What happened to Lechmere......

[drstrange169]

>>... we should allow people to decide for themselves instead of advicing them not to listen to "the propaganda"<<

Advising IS allowing the freedom to decide, otherwise it would be command.

The only one I command is my dog and she doesn't obey anyway.

[Fisherman]

>>... we should allow people to decide for themselves instead of advicing them not to listen to "the propaganda"<<

Advising IS allowing the freedom to decide, otherwise it would be command.

The only one I command is my dog and she doesn't obey anyway.

Advising is definitely allowing the freedom to decide, no qualms there. I have no problems with that; I am ready to advice anybody not to take your objections to the Lechmere theory too seriously.

What I turned agaist was your propensity to speak of the theory as "propaganda". I do not know if you are familiar with the fact that propaganda equals intentional misleading, tailored to reach a specific goal?

I can assure you that there is no such element in the Lechmere theory. Both Edward and I are being perfectly honest, we believe we are correct and we have no intention to mislead whatsoever.

It would be very nice if you could respect that.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I'm perplexed as to why you're acting so surprised that Caz and I are in agreement that Crossmere isn't a very good suspect. Surely you can't just have spotted that?! Caz made the rather sensible point that prostitute serial killers generally leave their homes with that specific and sole murderous purpose in mind, as opposed to doing so en route to an unrelated activity or location, just as prostitute users venture out for the specific intention of paying for sex.

But since he was found where he was and since he was alone with that body, he is elevated to a very interesting person indeed from an investigative point of view.

And yet he apparently wasn't considered so to anyone actually responsible for "investigating" in 1888.

The discovery of Nichols' body was an inevitable event, and the discoverer was likely to have been someone whose working hours necessitated walking the streets when everyone else was in bed. How can such a likely and inevitable event as an early worker finding the body be construed as suspicious? Well, by introducing a "Mizen scam" apparently, but for those of us who don't accept that any such "scam" occurred, it is difficult to see how that face-value impression is tarnished.

Good to see we're on speaking terms again!

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

I'm perplexed as to why you're acting so surprised that Caz and I are in agreement that Crossmere isn't a very good suspect. Surely you can't just have spotted that?! Caz made the rather sensible point that prostitute serial killers generally leave their homes with that specific and sole murderous purpose in mind, as opposed to doing so en route to an unrelated activity or location, just as prostitute users venture out for the specific intention of paying for sex.



And yet he apparently wasn't considered so to anyone actually responsible for "investigating" in 1888.

The discovery of Nichols' body was an inevitable event, and the discoverer was likely to have been someone whose working hours necessitated walking the streets when everyone else was in bed. How can such a likely and inevitable event as an early worker finding the body be construed as suspicious? Well, by introducing a "Mizen scam" apparently, but for those of us who don't accept that any such "scam" occurred, it is difficult to see how that face-value impression is tarnished.

Good to see we're on speaking terms again!

Of course we are on speaking terms, Ben - itīs just that I usually avoid speaking to you. And on this occasion, I was talking to Caz. But I will freely admit that what I posted concerns you too. So I will answer your points and then leave the conversation.

1. What is YOUR point of view? Is being found alone close by a freshly killed victim of great interest from an investigative point of view? Or is it not? I am not discussing Lechmere specifically here, since his case is rather a unique one. I just want a simple yes or no to my question. Whether I will get just that is up to you.

2. The evidence clearly supports that the Mizen scam happened. If it did not, why did Mizens superiors not use his report to establish that two carmen had claimed to have found the body? And why did Mizen not correct Neil when the latter said that HE was the finder?
You see, when we draw out the consequences we can see that there can be very little doubt that Lechmere lied the way Mizen claimed.

3. Caz "sensible" point on planning serial killers was met by my disclosure of how there are more than five thousand hits on Google featuring the string "opportunistic serial killer". I have not read them all, but I will venture a guess anyway that many of these hits involve serial killers who strike when they get an opportunity instead of planning it all very far ahead. As such, I think that Lechmere must be regarded as somewhere inbetween these camps, making Cazīpoint and your applause rather moot. I believe (and I think that most people agree) that the killer left his home with the intent to kill, armed and ready. To that extent, he was a planner. I do NOT believe, though, that he had his mind set on specific victims and murder venues - he was an opportunistic killer in that respect, pouncing on whatever prey he found useful.
That, incidentally, is a methodology a killer who travels repeatedly from point A to point B through a red light district at nighttime or in dark, early mornings, could use very much to his advantage. It would be the equivalent of what many of todays "highway killers" do - patrol the streets with an intent to kill but with ho specific victim or murder spot in mind. Of course, the risk is always there that the murder sites taken together will point to a specific killer, so the smaller the area, the larger the risk the police will cotton on.
I am sure you will agree with that.

Til the next time, Ben.

[John Wheat]

Hi John,

My point is that we need a bigger sample to put Bury in his context if you would like to use "being a murderer" and "mutilating" a murder victim as criteria to analyse the possibility of Bury, or anyone else, being Jack the Ripper.

