Lies or memory fallibility

[Fisherman]

Thanks Fisherman.

So disagreement is the main reason you think Lechmere-Cross is a liar and Mizen a truth teller.

But actually disagreement is what we get when witnesses canīt recall exactly what happened. There is plenty of research on that. So why make the choice of constructing L-C as a liar and Mizen as a truth teller on that ground?

And what would L-C gain from lying about:

1. The seriousness of the errand
2. The number of carmen speaking to Mizen
3. The presence of another PC?

He must have had something to gain. Otherwise he wouldnīt lie at an inquest.

Regards Pierre

The answers to these questions have been provided numerous times. They are all to be found on the boards.

[Pierre]

What you say here has been argued on these pages for years, by myself and others. I said much the same on this thread, if you go back and read. I offer no conclusions. I suggest no "suspects". I'll leave that to you (in future) and Christer. What I offer with respect to Mizen is a simple interpretation of the information we do have. If you research PC Thain, his cape, and Tompkins, you'll see another instance of a PC telling an obvious fib to protect himself. Again, common sense....yet not sinister or profitable.

Pierre....I think Christer may not be willing to play with you anymore. BE CAREFUL.

Hi Patrick,

Yes, and it is interesting that one actually can interpret a set of data in different ways and get contradictive results. You make a very good point there.

Thanks for your advise on being careful. I appreciate that. And I believe Christer is serious in his research and will be interested in discussing his case if he has the time. (Sorry for speaking of you in the third person Christer, if you read this).

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

There is mainly one reason: Lechmere and Mizen disagree on many different points.

They do not only disagree on the other PC:s presence in Bucks Row.

They also disagree on how serious the carman disclosed the errand to be.

They also disagree on whether one or two of the carmen spoke to Mizen.

They also disagree about what was said about the background to the errand (Lechmere says that he told the PC what had happened, but Mizen says that the carman had told him that a woman "had been found" in Bucks Row, not that the carman himself had found her).

Further to this, Mizen is absolutely certain that the carman said nothing about any murder or suicide. It is therefore clear that Mizen seems to be sure that he was able to hear and interpret what the carman said.

In the end, if they had disagreed on ONE matter, it would be easier to swallow that it was a mishearing. But once we have a significant number of "mishearings", we need to accept that one of the two probably lied.

It is also of interest that the lies that were produced IF Mizen was correct, were all lies that would be optimised to take the carman past the PC.

It is also of interest that it was said that it was a totally silent noght with no people on the streets, minimizing disturbances.

Thanks Fisherman.

So disagreement is the main reason you think Lechmere-Cross is a liar and Mizen a truth teller.

But actually disagreement is what we get when witnesses canīt recall exactly what happened. There is plenty of research on that. So why make the choice of constructing L-C as a liar and Mizen as a truth teller on that ground?

And what would L-C gain from lying about:

1. The seriousness of the errand
2. The number of carmen speaking to Mizen
3. The presence of another PC?

He must have had something to gain. Otherwise he wouldnīt lie at an inquest.

Regards Pierre

[Patrick S]

Hi Patrick,

Well, I think itīs very difficult to use the papers for the question of who was lying and so on. At the inquest they are sworn and we still have the problem with the risk of misremembering. So I find it really hard to draw conclusions from any of these materials in the matter of who lied or who remembered. Thatīs why I donīt understand how Fisherman can do it.

And thatīs why I think it is impossible to make more of it than an unconfirmed hypothesis that this person was a killer, any killer, and especially the Whitechapel murderer.

Regards Pierre

What you say here has been argued on these pages for years, by myself and others. I said much the same on this thread, if you go back and read. I offer no conclusions. I suggest no "suspects". I'll leave that to you (in future) and Christer. What I offer with respect to Mizen is a simple interpretation of the information we do have. If you research PC Thain, his cape, and Tompkins, you'll see another instance of a PC telling an obvious fib to protect himself. Again, common sense....yet not sinister or profitable.

