What happened to Lechmere......

[Clark]

You're suggesting, Pierre, that the phantom policeman had already left before Lechmere went looking for Mizen, correct? In that case, Lechmere wouldn't have told Mizen that he was wanted by another policeman back at the murder scene.

[Fisherman]

Clark: Well, Fisherman, you're the researcher who has had access to the available files. Are there examples you can point to in the other Ripper murders where a PC with such trivial involvement in the case had filed a written report? It would seem to add support to your case to show us some examples.

Alfred Long was requested to write a report on his finding the rag in Goulston Street, where there was no confusion of people at all. For example.

But the issue of the report is a bit of a red herring anyway. If one was written, you claim that no mention had been made of the carmen anyway, so it would have lent no actual positive evidence to your theory. You infer evidence from absence, but there are a number of reasons for Mizen not to have mentioned the carmen that are at least as probable as your favored interpretation. Perhaps the most likely possibility being that Mizen simply accepted Neil's assertion that he had discovered the body first.

Dear me, Clark. Have you not realized that Mizen DID accept that Neil was the finder? And has it passed right by you that this is the exact reason why Mizen did not protest when he claimed to have done so?

If Mizen was not lied to, then he did not go to Bucks Row expecting to see a colleague there, can we agree on that?

And if he did not expect to see a colleague there, then that would be because the carmen had said nothing about such a man. If Neil now claimed to have found the body, whereas Mizen KNEW that two men had claimed to be the finders, two men who arrived where he was at 3.45 according to himself - then why would he think that Neil, who said he found the body at 3.45, was the finder? According to his own timings, the carmen must have found the body a number of minutes before that.

Did he think that Neil was a magician? Was he afrais that Neil would get mad at him? Did he come up with the idea that he did not want to take the glory of being the finder from Neil, opting to lie about it - although he knew that if the carmen came forward, he would be exposed as a pc who had vital information and hid it from his superiors?

Can we be for real?

It strikes me that the most damage to your theory that Lechmere lied is the fact that Mizen did not dispute Lechmere's testimony at the inquest that he had seen no policeman at the murder scene. Under your theory, this is a terrible smear against Mizen's character and serves to bolster Paul's allegation that Mizen was negligent in not hurrying to the scene.

He was off the stand. Whatever protests he could make, he needed to make to his colleagues and superiors, not to the coroner and jury.
You should also keep in mind that if Mizen was truthful, he will reasonably have been baffled by what Lechmere said. There is a good chance that he asked himself "but didnīt he say that...? How strange."
He knew that the picture he had - if he was truthful - was the wrong picture. Neil, Lechmere, Paul - everybody disagreed with hi about that other PC, and it was evident that there never WAS another PC. So we may be faced with a situation where the ones he may have spoken to abiut it just said "you must have misheard, Jonas", and that was it.
It would all hinge on how certain Mizen was himself, and we cannot know that.

As Mizen had been deposed just prior to Lechmere's testimony, he would have most likely still been in the room as Lechmere gave his testimony, and it's standard practice to keep all witnesses on hand during an inquest in case they need to be recalled.

...meaning that it was coroner Baxter who should have recalled Mizen. Instad, they settled for having a juror ask LECHMERE whether it was true that he had spoken of another pc, and he - surprise, surprise - denied it.

The fact that Mizen made no rebuttal to Lechmere's testimony, and that Lechmere's testimony was allowed to stand unchallenged in the record, indicates that Mizen most likely accepted that he had been mistaken about being told that another officer was already on the scene (or knew that he had been lying, if you want to be less charitable).

He may have accepted that he could have been mistaken, yes. And if he was not, then that was rather a disservice to the ensuing victims.

You want Mizen to have been too smart to lie about having been told that a constable was already on the scene, but too meek and stupid to refute Lechmere's "lie" at the inquest--even though Mizen faced the same exact consequences resulting from Lechmere's testimony as if he had lied about the other policeman.

You can't have it both ways.

You need not tell me what I think, thank you very much, Clark. I believe that Mizen was completely honest, and that he may have given the carman the benefit of a doubt.

Is that okay with you, who knows best what I think?

Goodnight, Clark. The darkness has clearly enough already fallen, so itīs time to sleep.

[GUT]

You're suggesting, Pierre, that the phantom policeman had already left before Lechmere went looking for Mizen, correct? In that case, Lechmere wouldn't have told Mizen that he was wanted by another policeman back at the murder scene.

But e told him metaphorically.

[Clark]

Alfred Long was requested to write a report on his finding the rag in Goulston Street, where there was no confusion of people at all. For example.

I'd hardly call finding the rag a "trivial errand," which is the kind of example I requested, but I'll let it pass.

Dear me, Clark. Have you not realized that Mizen DID accept that Neil was the finder? And has it passed right by you that this is the exact reason why Mizen did not protest when he claimed to have done so?