Since we only have these criteria for making claims about Bury being Jack the Ripper - living in Whitechapel is no criteria for being a killer - we must hypothesize that he may just be one of many other killers.

That is - if you donīt have any more indications pointing towards Bury?

So, to put it simple, he "wasnīt Jack the Ripper" because there is nothing connecting him to the murders claimed to be done by Jack the Ripper.

And since that is a fact (?), many others could have been Jack the Ripper too, if you only use the criteria of "being a murder" and "performing mutilations".

Because living in Whitechapel is no criteria for being a murderer, and being in Whitechapel at the time of each Ripper murder is only a necessary condition that does not make anyone a killer.

Kind regards, Pierre

Pierre

For the last time Bury didn't live in Whitechapel in 1888 he lived in Bow.

There are other indications Bury was Jack the Ripper other than being a murderer and performing mutilations but this is a Lechmere thread so I suggest discussing it on one of the many Bury threads.

Cheers John

[Pierre]

Pierre

For the last time Bury didn't live in Whitechapel in 1888 he lived in Bow.

There are other indications Bury was Jack the Ripper other than being a murderer and performing mutilations but this is a Lechmere thread so I suggest discussing it on one of the many Bury threads.

Cheers John

OK. And what indications would that be?

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Both Edward and I are being perfectly honest, we believe we are correct and we have no intention to mislead whatsoever.

Hi,

I am learning a lot from you, Fisherman. Now I learn that you believe you are "correct". And I think I have found the killer but, contrary to you, I often say I might be wrong. Notwithstanding that I have much more pointing to one person than you have. And I think that is a good lesson. So I wait, and I donīt accuse someone of being a killer. Not until I have the final piece of evidence.

Regards, Pierre

[Clark]

...2. The evidence clearly supports that the Mizen scam happened. If it did not, why did Mizens superiors not use his report to establish that two carmen had claimed to have found the body? And why did Mizen not correct Neil when the latter said that HE was the finder?
You see, when we draw out the consequences we can see that there can be very little doubt that Lechmere lied the way Mizen claimed....

I realize you weren't talking to me, but since I disputed this point in your "If" thread, and you've apparently moved on from there, I'll reiterate my comments here:

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.

As to your specific questions in point #2, second one first: Mizen had no way of knowing who first found the body. He first heard of it from Lechmere, but when he arrived on the scene Neil was already there. He could have assumed that Neil had sent the carmen (which he claimed that Lechmere had told him, though it's unlikely) or that Neil had in fact discovered the body first and that Lechmere just hadn't mentioned it (which doesn't actually contradict what Lechmere claimed that he had said to Mizen at the inquest).

Note that Neil had said that the two workmen from the slaughterhouse had arrived just after he had found the body, but before the other constables had arrived ("the first to arrive on the scene after I had discovered the body..."). Perhaps Mizen had conflated these two with the two carmen, which may actually be why he thought that Neil had sent two men to tell him he was wanted.

As to your first question, I'm not sure that I understand exactly what you're getting at here, but if Mizen confused the two carmen with Neil's two slaughterhouse men, his superiors wouldn't have necessarily learned about Lechmere/Cross and Paul until later, perhaps not until the inquest.

The timeline, the events recorded, and the absurdity of Lechmere inventing a phantom policeman at his own peril point to the conclusion that Lechmere did not lie to Mizen. Mizen was either mistaken, or came up with his own lie in an attempt to explain why he hadn't responded earlier to the report of a body.

[drstrange169]

>>... propaganda equals intentional misleading, tailored to reach a specific goal<<

Gee you're ultra sensitive.

"Defining propaganda has always been a problem. The main difficulties have involved differentiating propaganda from other types of persuasion, and avoiding a biased approach ("what they do is propaganda, what we do is education"). Garth Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell have provided a concise, workable definition of the term: "Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist."

Jowett and O'Donnell, Propaganda and Persuasion, 2006

The section highlighted in bold for me perfectly describes the TV show we are currently discussing, not you and Ed, hence my use of the word.

Normally, if I insult someone it's it intended and obvious, you'll know when it happens. Still if you thought it was a slight I'm happy to apologise.

But all this avoiding the point I was making in the post,


"... Xmere and Paul were the exception from all the other cases and accordingly can't be compared.
Xmere and Paul were the only discoverers of victims NOT to know their victim was dead.
Had they seen the stomach wounds would they have acted differently?
Certainly all the other discoverers had an urgency/horror that these two men did not.
There is a MASSIVE motive for different behaviour."


You would agree?

[John Wheat]

OK. And what indications would that be?

Regards, Pierre

The way that Bury matches all the major psyche profiles for instance however as I said this is a Lechmere thread so I suggest discussing it on a Bury thread.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

>>... propaganda equals intentional misleading, tailored to reach a specific goal<<

Gee you're ultra sensitive.

