What happened to Lechmere......

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
I thought you claimed not to read my posts completely.How come then you answer to what I write.
Nonsense,is not quite the answer I was hoping you'd give.but It is your saviour when you can't answer constructively.
The question was simple,What evidence puts Cross in Bucks Row sooner than he claimed,and in the company of Nichols when she was alive?
Unless you can answer that question,or any one else can,the theory that Cross lied,and that he murdered Nichols falls apart.
Is it important.Well if you understand the law under which he would have been tried,it is.Yes ,I understand that law,do you.

You may have missed my post 357, where your question had itīs answer, but even if I had not answered that rather silly question, the theory would not fall apart in any other place but inside your mind, Harry.

[Fisherman]

That was quick! Maybe I should stick with it in the future; forcing yourself to go short often brings out the essence in a better way.

[Rosella]

el pombo

Are you asking for a reason why the cases were compartmentalized from ech other? I find that nagging as well. Why weren't the witness crossed between these cases - Schwartz taken to see Hutchinson, the witnesses from the Chapman murder crossed with the Kelly witnesses - to see if anybody recognized anybody else. The one time it is done, when the two ingenius detectives take the man to see Eddowes instead of Kelly to authenticate his credibility, is frowned upon.

Who knows why the press ran with her story the way it did? The Martha Tabram story is more interesting- two military men strolling about two prostitutes, a police encounter with a lookout, the inconceivable murder, the subsequent investigation by Polly. Nicholls murder only further reenforces the Tabram murder - madness is on the loose. Its Chapmans murder that introduces mania to the madness.

Why were the cases compartmentalised? You have to remember, Robert, that this was a new sort of serial killer. Previous English cases, the Palmer, Mary Ann Cotton cases etc had a clear motive, profit for instance.

In a way the Ripper killings were a very new sort of ball game and they were in the dark about motive, person, next victim, everything really. I remember a police officer involved in the Yorkshire Ripper hunt, one of the last big serial killer cases before computerisation, and he reminisced that one of the floors holding files had to be reinforced there was so much paperwork! There might not have been quite so much with Jack but there would still have been reams. Enough perhaps to not see the wood for the trees. Add to that the doctors' varying opinions early in the murders as to whether the same man had killed each victim and you can see part of the difficulty.

[Fisherman]

Why were the cases compartmentalised? You have to remember, Robert, that this was a new sort of serial killer. Previous English cases, the Palmer, Mary Ann Cotton cases etc had a clear motive, profit for instance.

In a way the Ripper killings were a very new sort of ball game and they were in the dark about motive, person, next victim, everything really. I remember a police officer involved in the Yorkshire Ripper hunt, one of the last big serial killer cases before computerisation, and he reminisced that one of the floors holding files had to be reinforced there was so much paperwork! There might not have been quite so much with Jack but there would still have been reams. Enough perhaps to not see the wood for the trees. Add to that the doctors' varying opinions early in the murders as to whether the same man had killed each victim and you can see part of the difficulty.

Very true, Rosella - and it also sheds light on why there was little or no room to backtrack. So effectively, once Lechmere had slipped through the net, there was little chance that he would be targetted in retrospect by the police.

[John G]

Headline for The Times on 9/1/1888 regarding Nichols' killing:

Another Murder in Whitechapel!

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/times/18880901.html

Headline for The Star on 9/1/1888:

SPECIAL EDITION.

THE WHITECHAPEL HORROR.
THE THIRD CRIME OF A MAN WHO MUST BE A MANIAC.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s880901.html

Headline for the East London Advertiser, 9/1/1888:

ANOTHER WHITECHAPEL MYSTERY.
HORRIBLE MURDER IN BUCK'S ROW, WHITECHAPEL.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/east_london_advertiser/ela880901.html

Check out the Press Reports section linked to the upper left on your screen. A font of information.

Best wishes.

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.

[Fisherman]

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.

Technically, serial killing takes three victims - but of course, thes was not a term that had been invented at that stage.
There were some papers looking at the similarities, like the Pall Mall Gazette, writing:

It is a singular coincidence that the murder was committed during Bank Holiday night, and is almost identical with another murder which was perpetrated near the same spot on the night of the previous Bank Holiday. The victims were both what are called "unfortunates", and their murderers have up till now evaded capture.

