What happened to Lechmere......

[Fisherman]

I am still awaiting your answer to my post 449, Caz.

[Fisherman]

caz: Just the one lie? If Mizen knew that Cross had lied over and over again, not only to him shortly after leaving the crime scene, but also at the inquest, then yes, I'm afraid that would have made him devious or stupid.

The world are full of devious and/or stupid people, nobody knows that better than I do. Mizen, however, seems not to have belonged to them.

Two of the lies were rather subtle ones, and there is nothing odd in them slipping past the police (Mizen included) if there were no suspicions against him.
The third lie, about the extra PC, aroused interest, but was skipped over anyway.

Simple, easy to understand.

To realize the implications took 125 years.

Stupid if he still didn't suspect him, or devious if he did suspect him but was afraid that drawing any more attention to it would reflect badly on himself.

And those are the only options that suit you.

You really think his superiors would have carried on giving Cross the benefit of the doubt, if Mizen had insisted the witness had repeatedly lied?

Yes, I do. A million ripperologists gave Lechmere the benefit of a doubt for 125 years. You, as I recall things, were amongst them.

They failed to see the possible implications. It is no stranger than that.

Whether Mizen DID make much noise about it is - guess what? - as impenetrable to you in this post as it was when you wrote your former one. And it will be just as undisclosed next time over too.

[caz]

I find it revolting that someone would come along and construct a narrative such as the one you've created.

I do too, Patrick.

And I would find it revolting if I read a similar narrative being created against anyone with no record of violence and no evidence that they were anything but a witness who went to alert a policeman after finding a woman alone and vulnerable in the street.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

This has already been discussed in extenso, Caz. It is older than Metusalem.

By the way, it is interesting to see how you castigate me for being unethical, but have no problems to tarnish a serving PC who may well have acted in accordance with the rules throughout.

PS. Mizen DID expose the lie that both men spoke to him. You may have forgotten that, or you may regard it as an intricate lie on behalf of Mizen.
So what was he, devious or stupid?

Just the one lie? If Mizen knew that Cross had lied over and over again, not only to him shortly after leaving the crime scene, but also at the inquest, then yes, I'm afraid that would have made him devious or stupid. Stupid if he still didn't suspect him, or devious if he did suspect him but was afraid that drawing any more attention to it would reflect badly on himself.

You really think his superiors would have carried on giving Cross the benefit of the doubt, if Mizen had insisted the witness had repeatedly lied?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

I am still awaiting your answer to my post 449, Caz. Take your time, I´m off for now.

[Fisherman]

The words Lechmere uttered are the words he uttered. But if Mizen can't be sure he heard those words correctly, or that they contained any lies, and you don't want Paul to have heard them either, what are you left with but Lechmere's version of the conversation and your own murky suspicions that he would have lied if he was the killer?

Love,

Caz
X

I am left with what a PC with an excellent service record said, and the knowledge that the carman chose not to use the name he was registered by when approaching the police, implicating him as a person who seems likely to have lied. Plus, of course, the insight of the geography and timings etcetera, etcetera. All of which makes for a very good case.

Unless you have realized it by now, one of the main ingredients in the so called Mizen scam was to spirit Paul away out of earshot when Lechmere spoke to Mizen.
If there had been an audience of twelve jurymen, The Whitechapel quire of Homeless Vagrants and assorted members of the Knifegrinders Guild present, I am anything but sure that Lechmere would have tried the bluff. You see, it actually PREDISPOSED that nobody heard what he told Mizen.

[Patrick S]

For Caz:

Since you ask me if I don´t feel sorry for Lechmere, when pointing to him as the probable killer of the women in the victorian East End, asking me if I do it just because I know it cannot be disproven, I would like to know whether this is the first time you show these kinds of concerns regarding a Ripper suspect.

Do you have a former record of asking those who have pointed out any of the 300+ other suspects if they do not feel bad about accusing people who can be innocent, or is it just me you are questioning in this respect?

Are you aware that the Lechmere family was approached before the research into the carman was made public?

Can you grasp how the documentary presents a number of experts who agree with the deduction that Lechmere quite possibly was the Ripper?

I would like you to outline your stance in all of this and explain to me why I am being targetted and tarnished here.

This was not addressed to me. Respectfully, if I might, I'll speak for myself on this, even though I've let my emotions get the better of me in the past on this subject.

I will say that I don't feel 'sorry' for Lechmere/Cross. However, I do feel somewhat indignant when he's referred to - absurdly in my view - as something like "the probable killer of the women in the victorian East End".

In that I have invested considerable time reviewing any records of this man's life available to me (as well his children's lives, etc). What I've found is evidence of an admirable man, especially when he's viewed in the context of his particular time and place. I don't think that it can be argued otherwise: He was a hard working man who maintained steady employment and improved his families station throughout his life. That does not happen without purpose and drive. He is a man with no criminal record, a 50 year marriage, and many children. His children proved to be much like their father, in fact. The only headlines associated with him or descendants beyond his appearing as a witness in the Nichols' case come when members of the family are killed in the Bethnal Green Tube disaster.