"Defining propaganda has always been a problem. The main difficulties have involved differentiating propaganda from other types of persuasion, and avoiding a biased approach ("what they do is propaganda, what we do is education"). Garth Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell have provided a concise, workable definition of the term: "Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist."

Jowett and O'Donnell, Propaganda and Persuasion, 2006

The section highlighted in bold for me perfectly describes the TV show we are currently discussing, not you and Ed, hence my use of the word.

Normally, if I insult someone it's it intended and obvious, you'll know when it happens. Still if you thought it was a slight I'm happy to apologise.

But all this avoiding the point I was making in the post,


"... Xmere and Paul were the exception from all the other cases and accordingly can't be compared.
Xmere and Paul were the only discoverers of victims NOT to know their victim was dead.
Had they seen the stomach wounds would they have acted differently?
Certainly all the other discoverers had an urgency/horror that these two men did not.
There is a MASSIVE motive for different behaviour."


You would agree?

As you admit, propaganda is about manipulating. Manipulation is about misleading. And I am not about misleading. So yes, I think you were slighting me, and I will take that apology you offer. It has nothing to do with being ultra-sensitive, but everything to do with trying to keep up an honest and respectful debate, something we all fail to do at times. And something we need to admit when it happens.

You want to know whether I agree with this (although you nicely prefer to claim that I avoided to answer it):

"... Xmere and Paul were the exception from all the other cases and accordingly can't be compared.
Xmere and Paul were the only discoverers of victims NOT to know their victim was dead.
Had they seen the stomach wounds would they have acted differently?
Certainly all the other discoverers had an urgency/horror that these two men did not.
There is a MASSIVE motive for different behaviour."


I am not sure what you mean about Lechmere and Paul being exceptions that cannot be compared. All the people in the saga are unique.

You say that they were the only discoverers of victims that did not know that their victim was dead. But I am convinced that Lechmere DID know - being the killer, as I speculate. Plus they were not both discoverers, only Lechmere was. I did not discover America when I went there in 1980.

You ask if they would have acted differently if they had seen the stomach wounds. I think they would, yes - the other cases have the finders acting half in shock, crying out for help like Davies and Diemschitz, for example. Bowyer too was very unnerved, but kept a little cooler, fetching McCarthy.
The calmness of the carmen is something you put down to their not knowing how sinister the errand was. But if Lechmere was the killer, conning Paul, why would we not get the exact same outcome?
There is a massive outcome for different behaviour, you say, but that is a very slippery statement - If Lechmere was the killer, masquerading as an innocent witness and finder of the body, why would we have the two men running wild in the street if Paul did not notice that Nichols was killed? Thatīs just not a very good proposition, is it?

[Fisherman]

The timeline, the events recorded, and the absurdity of Lechmere inventing a phantom policeman at his own peril point to the conclusion that Lechmere did not lie to Mizen. Mizen was either mistaken, or came up with his own lie in an attempt to explain why he hadn't responded earlier to the report of a body.

Mizen must have written a report about the errand and handed it in to his superiors. In that report, if he had not been lied to, he must have written that he was guided to Bucks Row by a carman in company with a colleague.

So why is it that the police told all and sundry that PC Neil was the finder of the body, and even put him on the stand to testify about that?

And why did not Mizen tell his superiors that Neil was wrong? He would have been very much aware of this, unless he had been lied to. If that applies, he would have thought that Neil was truthful when claining to be the finder.

Nobody has - so far managed to answer these questions intelligibly. Hereīs your chance, Clark.

[Jon Guy]

Mizen must have written a report about the errand and handed it in to his superiors.

Hi Christer

Just out of interest, do you know who Mitzi`s superior were ?
Just curious.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer

Just out of interest, do you know who Mitzi`s superior were ?
Just curious.

Ultimately that would be Thomas Arnold and John West, West heading the uniformed branch and Arnold the detective department, since we are talking about the H-division. Arnold, though, was on leave when Nichols was killed, so West would have had the overall responsibility at that stage.

There is a useful BBC site where a number of the other top dogs of H-division - Edmund Reid included - are listed at

http://www.bbcamerica.com/shows/ripper-street/blog/2012/12/the-h-division

If your question is exactly who was responsible specifically for Mizen on the night in question, my answer is that I donīt know.

[Jon Guy]

Ultimately that would be Thomas Arnold and John West, West heading the uniformed branch and Arnold the detective department, since we are talking about the H-division. Arnold, though, was on leave when Nichols was killed, so West would have had the overall responsibility at that stage.

There is a useful BBC site where a number of the other top dogs of H-division - Edmund Reid included - are listed at

http://www.bbcamerica.com/shows/ripper-street/blog/2012/12/the-h-division

If your question is exactly who was responsible specifically for Mizen on the night in question, my answer is that I donīt know.

No problem, Christer.
I was looking for the duty sergeant and Inspector at Leman Street that night.