I am truly sorry that I canīt share the theory with you at this point. I honestly wish I could.

Regards, Pierre

Promises, promises.... ��

[John G]

It seems to me that much of the argument against Lechmere is dependent on Dr Llewellyn's estimate of time of death. In other words, Nicholls must have been murdered close to the time when Lechmere discovered the body.

However is this necessary the case? Well, not according to Dr Biggs. In respect of Nicholls, he reasoned, "Blood is a funny substance and doesn't necessarily 'congeal' in all cases...therefore a lack of congealing doesn't indicate a particular time frame. Nor does the presence of congealed blood for that matter...As I've said before, blood 'still flowing' from a dead body does not necessarily indicate that death has only just happened. I've certainly been at scenes some hours after death (or even the next day) and been able to make more blood ooze out of the wound with very little movement of the body. " (Marriott, 2015)

[Pierre]

I would have to conclude that Lechmere was probably insane, though not necessarily homocidal.

Lechmere had no way of knowing that a PC would show up before Mizen got there. If Mizen had immediately responded to Lechemere's report and arrived on the scene and Nichols was still alone, he would have immediately known that Lechmere had been lying to him, thus arousing suspicions that Lechmere had something to hide.

It's much more likely that Mizen was the liar, or at least mistaken. He had a motive to lie because he had not immediately responded to the report of a body in the road and he used the excuse that he had been told that a PC was already on the scene - OR - when he arrived on the scene he saw PC Neil and misremembered the statement "you're wanted down there" as "you're wanted by a policeman down there."

There's no reason to suspect that Lechmere had lied. He had no way of knowing that Neil would come upon the body before Mizen got there and Paul could easily have refuted the lie if Mizen had asked him for collaboration.

And if he told the truth about the policeman, why should he lie about his name?

Was he the killer? / Or was he a witness to the killer?

Regards, Pierre

[Clark]

....Now imagine that we have a camera recording showing how Charles Lechmere walked up to Jonas Mizen and said:
-Officer, you are needed in Bucks Row. A woman has been found there. She is lying in the street, flat on her back. Another PC sent me, he wants your help....

What conclusions would you draw from it?....

I would have to conclude that Lechmere was probably insane, though not necessarily homocidal.

Lechmere had no way of knowing that a PC would show up before Mizen got there. If Mizen had immediately responded to Lechemere's report and arrived on the scene and Nichols was still alone, he would have immediately known that Lechmere had been lying to him, thus arousing suspicions that Lechmere had something to hide.

It's much more likely that Mizen was the liar, or at least mistaken. He had a motive to lie because he had not immediately responded to the report of a body in the road and he used the excuse that he had been told that a PC was already on the scene - OR - when he arrived on the scene he saw PC Neil and misremembered the statement "you're wanted down there" as "you're wanted by a policeman down there."

There's no reason to suspect that Lechmere had lied. He had no way of knowing that Neil would come upon the body before Mizen got there and Paul could easily have refuted the lie if Mizen had asked him for collaboration.

[Pierre]

well at least Fisherman has a theory, agree with it or not, I don't , but he has one, he has put work in to it, been attacked here, often for the theory, in a generally friendly way.
All i see from Pierre is an attempt to take what ever he can from the ideas of others to Create one of his own.

i find Pierre's musings to be amusing.

Hi Steve,

Sure he has. And he has been working seriously with it.

I have a theory as well. And as soon as my work is finished I will give you the result.

And I can assure you that my theory has NOTHING taken from any ideas of others. It is independent of the ideas of others.

One thing I find interesting also is that I believe that when you do find the killer, like I believe I have done, things become simple. You do not need to write long catalogues of facts.

Another thing that I havenīt been discussing here is that I have found a new source from his life. It is interesting because it sheds light on some aspects of the murders that I havenīt been thinking about, since I didnīt know about them.

So I learn a lot about him. But not from other "ideas". I learn from the sources.

And I am truly sorry that I canīt share the theory with you at this point. I honestly wish I could.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Well, thanks a lot, Fisherman. I find your theory entertaining.