Pierre....I think Christer may not be willing to play with you anymore. BE CAREFUL.

[Pierre]

Who does Paul agree with?

On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said :- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head.

I would have highlighted the portion of the text in which Paul mentioned ANYTHING about another PC in Bucks Row. Alas, it doesn't exist. Further, Paul says plenty about Mizen's reaction, doesn't he? Let me ask you this, Pierre: If you were around in 1888 and read this statement in the papers would you feel as if good, honest, Christian Mizen acted correctly? Or would you feel as if our sweet, upstanding, God-fearing constable may have been somewhat dismissive of the two men he met "at the top of Church-row" that night? Let's go one more step, shall we? Let's couple what you just read above with the fact that forthright, unwavering, hallowed Jonas with the FACT that he told exactly NO ONE in an official capacity (or otherwise, for all we know) about his interraction with these two men. He did not tell Neil as he spoke with him over the body as he was dispatched for an ambulance. He told no one at the mortuary later on Friday. He told no one on Saturday, holding his tounge as Neil testified that he and he alone found the body not mentioning these two men that he supposedly sent to fetch Mizen.

Now, given all this information, Pierre, WHO would any rational and right thinking person WITHOUT something to sell suspect may be lying?

Hi Patrick,

Well, I think itīs very difficult to use the papers for the question of who was lying and so on. At the inquest they are sworn and we still have the problem with the risk of misremembering. So I find it really hard to draw conclusions from any of these materials in the matter of who lied or who remembered. Thatīs why I donīt understand how Fisherman can do it.

And thatīs why I think it is impossible to make more of it than an unconfirmed hypothesis that this person was a killer, any killer, and especially the Whitechapel murderer.

Regards Pierre

[Patrick S]

Just get it straight and we will be fine. Fail to do so and we will not. Your choice.

Oh, by the way....Pierre asked you a good question. Are you going to answer or is he on the naughty list, too?

[Patrick S]

Just get it straight and we will be fine. Fail to do so and we will not. Your choice.

Here again is our crusader for truth, Christer....dishing it out as he's unable to take it.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

Sorry and thanks for getting my attention on that. Very grateful.

I should have written something like "Why do you think that the hypothesis that Mizen couldnīt forget isnīt plausible to Christer (since he prefere to interpret him as telling the truth)?".

So itīs all about the same question. Why chose one thing and not the other?

Regards Pierre

Just get it straight and we will be fine. Fail to do so and we will not. Your choice.

[Pierre]

Please be nice to the fisherman

He canīt help if he might have caught the wrong fish.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

Where do these things come from? Where did I say that Mizen cannot forget?

Are you not the guy who speaks of accuracy and scientific treatment of the material? Please tell me why you constantly misrepresent what I say in such a case!

I urge you to produce any material that goes to prove that I have said that Mizen could not forget. If you cannot, then I would like you to retract your faulty statement. You may even have to ponder to apologize for having misrepresented me, but that is very much up to whatever upbringing you got.

I actually did not read the rest of your post, since I think you disqualified yourself with this rot.

Hi Fisherman,

Sorry and thanks for getting my attention on that. Very grateful.

I should have written something like "Why do you think that the hypothesis that Mizen couldnīt forget isnīt plausible to Christer (since he prefere to interpret him as telling the truth)?".

So itīs all about the same question. Why chose one thing and not the other?

Regards Pierre

[Patrick S]

Where do these things come from? Where did I say that Mizen cannot forget?

Are you not the guy who speaks of accuracy and scientific treatment of the material? Please tell me why you constantly misrepresent what I say in such a case!

I urge you to produce any material that goes to prove that I have said that Mizen could not forget. If you cannot, then I would like you to retract your faulty statement. You may even have to ponder to apologize for having misrepresented me, but that is very much up to whatever upbringing you got.

