What happened to Lechmere......

[Fisherman]

Well you made him that way, Christer. It only applies if your crafty Lechmere told him a blatant lie and was allowed to get clean away with it.



I've already said. It's your Mizen Scam that won't allow for that possibility, because he is your only witness for Lechmere lying to him. If you accept he could have doubted his own hearing, bang goes your efforts to claim Cross lied and Mizen heard it correctly! Is that too complicated for you to process?



Bravo! And that kills off the daft Mizen Scam with your own sword. I agree that the 'likeliest' development is that Mizen rethought it in the light of Cross's denial and doubted that he had heard correctly while he was engaged in the business of knocking up. How that helps your cause to make Lechmere a liar is, frankly, your business.



But Mizen is your only witness! How hard is that to grasp? Where is the evidence that Lechmere lied, once Mizen is 'bound in to saucy doubts and fears' about his own ability to report the conversation accurately?

Love,

Caz
X

Once again, it is not possible to establish Mizens level of certainty, so...

Overall, I find that many people (read: Caz) suggest alternative things the carman could have done, things they judge would have been a better suggestion on Lechmereīs behalf. He neednīt have contacted Paul, he could have run, he could have claimed that Paul was there before him, he could have walked the other way, he didnīt have to examine the woman with Paul etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

In the end, what he did is consistent with the possibility that he was the killer, and we are all very much aware that IF he was, then he pulled through. So maybe we should not try to decide that he could not have been the killer on account of him not having done what we - after having given the matter hours, days, weeks, months and years of afterthought - identify as a possibly smarter solution.
He had seconds only to decide what to do as Paul drew nearer, letīs not forget that. If he was the killer, I am very much inclined to think that he performed miracles in minutes, taking him out of harmīs way and conning Paul and Mizen big time.

[Clark]

These articles were published after Nichols was murdered, at which point the press clearly started to speculate about a serial killer. However, there is no evidence that either the press, or the authorities, considered the serial killer possibility before Nichols was murdered.

Yes, I said that they were printed after the Nichols murder. But when the murder occurred, it was immediately linked to the other two in the press, so the investigation of the Nichols murder would have been conducted with people believing that they had a serial killer (not that they called him that) on their hands.

Which was the question el_pombo was asking.

[caz]

Imagine the trial:

Paul: No, I saw no signs of violence upon the woman when in the company of the accused. I believed her to be dead but cannot be sure.

PC Neil: Yes, I was the first person to come across the deceased and conclude from the extensive injuries that the woman had been murdered. No, I did not see the accused or ask anyone I did see to send another policeman.

PC Mizen: No, I cannot be certain that the accused said I was wanted by a fellow officer. All I know is that PC Neil was present on my arrival and sent me for the ambulance.

Justice Once: Case dismissed. No witnesses, no evidence. Why did you bring this load of guff to me?

Next.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

You are attacking an article from the Pall Mall Gazette of 1888, Caz. Maybe you were after me?

If you see that as 'attacking' anything or anyone, I suggest you may need to take a chill pill, Christer. I was merely adding to the similarities of the attacks on Smith and Tabram, which not even you would surely try to dispute.

Love,

Caz
X

[Clark]

...And that is reinforced by Mizens reaction, according to Paul - he just said "Alright", and went on to finish a knocking up errand: a very reasonable reaction of a PC who has not been told anything juicy at all.

Wait a minute. Your Mizen scam depends on Paul being too far from Mizen and Cross to overhear Cross's supposed lie, but now you're saying that Paul was close enough to hear Mizen's reply? How's that supposed to work?

[Fisherman]

Imagine the trial:

Paul: No, I saw no signs of violence upon the woman when in the company of the accused. I believed her to be dead but cannot be sure.

PC Neil: Yes, I was the first person to come across the deceased and conclude from the extensive injuries that the woman had been murdered. No, I did not see the accused or ask anyone I did see to send another policeman.

PC Mizen: No, I cannot be certain that the accused said I was wanted by a fellow officer. All I know is that PC Neil was present on my arrival and sent me for the ambulance.

Justice Once: Case dismissed. No witnesses, no evidence. Why did you bring this load of guff to me?

Next.

Love,

Caz
X

I imagine it differently. To begin with, I would not ascribe something to Mizen I was not sure was true. But each to her own!

[caz]

Eh - no. The possible culpability we are discussing lies with Lechmere. Whatever position Mizen took to the words the carman uttered are completely immateria to the errand. SO much so, in fact, that even if Mizen had been totally deaf and head not a iot of what Lechmere said, it nevertheless remains that if Lechmere lied about an extra PC, then that requires an explanation.

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 should be perfectly easy to understand.

Not if Mizen was stone deaf. How could he help you demonstrate that Lechmere lied to him if he didn't hear and understand a single word?

You seem to be forgetting the basics. There has to be some basis for accusing Lechmere of lying to Mizen. If you don't need Mizen's word for it, and you don't have Mizen's word for it (because he could not be certain), what do you have? The Mizen Scam without Mizen, that's what.

Good luck with that. At least you seem to have got the message at long last that Mizen is about as much use to you as a bicycle to a fish.

And you are wasting my valuable time banging your head against the wall. Please stop doing that.

How can I waste your valuable time, Christer? How does that work? Nobody is forcing you to dig bigger and bigger holes in your new, improved Mizen-without-the-Mizen Scam.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

If you see that as 'attacking' anything or anyone, I suggest you may need to take a chill pill, Christer. I was merely adding to the similarities of the attacks on Smith and Tabram, which not even you would surely try to dispute.

Love,

Caz
X

How prudent of you! But how about that thing about almost within spitting distance and close to the point - are they not really rather the same...?

[Fisherman]

Wait a minute. Your Mizen scam depends on Paul being too far from Mizen and Cross to overhear Cross's supposed lie, but now you're saying that Paul was close enough to hear Mizen's reply? How's that supposed to work?

I got that wrong, Iīm 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.

[Fisherman]

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.

[Jon Guy]

Thatīs fascinating! Not a series of murders, but a serial so and so?

Took some time to catch on!

Yes, a good find by Nick Warren (it`s good to give him credit for it).
The FBI wrongly lay claim to the phrase

[Fisherman]

Yes, a good find by Nick Warren (it`s good to give him credit for it).
The FBI wrongly lay claim to the phrase

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!

[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

[Fisherman]

For Caz:

Since you ask me if I donīt 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.

[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.