Kind regards, Pierre

well at least Fisherman has a theory, agree with it or not, I don't , but he has one, he has put work in to it, been attacked here, often for the theory, in a generally friendly way.
All i see from Pierre is an attempt to take what ever he can from the ideas of others to Create one of his own.

i find Pierre's musings to be amusing.

[John G]

Just following the New Discourse, John. The Holy Trinity that has been revealed to us: "Tests, Analyse and Interpretation", answers all questions.

Actually, it all seems very simple, David. In fact, the Holy Tritinty approach is so obvious that I'm surprised this case wasn't solved years ago!

[Pierre]

Okay, Pierre, one more for the road...

Lechmere was at the murder site before Paul.

So Lechmere could have seen and spoken to a policeman there.

He was, however, keen to impress upon the inquest that he was not alone there for more than a few fleeting seconds.

So why not play along with Mizen and stick to his own old statement. Paul could not contradict him if he had not been there at the same time as the policeman.

If he did not impress this upon the inquest, he would become suspect; a man who had been alone with Nichols for a long enough time to have been the killer.

Sounds risky. Sticking to his old testimony about the policeman, being supported by Mizen, would have looked as an attractive alternative from the point of view of Lechmere. So why didnīt he?

Accepting your suggestion, the story he would need to serve would be along the lines: I got to the murder spot, and there was a PC there. And then that PC left, and I was alone with the body.

The policeman could just have turned around the corner. And "I was alone with the body" - that was what Paul corroborated. So why not fill in the gap between the murder and Paul turning up at the site by simply using his old statement?

Then this other carman came down the street, and joined me. And then we went to find ourselves a PC together."

This would have been an extremely troublesome testimony to serve up to the inquest, as I am sure youīll agree.

But that is what Paul stated:

"Robert Baul [Paul], 30, Forster-street, Whitechapel, carman, said as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road."

Not least, Lechmere would be required to go into detail about the other PC and why he left the scene wothout returning to it. If the police was unable to identify this second PC in retrospect, guess who would be in a very tight spot?

Yes. So he could actually have had two reasons for not wanting to keep his old statement at the inquest.

Of course, if this was what happened and if Lechmere was a trusting and benevolent citizen, he could have told that story anyway and hoped for the best. But being trusting and benevolent does not always equal being outright stupid, Iīm afraid.

And since he was both a good man and not stupid - he choose to leave the policeman out of the inquest.

I think this suggestion of yours is anything but credible. We both reason that Lechmere was probably in place in good time to be the killer himself, but you introduce a PC,

No I donīt. But Charles Lechmere did.

an alternative killer, who cut Nichols to pieces while Lechmere watched,

Naturally NOT. The killer must have been finished with his work and about to leave the murder site when Lechmere came along. There is no other possibility if Lechmere saw a policeman there. So what could have made Lechmere suspicious, either directly or afterwards? THAT is an interesting question to discuss.

and who then intimidated him into staying silent about it.

His own understanding of the situation. Talking to his wife about the incident? Talking to a friend?

And still, the first thing he does when meeting Mizen is to spill the beans - he says that there is another PC in Bucks Row, in spite of how he knows that this man has left the street already.

A very possible situation, try this: The killer is finished with his victim, Lechmere turns up, the killer says "There has been an accident here, I believe. Could you please go and look for another constable? I will see if I can find one also." And then he turns around the corner. Lechmere would then naturally have thought that this policeman would return to the murder site.

And in spite of how he has decided not to tell about the second PC. Who, incidentally, none of the REAL policemen or watchmen got a glimpse of - unless you are pointing out Neil, Thain or Mizen.

That is the thing: the murderer would have been able to escape the police since he knew how they worked, but he could never escape the risk of a civil witness coming along.

And then, this alternative killer goes on to kill victims along Lechmeres logical work treks, and in the midst of where Lechmere grew up...?

He did not know anything about Lechmere. A lot of people had their work treks in the area and a lot of people grew up there.

I have now answered all your questions, Pierre, and I am done with this theory of yours until such time arrives when you produce actual evidence or a name to your killer. I find it is the best way forward for my part.