Perhaps you misunderstand me. To be clear, I'm saying that Mizen could easily have accepted Neil's word that he had discovered the body first, even if Lechmere had not lied, and Mizen hadn't expected a constable to be there. That's why I mentioned that Mizen could have assumed that Lechmere had merely neglected to mention that another constable was there.

See how it works? Lechmere says nothing about another constable to Mizen. Several minutes later, Mizen arrives on the scene and sees Neil. Neil claims to have found the body first. "Ah," says Mizen to himself, "that bloke (Lechmere) forgot to mention that a cop was already here. Hmmm. Maybe I better wind my watch, it appears to be a bit off."

End of story. Note that the watch bit was stab at humor. In reality, I seriously doubt that cops went around synchronizing watches. A few minutes discrepancy was probably a common occurence and would hardly excite controversy--even today.

He was off the stand. Whatever protests he could make, he needed to make to his colleagues and superiors, not to the coroner and jury.

Lechmere tells lie on witness stand that contradicts previous witness. Coroner notices consternation of previous witness and furtive whispering among previous witness and his immediate superior. Coroner calls previous witness back to stand to clarify the record, which is the entire point of the inquest--to have a complete and accurate record. Nope, didn't happen.

Clark: ....You can't have it both ways.

You need not tell me what I think, thank you very much, Clark. I believe that Mizen was completely honest, and that he may have given the carman the benefit of a doubt.

Sorry if I sounded presumptious.

You said upthread in post #182 regarding the possibility that Mizen was lying about Lechmere having mentioned a phantom constable "is it credible that he (Mizen) was THAT stupid?" I interpret this as meaning that you believe Mizen was too smart to lie about it (which would be the corollary to your statement).

You also imputed in the same post that Mizen would avoid lying because of the dire consequences to his career. But when I mentioned in post #186 that Mizen had in fact faced those same exact consequences based on what you've said that you believe was a lie by Lechmere on the witness stand, you chose not to address the point, saying "that is all I have to say" in post #191.

From that, I concluded that you saw no significance in Mizen meekly permitting his name to be besmirched unchallenged at the inquest. I am sorry if I've misread your meaning or mischaracterized your position.

Goodnight, Clark. The darkness has clearly enough already fallen, so itīs time to sleep.

You're several hours ahead of me (it's early afternoon here), but goodnight all the same (that's another attempt at a bit of levity, BTW).

[Fisherman]

Clark: I'd hardly call finding the rag a "trivial errand," which is the kind of example I requested, but I'll let it pass.

You call Mizen a trivial errand boy in the Nichols murder, and I have no intention of letting that pass.

Perhaps you misunderstand me. To be clear, I'm saying that Mizen could easily have accepted Neil's word that he had discovered the body first, even if Lechmere had not lied, and Mizen hadn't expected a constable to be there. That's why I mentioned that Mizen could have assumed that Lechmere had merely neglected to mention that another constable was there.

No, I donīt misunderstand you at all, I simply disagree with you. I donīt think that Mizen would have beleived that Neil could have been the finder, since he was obviously not there when the carmen were. Ergo, they were first.

See how it works? Lechmere says nothing about another constable to Mizen. Several minutes later, Mizen arrives on the scene and sees Neil. Neil claims to have found the body first.

Why would he claim to have found the body "first"? There was no competition, Clark. Not as far as Neil knew. So he would not deny anybody else having found it before him by saying that he was first. He would merely have said that he found the body - and Mizen would know that he was wrong.

"Ah," says Mizen to himself, "that bloke (Lechmere) forgot to mention that a cop was already here. Hmmm. Maybe I better wind my watch, it appears to be a bit off."

"Forgot to mention"? If there was already a PC in place, why would Lechmere go looking for Mizen in the first place - unless he was asked to?

End of story.

Not by any serious standards. Maybe by yours, though. I for one will be happy to end the discussion.

Lechmere tells lie on witness stand that contradicts previous witness. Coroner notices consternation of previous witness and furtive whispering among previous witness and his immediate superior. Coroner calls previous witness back to stand to clarify the record, which is the entire point of the inquest--to have a complete and accurate record. Nope, didn't happen.

Baxter knew there was a contradiction. Baxter did not recall the previous witness. What was Mizen to do - trash him across the bum?
It only took some hesitation on Mizens account for the moment to pass by.

Sorry if I sounded presumptious.

You did. Iīm used. Doesnīt mean that I like or condone it.

You said upthread in post #182 regarding the possibility that Mizen was lying about Lechmere having mentioned a phantom constable "is it credible that he (Mizen) was THAT stupid?" I interpret this as meaning that you believe Mizen was too smart to lie about it (which would be the corollary to your statement).