So the inference was around, although not on any major scale. The paper wrote about "murderers", of course, but they focused on the similarities. So much so that the deeds became "almost identical", which was anything but true.

[harry]

Fisherman.
I miss none of your posts as I need a good laugh occasionly.
No you haven't answered my questions.Post 357 was a rather clumsy attempt to evade answering them. Well no not falling apart ,already in ruins.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman.
I miss none of your posts as I need a good laugh occasionly.
No you haven't answered my questions.Post 357 was a rather clumsy attempt to evade answering them. Well no not falling apart ,already in ruins.

Here is your question, as quoted exactly:

The question was simple,What evidence puts Cross in Bucks Row sooner than he claimed,and in the company of Nichols when she was alive?

Here is my answer, from post 357:

If I could place him with Nichols at the exact time she died we would not be having this - rather daft - conversation.

So what exactly is your problem, Harry? What is it you donīt understand? Oh, and when did we go from question to questions, plural?

[John G]

Technically, serial killing takes three victims - but of course, thes was not a term that had been invented at that stage.
There were some papers looking at the similarities, like the Pall Mall Gazette, writing:

It is a singular coincidence that the murder was committed during Bank Holiday night, and is almost identical with another murder which was perpetrated near the same spot on the night of the previous Bank Holiday. The victims were both what are called "unfortunates", and their murderers have up till now evaded capture.

So the inference was around, although not on any major scale. The paper wrote about "murderers", of course, but they focused on the similarities. So much so that the deeds became "almost identical", which was anything but true.

Hi Fisherman,

Ah, yes, of course we always have newspaper speculation! Presumably they were referring to Smith and Tabram, however, as Smith claimed to have been attacked by a gang, and Tabram was stabbed multiple times, I assume they considered the crimes gang-related. And this is obviously implied by reference to "their murderers."

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

Ah, yes, of course we always have newspaper speculation! Presumably they were referring to Smith and Tabram, however, as Smith claimed to have been attacked by a gang, and Tabram was stabbed multiple times, I assume they considered the crimes gang-related. And this is obviously implied by reference to "their murderers."

Yes, the article refers to Smith and Tabram. Wasnīt that what we were discussing; the time before Nichols was killed? And did you not write that there was no example of how the press considered the possibility of a single killer before that time? Because I think that the Pall Mall Gazette very much presents such a possibility by making this comparison.

I donīt think that we can conclude that the paper spoke of gangs of murderers having perpetrated both crimes, especially since the Tabram deed was a totally quiet one. Then again, a gang WAS implicated in the Smith murder, so you may have a point.

The more pertinent matter to my mind is how the circumstances and type of victims are described as being very similar, as are the MO:s. To me, that speaks of the press coupling the deeds as quite possibly belonging to the same series.

[John G]

Yes, the article refers to Smith and Tabram. Wasnīt that what we were discussing; the time before Nichols was killed? And did you not write that there was no example of how the press considered the possibility of a single killer before that time? Because I think that the Pall Mall Gazette very much presents such a possibility by making this comparison.

Hi Fisherman,

Yes, but I would argue that reference to 'murderers" in the article, rather than "murderer", implies that they considered the crimes to be possibly gang-related (which would have to be true in Smith's case, unless she lied about being attacked by a gang of men.)

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

Yes, but I would argue that reference to 'murderers" in the article, rather than "murderer", implies that they considered the crimes to be possibly gang-related (which would have to be true in Smith's case, unless she lied about being attacked by a gang of men.)

I just amended my former post when I saw what you were after, John!

[John G]

I just amended my former post when I saw what you were after, John!

Thanks Fisherman!

[caz]

How do you explain his utter failure to mention that Cross's claim that he was wanted by another PC had in fact turned out not to be the case?