I actually did not read the rest of your post, since I think you disqualified yourself with this rot.

OH! The poor, persecuted, misunderstood Christer! Now he's directing his impotent rage at Pierre! Careful, Pierre! If you make too many points, Christer will stop talking to you!

This is all very absurd but very much in keeping with Christer's pattern. He makes profound, broad pronouncments like, "I'm more certain now than ever that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper!" and "I have found him (source: The internationally sent documentary)". Of course, much of what Christer is selling rests upon the preposterous "Mizen Scam ( ) with - OF COURSE - exists only if Mizen is NOT lying or misrembering what was said in Bakers Row. Alas, since dearest Christer has not expressly and specifically written that "Mizen could not forget" then you had better ponder an apology! You've DISQUALIFIED yourself! Oh, dear.

Should we be worried, Christer? I've - along with a cast of thousands - have eviscerated your "theory", your "Mizen Scam" ( ), your life's work. I, for one, can understand your rage (impotent though it is).

Keep right at him, Pierre. When you get past the bluster and faux outrage you realize he's much like Paul Newman fighting George Kennedy in 'Cool Hand Luke': He keeps getting up and coming back....with nothing.

[Fisherman]

So why do you think Christer doesnīt think that Mizen could forget?

Where do these things come from? Where did I say that Mizen cannot forget?

Are you not the guy who speaks of accuracy and scientific treatment of the material? Please tell me why you constantly misrepresent what I say in such a case!

I urge you to produce any material that goes to prove that I have said that Mizen could not forget. If you cannot, then I would like you to retract your faulty statement. You may even have to ponder to apologize for having misrepresented me, but that is very much up to whatever upbringing you got.

I actually did not read the rest of your post, since I think you disqualified yourself with this rot.

[Patrick S]

Thanks Patrick.

But Fisherman do presume that one person is lying and this person is Lechmere-Cross.

And if he thinks that Mizen didnīt forget, it may very well be wrong. Research shows that memory is fallible, even when it comes to the "experts".

So why do you think Christer doesnīt think that Mizen could forget?

We have a few variables in this source and Christer actively makes the choice of letting them point in a certain direction and building a correlation on his interpretation between Lechmere-Cross and five to seven murders.

Why make this choice?
Why not just think that the PC didnīt exactly remember?
Why choose to say that Lechmere-Cross was lying?
Is it a valid interpretation you make if you only want to support the hypothesis that a person canīt be on the same street at some distance to a murder victim, not knowing exactly what he saw?
Or is there something else in the source that points in the direction of lying?
And what points in the other direction - why shouldnīt it be a matter of memory? Christer says is "can" be. But why shouldnīt it?
Why should Mizen be accurate in his testimony?
Doesnīt distinguished and christian PC:s forget things?
Are their memory perfect?

I do understand that Christer really really wants his suspect to be the Whitechapel murderer. But being able to show that he really was is a quiet different thing.

So the questions above remain, even if Fisherman is persuaded by his source to think it points to a serial killer. These questions donīt go away. People will ask the same questions again and again and the basic reasons for that are:

1: That the source isnīt sufficient to presumme that Lechmere-Cross was a serial killer.
2. That Fisherman doesnīt explain his choice to make a specific interpretation of the source.
3: That there are no other sources supporting the hypothesis of Lechmere-Cross beeing a serial killer.

I would also really like Lechmere-Cross to be the Whitechapel murderer so I could let my own theory go. But the kind of source Fisherman has is much weaker than the sources I have.

Regards Pierre

Pierre,

You are obviously interested in the possiblity that someone, namely Mizen or Lechmere, didn't remember what was said, by whom, etc. That's possible, to be sure. Bear in mind, also, that we are forced to build our understanding of the case upon press reports, as the actual case files associated with the Nichols murder have been lost. These reports are often quite inaccurate, and so they must be consumed with caution. So, its possible also that we've an incorrect understanding of testimony, statements, etc. because these things weren't accurately reported.