If I should tell you that I doubt that your intellectual standards are as low as is implies by your posting, I am not sure that you should take that as a compliment, Clark. Please note that I do not in any way think that you are stupid, on the contrary - I am simply exemplifying where you are going wrong trying to make a point here.

You also imputed in the same post that Mizen would avoid lying because of the dire consequences to his career. But when I mentioned in post #186 that Mizen had in fact faced those same exact consequences based on what you've said that you believe was a lie by Lechmere on the witness stand, you chose not to address the point, saying "that is all I have to say" in post #191.

From that, I concluded that you saw no significance in Mizen meekly permitting his name to be besmirched unchallenged at the inquest. I am sorry if I've misread your meaning or mischaracterized your position.

I still think Mizen would avoid lying, and I still think he would avoid risking his job. I still think he was an honset witness and man.
Are you saying that he was lying by not protesting when Lechmere spoke about the second PC? That would be a whole new concept.
Like I said, he may well have hesitated, he may have asked himself if had misheard the carman, and then the moment would pass. That has nothing at all to do with lying or risking the job.

You're several hours ahead of me...

Yes, Clark, several hours indeed. But who knows, maybe you will catch up sometime.

[Pierre]

You're suggesting, Pierre, that the phantom policeman had already left before Lechmere went looking for Mizen, correct? In that case, Lechmere wouldn't have told Mizen that he was wanted by another policeman back at the murder scene.

No, I am suggesting that if we use tha hypothesis that Mizen did not lie and Lechmere did see a policeman, Lechmere must have thought that the policeman went looking for a colleague and was to come back to Buckīs Row after that.

(That must be the consequence of this hypothesis.)

Regards, Pierre

[Jon Guy]

No, I am suggesting that if we use tha hypothesis that Mizen did not lie and Lechmere did see a policeman, Lechmere must have thought that the policeman went looking for a colleague and was to come back to Buckīs Row after that.

Hi Pierre

With this in mind, PC Neil (with his lamp and heavy boots) would have been turning around the corner of Winthrop Street and the Board school to head up Bucks Row just as Cross and Paul were walking into Bakers Row.

They could have caught sight or heard him over their shoulders as they headed into Bakers row.

EDIT: apparently PC Neil came from Thomas Street (and not Winthrop Street) but the idea still works.

[Clark]

Clark: I'd hardly call finding the rag a "trivial errand," which is the kind of example I requested, but I'll let it pass.

You call Mizen a trivial errand boy in the Nichols murder, and I have no intention of letting that pass.

Yet, as far as anyone knew at the time all Mizen had done was fetch an ambulance at Neil's request. And how do we even know that he left his beat, as you say? Neil's testimony was that Mizen was in Baker's Row when he told him to fetch an ambulance. Was Baker's Row on Mizen's beat?

Explain again how simply fetching an ambulance becomes an important part of the investigation.

No, I donīt misunderstand you at all, I simply disagree with you. I donīt think that Mizen would have beleived that Neil could have been the finder, since he was obviously not there when the carmen were. Ergo, they were first.

Yes, it's the "obviously" where we differ. You're making an unwarranted assumption, IMO.

Why would he claim to have found the body "first"? There was no competition, Clark. Not as far as Neil knew. So he would not deny anybody else having found it before him by saying that he was first. He would merely have said that he found the body - and Mizen would know that he was wrong.

He didn't claim to have discovered the body "first," according to the inquest report. He said "there was not a soul about."

"Forgot to mention"? If there was already a PC in place, why would Lechmere go looking for Mizen in the first place - unless he was asked to?

If a constable had been present, he had been left by himself. Wouldn't you tell the next cop you saw about it?

Not by any serious standards. Maybe by yours, though. I for one will be happy to end the discussion.

Well, don't stick around on my account. It's your theory. I'm not trying to make you unhappy.

Baxter knew there was a contradiction. Baxter did not recall the previous witness. What was Mizen to do - trash him across the bum?
It only took some hesitation on Mizens account for the moment to pass by.

Well, if there was any significance in the discrepancy, someone should have mentioned it. Hence my conclusion that it doesn't carry the significance you want to give it.

Sorry if I sounded presumptious.

You did. Iīm used. Doesnīt mean that I like or condone it.

Not intentionally by me.

I still think Mizen would avoid lying, and I still think he would avoid risking his job. I still think he was an honset witness and man.

I don't think it would take a lie for Mizen to be wrong. As I've said before, he could easily have been mistaken. If he did discuss having seen two men with Neil, Neil could easily have assumed he was talking about the two slaughterhouse loafers. A simple misunderstanding.

You're several hours ahead of me...

Yes, Clark, several hours indeed. But who knows, maybe you will catch up sometime.

Well, not given our relative proximities on the planet, but I catch the jibe.