A wife married to monster for fifty years. They remain together, moving up the socioeconomic ladder together. He has enough to open a business later in life and does well enough with it that, upon his death, he is able to leave his wife a substantial sum.

I see the now well known picture of this man and I see this: An old man proud of a life well lived. You see an 'intimidating man'. I see nothing of the kind because I learned something about him. I'll go by what we KNOW about him. And I'll keep THOSE things in mind when I see his image.

I find it revolting that someone would come along and construct a narrative such as the one you've created.

I'll say no more. Best regards.

[caz]

caz: You have really lost it now, old chap. If your only witness to the possibility of Lechmere lying to him could have been stone deaf for all you care, how the devil do you propose to turn that there 'if' into anything that requires 'an explanation'?

It was an extreme example, aiming to point out that Mizens level of understanding what Lechmere said would not per se have any influence on the words Lechmere uttered in retrospect. Thats your take on things, apparently.
I only go to such lenghts when the recipient of the message is not very perceptible.

The words Lechmere uttered are the words he uttered. But if Mizen can't be sure he heard those words correctly, or that they contained any lies, and you don't want Paul to have heard them either, what are you left with but Lechmere's version of the conversation and your own murky suspicions that he would have lied if he was the killer?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Will do !!

Great, Jon. Again thanks!

[Fisherman]

So many more lies here from Cross for Mizen to expose?

'They' met Mizen; 'they' informed him...; Cross said he thought she was likelier dead than drunk; Paul left Cross 'soon after' Mizen had 'walked on'.

Maybe Mizen was stone deaf, or just backward.

Love,

Caz
X

This has already been discussed in extenso, Caz. It is older than Metusalem.

By the way, it is interesting to see how you castigate me for being unethical, but have no problems to tarnish a serving PC who may well have acted in accordance with the rules throughout.

PS. Mizen DID expose the lie that both men spoke to him. You may have forgotten that, or you may regard it as an intricate lie on behalf of Mizen.
So what was he, devious or stupid?

[Jon Guy]

You learn something new every day! You would not happen to have the name of the inventor at hand? If not, I would be grateful to receive it when or if you stumble over it.

Many thanks, Jon!

Will do !!

[caz]

I got that wrong, I´m afraid - it was Lechmere who claimed that Mizen said "Alright".

The relevant passage, from the Daily Telegraph:

Chas. Andrew Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for over twenty years. About half-past three on Friday he left his home to go to work, and he passed through Buck's-row. He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement." They both crossed over to the body, and witness took hold of the woman's hands, which were cold and limp. Witness said, "I believe she is dead." He touched her face, which felt warm. The other man, placing his hand on her heart, said "I think she is breathing, but very little if she is." Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her. Just then they heard a policeman coming. Witness did not notice that her throat was cut, the night being very dark. He and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's-row they met the last witness, whom they informed that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row. Witness said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on. The other man left witness soon after. Witness had never seen him before.

So many more lies here from Cross for Mizen to expose?

'They' met Mizen; 'they' informed him...; Cross said he thought she was likelier dead than drunk; Paul left Cross 'soon after' Mizen had 'walked on'.

Maybe Mizen was stone deaf, or just backward.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

If you can't see the internal contradiction here for yourself [you 'hope' this man will turn out not to have been the decent, hard-working husband and father he appears on the surface, but the vicious multiple murderer you prefer to see beneath, but you have no inclination to call people killers for the sheer joy of it] I 'hope' you are among the few.

Love,

Caz
X

Do you never nourish a hope that guily people will be convicted or pointed out? Is that the same as a personal grudge? I would not think so.

I have posted on this to you, and I would like an answer.

[Fisherman]

For Caz:

Since you ask me if I don´t feel sorry for Lechmere, when pointing to him as the probable killer of the women in the victorian East End, asking me if I do it just because I know it cannot be disproven, I would like to know whether this is the first time you show these kinds of concerns regarding a Ripper suspect.

Do you have a former record of asking those who have pointed out any of the 300+ other suspects if they do not feel bad about accusing people who can be innocent, or is it just me you are questioning in this respect?

Are you aware that the Lechmere family was approached before the research into the carman was made public?

Can you grasp how the documentary presents a number of experts who agree with the deduction that Lechmere quite possibly was the Ripper?

I would like you to outline your stance in all of this and explain to me why I am being targetted and tarnished here.

[caz]

I actually have reasonable hope that he will be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt...

...I have no inclination to call people killers for the sheer joy of it as you tastelessly seem to predispose.

If you can't see the internal contradiction here for yourself [you 'hope' this man will turn out not to have been the decent, hard-working husband and father he appears on the surface, but the vicious multiple murderer you prefer to see beneath, but you have no inclination to call people killers for the sheer joy of it] I 'hope' you are among the few.

Love,

Caz
X