It is not as if it was not obvious to the inquest, is it? Why would Mizen raise his voice and say "Gentlemen of the jury; your honour! I have come to the conclusion that there was not any PC down in Bucks Row as Mr Cross - who will testify shortly - spoke to me."?
Reasonably, Mizen will have been confused by the developments - he had been told that there was a PC in Bucks Row, there WAS a PC in Bucks Row - and now he was told that this PC was not the finder. Itīs anybodies guess how he resoned about that. Maybe he went to the inquest with some sort of hope to have things cleared up - If, tht is, he was informed before the inquest.
There can be no exact telling WHEN Mizen was told about things or HOW he was told about them - and to what extent the full picture had dawned on him when he took the stand. There is the factor that Lechmere, clad in working gear, can have crashed the party on the inquest day, leaving very little time to straighten things out.

It was a simple enough question, Christer, but I admire the effort you go to, to excuse PC Mizen's shortcomings. He either recalled Cross saying he was wanted by another PC, or he conjured it up accidently or by design after the event, because a PC had been there and did want him - to fetch the ambulance.

That's it. They are the alternatives.

A) If he could be sure, he would also know that Cross had lied to him about the circumstances in order to put a PC first at the scene instead of himself. That's huge. It just is. He should have shouted it from the rooftops until it sank in.

B) If he could not be sure, the whole Mizen Scam nonsense falls apart, because it totally relies on your good PC faithfully reporting that crucial element of the conversation, but being too dull witted to realise he had been lied to by the real 'finder', or too worried about his own position to cry foul.

A question for you: if both Paul and Lechmere had let the police get on with it after informing Mizen, and had not spoken to the press or the police afterwards, when do you suppose Mizen would have spoken up about these two men who had come from the scene to alert him? And how do you think it would have reflected on him, when it turned out that they must have been there alone, before PC Neil, and had managed to disappear off the face of the earth because he had taken no details and had put nothing about the incident in any initial report? Or would he have been better off saying nothing at all, and letting everyone continue to assume he had seen Neil's lantern somehow and responded to that?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

caz: It was a simple enough question, Christer, but I admire the effort you go to, to excuse PC Mizen's shortcomings.

There werenīt any, Caz. It is merely something you make up on n o grounds whatsoever but a lively fantasy.

He either recalled Cross saying he was wanted by another PC, or he conjured it up accidently or by design after the event, because a PC had been there and did want him - to fetch the ambulance.

... or he was - or got - unsure. You conveniently forgot that option, for some reason?

That's it. They are the alternatives.

As I said, there is one more alternative. Regardless if you like it or not.

A) If he could be sure, he would also know that Cross had lied to him about the circumstances in order to put a PC first at the scene instead of himself. That's huge. It just is. He should have shouted it from the rooftops until it sank in.

How very imaginative! But the gist of the matter is that he could well have rotested to his superiors, who decided on their own account that he must have been wrong. Or he could have reasoned that he may have misheard or mistinterpreted himself.

That is as far as we are going to get, Caz.

B) If he could not be sure, the whole Mizen Scam nonsense falls apart, because it totally relies on your good PC faithfully reporting that crucial element of the conversation, but being too dull witted to realise he had been lied to by the real 'finder', or too worried about his own position to cry foul.

Falls apart? Youīd wish! It matters not one bit to what extent Mizen was sure, unsure or silenced down. Everything that matters is what the carman SAID. And it is easy enough to conclude what he said going by the developments of the errand.

So you are just about as wrong as you can get here, Caz - and boy, can you get it wrong!!!

A question for you: if both Paul and Lechmere had let the police get on with it after informing Mizen, and had not spoken to the press or the police afterwards, when do you suppose Mizen would have spoken up about these two men who had come from the scene to alert him? And how do you think it would have reflected on him, when it turned out that they must have been there alone, before PC Neil, and had managed to disappear off the face of the earth because he had taken no details and had put nothing about the incident in any initial report? Or would he have been better off saying nothing at all, and letting everyone continue to assume he had seen Neil's lantern somehow and responded to that?

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.

A question to you, Caz: When are you going to stop offering those shudda-cudda-wuddas as if they mean something? You are running the risk of not getting any answer from me fortwith if you keep dredging up the same old, same old, you know.