[Clark]

No, I am suggesting that if we use tha hypothesis that Mizen did not lie and Lechmere did see a policeman, Lechmere must have thought that the policeman went looking for a colleague and was to come back to Buckīs Row after that.

(That must be the consequence of this hypothesis.)

Regards, Pierre

Then why didn't Lechmere tell Paul that a policeman was already on the case? Why did they both go together to find a cop (as reported by Paul in the paper)?

[caz]

It is touching to see you two form such a tight alliance, I must say!

... but the intellectual yield is very poor, to be honest...

[Blah blah blah]

...And if it was Lechmere who was the killer (and letīs face it, it was)...

...And that, Caz, is exactly how "very fair" Bens and your points are.

Hi Christer,

Did you really want to go down the road of comparing the fairness of points and intellectual yields, when you come out with a comment that says it all about your own?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

>..since the Nichols murder came early in the series; some say it was the first, even. So at that stage, they had no knowledge of what was to come<<

It's this kind of twisting of the known evidence that Xmere theory is built on.
Mrs. Nichols murder was always regarded by the people at the time as part of a series.

Up to a late hour last evening the police had obtained no positive clue to the perpetrator of the latest of the three murders which have so recently taken place in Whitechapel. The murder committed in the early hours of Friday morning of the woman now known as Mary Ann Nicholls has so many points of similarity with the murders of the two other women in the same neighbourhood - one, Martha Turner, as recently as 7th August, and the other less than twelve months previously - that the police admit their belief that the three crimes are the work of one individual. All three women were of the same class, and each of them was so poor that robbery could have formed no motive for the crime. The three murders were committed within a distance of 200 yards of each other. In the earliest case a thrust into the body sufficed to cause the victim's death, in the second some 30 stabs were inflicted before Martha Turner was left to die on the door steps of the model dwellings in George yard, and in the latest case the woman was so violently attacked that she was nearly disembowelled. These facts have led the police almost to abandon the idea of a gang being abroad to wreak vengeance on women for not supplying them with money. Detective Inspector Abberline, of the Criminal Investigation Department, and Detective Inspector Helson, J Division, are both of opinion that only one person, and that a man, had a hand in the latest murder. It is understood that the investigation into the George Yard mystery is proceeding hand in hand with that of Buck's row."

Daily News (my emphasis's)

Hi Dusty,

This explains why PC Mizen would have felt very uncomfortable about Robert Paul's claims about him in the paper. The accusation that he had continued knocking up after being alerted about the dead woman lying in Buck's Row would have made him look very bad indeed, considering how soon this was after Martha Tabram's nearby murder. He was pretty much obliged to come up with a version of the conversation that would show his response in a better light. Added to that, he could not have put in his report how he first heard about the woman and left his beat, or he'd have got his version in first and Paul's story wouldn't have seemed to come from nowhere.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,

Did you really want to go down the road of comparing the fairness of points and intellectual yields, when you come out with a comment that says it all about your own?

Love,

Caz
X

Yes, absolutely.

[Harry D]

And this is why Lechmere falls down as a suspect, when all the talking points boil down to endlessly debating minutiae instead of getting to the crux of the matter... which probably suits Fisherman down to the ground... as otherwise you're just left with a witness who found the first victim and faded back into anonymity.

[caz]

One thing that we know happened to Lechmere was that he was encountered near a very recently attacked Ripper victim, who may or may not have been still alive.

I know that "someone has to find the body." But in NONE of the other Whitechapel murders (canonical or otherwise) was a civilian encountered by another next to a body, recently killed or otherwise. Either a PC found the body or the person who did went off for help. One could argue that Lechmere truly was soliciting help, and he just had the misfortune of coming across a victim killed moments earlier, but the acoustic/timing argument Fish presents in multiple other threads casts doubt on this. He must have spent a few minutes there, or Paul would have heard him. People do hear footsteps, as evidenced by the circumstances surrounding the Coles murder.

'He must have spent a few minutes there.'

Doing what? According to Christer, the knife could barely have made the fatal wound when Paul came along to spoil the party. Paul didn't hear Nichols's footsteps either, but presumably she and her killer had walked together to where she was quickly overpowered and killed, and her injuries would have taken nothing like 'a few minutes' to inflict. The killer would have been out of there the second he'd finished unless someone was already approaching before he was done.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

In a number of the cases the person finding the body didn't go immediately in search of the police; the person would first find another or others before doing so. This would be consistent with what Lechmere was trying to do, if he were innocent, although again it must be noted that his "going off in search of others" consisted of taking but a few steps away from a woman either very recently dead or bleeding to death as Paul approached.

Again, that doesn't fit with arguments that Lechmere had been there any length of time before Paul. It merely suggests that whoever dealt the fatal blow did it very shortly before the woman was found and was lucky not to be caught in the act. Not really a surprise since two men were legitimately on their way to work via Buck's Row at the time.

Love,

Caz
X