Well, thanks a lot, Fisherman. I find your theory entertaining.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Why should Lechmere think that he must deny a lie about a policeman at the inquest because Paul would deny another PC, when Lechmere were at the murder site before Paul?

Kind regards, Pierre

Okay, Pierre, one more for the road...

Lechmere was at the murder site before Paul.

He was, however, keen to impress upon the inquest that he was not alone there for more than a few fleeting seconds.

If he did not impress this upon the inquest, he would become suspect; a man who had been alone with Nichols for a long enough time to have been the killer.

Accepting your suggestion, the story he would need to serve would be along the lines: I got to the murder spot, and there was a PC there. And then that PC left, and I was alone with the body. Then this other carman came down the street, and joined me. And then we went to find ourselves a PC together."

This would have been an extremely troublesome testimony to serve up to the inquest, as I am sure youīll agree. Not least, Lechmere would be required to go into detail about the other PC and why he left the scene wothout returning to it. If the police was unable to identify this second PC in retrospect, guess who would be in a very tight spot?

Of course, if this was what happened and if Lechmere was a trusting and benevolent citizen, he could have told that story anyway and hoped for the best. But being trusting and benevolent does not always equal being outright stupid, Iīm afraid.

I think this suggestion of yours is anything but credible. We both reason that Lechmere was probably in place in good time to be the killer himself, but you introduce a PC, an alternative killer, who cut Nichols to pieces while Lechmere watched, and who then intimidated him into staying silent about it. And still, the first thing he does when meeting Mizen is to spill the beans - he says that there is another PC in Bucks Row, in spite of how he knows that this man has left the street already. And in spite of how he has decided not to tell about the second PC. Who, incidentally, none of the REAL policemen or watchmen got a glimpse of - unless you are pointing out Neil, Thain or Mizen.

And then, this alternative killer goes on to kill victims along Lechmeres logical work treks, and in the midst of where Lechmere grew up...?

I have now answered all your questions, Pierre, and I am done with this theory of yours until such time arrives when you produce actual evidence or a name to your killer. I find it is the best way forward for my part.

[Mayerling]

Yes Jeff, but a certain member of this forum might not be.

Granted David. I suspect he has his own private universe in his stunningly curious mind - probably that, though I also suspect he can be being pursued by his own personal vampyres (I'll use the older, obsolete form - it's meant for scholarly types).

Jeff

[Pierre]

No offense, Pierre, but after this answer of mine, I will bow out of our discussion. I hope you can accept that.

1. ... 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?

Answer: Because he was quite aware that Paul would deny any PC once he was found.

2. 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"?

Answer: Lechmereīs motive to lie on the murder night was to pass by Mizen unsearched and undetained. Lechmereīs motive to deny the lie at the inquest was his knowledge that Paul would deny that there had been another PC in Bucks Row, thus revealing Lechmere for what he was: a liar.

The four other questions you ask are simply the same all over again, and I feel that I have answered it.

Over and out.

OK. I can understand you thinking.

And between the moment when Lechmere is standing in Buckīs Row and the moment when Paul arrives there is a question mark, I believe. Why should Lechmere think that he must deny a lie about a policeman at the inquest because Paul would deny another PC, when Lechmere were at the murder site before Paul?

I can understand if you donīt want to answer this. And perhaps there isnīt a good answer to that question either.

But I happen to think that Lechmere was a good family man, doing his job, protecting his family and IF (just if) Lechmere saw a policeman acting strange on the murder site, he would also have been smart enough to avoid talking about this at the inquest. It is one thing mentioning a policeman in Buckīs Row to another police officer, another thing to state it at a murder inquest, after which you will have your name and adress in the newspapers.

If there was a policeman in Buckīs Row before Paul arrived: What did Lechmere think that he saw - and what did he think when he was informed about the murder?

Thanks for your answers above.

Kind regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

your conclusions are suggestive of a true visionary!

Just following the New Discourse, John. The Holy Trinity that has been revealed to us: "Tests, Analyse and Interpretation", answers all questions.