Understand also that one of the seeds that has germinated in Christer's imagination to make Lechmere Jack the Ripper (and the Torso Killer among others) is, quite simply, this breif summation of PC Jonas Mizen's testimony at the Nichols' inquest:

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.

This statement contains the seeds that have grown into the mighty oak we now call "THE MIZEN SCAM" . Woman lying (not dead). Wanted by a policeman. I would suggest that only a person already angling ( ) to see Lechmere as Jack the Ripper would see ANYTHING indicitive of guilt here. I don't think it can be argued that Christer's theory is not convoluted, confused, complicated, unintuative, nonsensical, and ridiculous. Yet...well. Here we are.

Anyway, I think we have several possibilities with respect to the he said he said from Baker's Row:

1. Lechmere is lying because he's Jack the Ripper (among other evil doers)
2. Mizen is lying to explain his lack of urgency and slow response after being told of a woman, dead, in Bucks Row.
3. Mizen misremembered.
4. Lechmere misremembered.
5. The news paper accounts are not accurate.

I am suggesting that 2, 3, 4, and 5 are ALL TRUE to some degree. I don't pretend to believe either man had total recall about what was said that night. However, I do believe that something along the lines of "you are wanted by a policeman in Bucks Row" is a very specific thing, not something someone would say accidentially. Thus, I don't think that Lechmere said it at all. If Christer can absurdly postulate that every lie served to get Lechmere past Mizen then we must ask ourselves: If was afraid of being caught, WHY would he approach Paul and ask him to come see; WHY would he go with Paul to find a cop; WHY did he not go in the direction he KNEW Paul had come from ;WHY would he NOT part company with Paul at the first Crossroads? He did not do ANY of those things. NOW, he must deploy this absurd ruse? This Mizen Scam ? Further, we must also realize that every lie also serves a much more common sense purpose: It makes Mizen's lack of response (documented by both Paul and Lechmere) seem understandable. Taken with the knowledge - that we have - that Mizen's statement was made after Paul refered to Mizen's behavior as "a great shame" in the previous day's paper. Well, how much detective work is needed here, Pierre?

Based on the available infomation it's about as clear as it can be after 127 years: Mizen began with his very obvious and well documented lie of omission. He followed that up with a few invented details about a PC waiting in Bucks Row and not being told the woman was dead. QUITE simple. Understandable. Common sense.

AH! But it won't sell books or "internationally sent" fantasy programs now will it?

[Pierre]

Hi, Pierre! I'm Christers pal. So, let me take a stab at this. First, Christer does not entertain any idea that Mizen lied. None. In a bit of irony, Christer has presented Mizen as unassailable based upon two criteria: 1. He had a long and "distinguished" record of service to the Met; 2: He was a Christian. Now, this is ironic because Christer not only discounts Lechmere's apparent positive traits that may dissuade one from viewing him as a serial killer (lifelong stable employment, 11 kids, married to the same woman for 50 years, raised productive children who had families of their own, left a respectable estate to his wife, no crimnal record, no history of violence, showed of his own accord at the inquest, was never suspected by police, etc.) he actually presents them as reasons why he WAS (I say 'was' because in Christer's mind there is no longer a question) Jack the Ripper, the Toso Killer, etc., etc.

So, to clarify...Christer does not believe that good, honest, noble, Christian Jonas could ever tell a lie. Even as any researcher worth a dime can see that both he and Thain told what amounted to harmless lies (that were in all likelyhood accepted and tacitly endorsed by the Met in order to avoid FURTHER scrutiny and embarassment directed at them and their officers). He believes only that the man who he has killing Nichols in Bucks Row, calling Paul's attention to the body, going on an errand to tell a policeman that a woman was lying in Bucks Row, and showing up voluntarily at the inquest....was Jack the Ripper.

Got it? Makes perfect sense to me.

Thanks Patrick.

But Fisherman do presume that one person is lying and this person is Lechmere-Cross.

And if he thinks that Mizen didnīt forget, it may very well be wrong. Research shows that memory is fallible, even when it comes to the "experts".

So why do you think Christer doesnīt think that Mizen could forget?

We have a few variables in this source and Christer actively makes the choice of letting them point in a certain direction and building a correlation on his interpretation between Lechmere-Cross and five to seven murders.

Why make this choice?
Why not just think that the PC didnīt exactly remember?
Why choose to say that Lechmere-Cross was lying?
Is it a valid interpretation you make if you only want to support the hypothesis that a person canīt be on the same street at some distance to a murder victim, not knowing exactly what he saw?
Or is there something else in the source that points in the direction of lying?
And what points in the other direction - why shouldnīt it be a matter of memory? Christer says is "can" be. But why shouldnīt it?
Why should Mizen be accurate in his testimony?
Doesnīt distinguished and christian PC:s forget things?
Are their memory perfect?

I do understand that Christer really really wants his suspect to be the Whitechapel murderer. But being able to show that he really was is a quiet different thing.

So the questions above remain, even if Fisherman is persuaded by his source to think it points to a serial killer. These questions donīt go away. People will ask the same questions again and again and the basic reasons for that are:

1: That the source isnīt sufficient to presumme that Lechmere-Cross was a serial killer.
2. That Fisherman doesnīt explain his choice to make a specific interpretation of the source.
3: That there are no other sources supporting the hypothesis of Lechmere-Cross beeing a serial killer.

I would also really like Lechmere-Cross to be the Whitechapel murderer so I could let my own theory go. But the kind of source Fisherman has is much weaker than the sources I have.

Regards Pierre

[Patrick S]

There is mainly one reason: Lechmere and Mizen disagree on many different points.

They do not only disagree on the other PC:s presence in Bucks Row.

They also disagree on how serious the carman disclosed the errand to be.

They also disagree on whether one or two of the carmen spoke to Mizen.

They also disagree about what was said about the background to the errand (Lechmere says that he told the PC what had happened, but Mizen says that the carman had told him that a woman "had been found" in Bucks Row, not that the carman himself had found her).

Further to this, Mizen is absolutely certain that the carman said nothing about any murder or suicide. It is therefore clear that Mizen seems to be sure that he was able to hear and interpret what the carman said.

In the end, if they had disagreed on ONE matter, it would be easier to swallow that it was a mishearing. But once we have a significant number of "mishearings", we need to accept that one of the two probably lied.

It is also of interest that the lies that were produced IF Mizen was correct, were all lies that would be optimised to take the carman past the PC.

It is also of interest that it was said that it was a totally silent noght with no people on the streets, minimizing disturbances.

Who does Paul agree with?

On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said :- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head.

I would have highlighted the portion of the text in which Paul mentioned ANYTHING about another PC in Bucks Row. Alas, it doesn't exist. Further, Paul says plenty about Mizen's reaction, doesn't he? Let me ask you this, Pierre: If you were around in 1888 and read this statement in the papers would you feel as if good, honest, Christian Mizen acted correctly? Or would you feel as if our sweet, upstanding, God-fearing constable may have been somewhat dismissive of the two men he met "at the top of Church-row" that night? Let's go one more step, shall we? Let's couple what you just read above with the fact that forthright, unwavering, hallowed Jonas with the FACT that he told exactly NO ONE in an official capacity (or otherwise, for all we know) about his interraction with these two men. He did not tell Neil as he spoke with him over the body as he was dispatched for an ambulance. He told no one at the mortuary later on Friday. He told no one on Saturday, holding his tounge as Neil testified that he and he alone found the body not mentioning these two men that he supposedly sent to fetch Mizen.

Now, given all this information, Pierre, WHO would any rational and right thinking person WITHOUT something to sell suspect may be lying?