What happened to Lechmere......

[caz]

Eh - she was on the ground and possibly dead. That does not exclude violence. But Paul did not express that he thought that she had been killed - he did not see the wounds, by the looks of things.

It doesn't demonstrate the violence either. Pretty crucial if you need a witness to put your suspect at the scene when the violence had just been done. Paul saw no signs of violence, or if he did, he wasn't saying. PC Neil makes the better suspect in that respect.

Well, the hints were there to an extent - but the carmen did not see any signs of the violence that had put her to death. For all they knew, she could be alive, or have suffered a heart attack.

Yeah, that was pretty much my point. No witness to testify that Cross was with a dead woman who had already been murdered.

There is Paul, Caz. You may have forgotten about him? And Lechmere admitted to have been first at the site.

Precisely. Until Lechmere freely volunteered this information, there was only Paul - who (blimey, how short is your own memory span?) could not have testified to the woman having been dead and murdered when Lechmere was present. He saw nothing to indicate it. It was too dark to tell either way.

Lechmere never suggested the woman had been murdered either. He expressed an opinion that she may have gone into a swoon after being outraged.

How the jury would have worked, you are not qualified to know.

It wouldn't have got as far as a jury. No witnesses you see. So no blood evidence tying Lechmere to the murder itself. No murder weapon in evidence, no motive. Opportunity at most, but reasonable doubt about that because others in the locality at the time would have had the same opportunity, before Lechmere and Paul arrived, or shortly after they left, not even having determined if she had been attacked by then.

Love,

Caz
X

[curious]

Anyway, the very reason James Scobie and Andy Griffiths were chosen wsa that they had no prior involvment or interest in the Ripper case, so the neutrality you are asking for was there at the time.

If they had no prior involvement in the case, and you (a very adament "Lechmere dun it, take no prisoners" kind of guy) presented the case to them, then their pronouncement was definitely NOT neutral.

[Fisherman]

If they had no prior involvement in the case, and you (a very adament "Lechmere dun it, take no prisoners" kind of guy) presented the case to them, then their pronouncement was definitely NOT neutral.

To begin with, I never even met with Scobie...

So much for taking no prisoners.

Then again, feel free to argue that the film team lied to or mislead Scobie. You wonīt be the first.

[caz]

Absolutely Caz, and even more lucky that Mizen didn't approach Paul to verify Crossmere's "wanted by another PC" story, which he certainly would have done if there had been any question of Paul not being party to the conversation. The idea that Mizen was incompetent enough to allow Paul to wander off into the shadows, and out of earshot, is one of many major weaknesses of the proposed "scam" theory. Also, unless Crossmere the Ripper was beyond stupid, he must have fully anticipated that his actions would result in national attention and an inquest, after which Mizen was bound to have realised that he had been lied to. Yet we're expected to believe the hapless copper never pointed this out to his colleagues and superiors.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

I think Christer would do better to drop his 'perfect PC' Mizen stance, if he wants Lechmere to have told him this blatant lie with no comeback whatsoever. This crafty killer could only have taken advantage of Mizen in this way if he was a bit thick, a bit lazy, a bit incompetent and a bit too quick to cover his own back, rather than flag up the problem.

In short, Mizen comes out a better cop if Lechmere was an honest witness who sent him to the scene to help the woman lying there, than if he let the killer lie his way out of his grasp.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

It doesn't demonstrate the violence either. Pretty crucial if you need a witness to put your suspect at the scene when the violence had just been done. Paul saw no signs of violence, or if he did, he wasn't saying. PC Neil makes the better suspect in that respect.



Yeah, that was pretty much my point. No witness to testify that Cross was with a dead woman who had already been murdered.



Precisely. Until Lechmere freely volunteered this information, there was only Paul - who (blimey, how short is your own memory span?) could not have testified to the woman having been dead and murdered when Lechmere was present. He saw nothing to indicate it. It was too dark to tell either way.

Lechmere never suggested the woman had been murdered either. He expressed an opinion that she may have gone into a swoon after being outraged.



It wouldn't have got as far as a jury. No witnesses you see. So no blood evidence tying Lechmere to the murder itself. No murder weapon in evidence, no motive. Opportunity at most, but reasonable doubt about that because others in the locality at the time would have had the same opportunity, before Lechmere and Paul arrived, or shortly after they left, not even having determined if she had been attacked by then.

Love,

Caz
X

I have already left this line of enquiry to you, Caz. I am not changing that now.

[Fisherman]

Hi Ben,

I think Christer would do better to drop his 'perfect PC' Mizen stance, if he wants Lechmere to have told him this blatant lie with no comeback whatsoever. This crafty killer could only have taken advantage of Mizen in this way if he was a bit thick, a bit lazy, a bit incompetent and a bit too quick to cover his own back, rather than flag up the problem.

In short, Mizen comes out a better cop if Lechmere was an honest witness who sent him to the scene to help the woman lying there, than if he let the killer lie his way out of his grasp.

Love,

Caz
X

So a bit thick, a bit lazy, a bit incompetent or a bit too quick to cover his own back?

Either way, Mizen looses and becomes the fall guy.

But whatever happened to the possibility that he started to doubt that he had heard Lechmere correct? Where do you sort that in? Under thick, lazy, incompetent or lying to cover his back?

Is this how you treat people around yourself too?

You see, Caz (well, to be fair, I fear that you donīt see much at all, but anyway...) just as you say, if Mizen was dead certain that he had been told about the extra PC, he would reasonably have made a fuss about it. We have no record of such a mess, or of any ensuing investigation into Lechmere. So the possibility that Mizen became doubtful of what he had heard - which would be very natural, given that Lechmere was correct on the point that there WAS no other PC in Bucks Row as he left - must remain the perhaps likeliest development.

But you somehow are trying to argue that such a thing would undermine the Mizen scam, which is beyond ridiculous.

The scam never was about whether Mizen was doubtful or not. It was - and is - about whether Lechmere LIED or not.

Should not be all that hard hard to grasp, should it?

[caz]

But what If Mizen himself kept the possibility open that he had misheard or misinterpreted the carman, Ben? Can you apply your "almost certainly"-approach to that?

Ooh, ooh, please sir, can I tackle this one? If Mizen - as your only witness - even entertains the slightest doubt about his own powers of hearing, interpretation or recollection, the Mizen Scam becomes dust in your hand. Not "almost" certainly - certainly certainly.

It can only survive with Mizen knowing that Cross said he was wanted by a policeman, but then being so ineffectual, or so worried about the consequences to himself, that Cross's denial is allowed to stand unchallenged, while Mizen's 'knowledge' dissolves into nothingness.

Your choice.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

The attacks on Tabram and Smith were not just 'near the same spot' but almost within spitting distance.

I've walked it enough times to know.

And the genital area of both victims was attacked.

Love,

Caz
X

[Jon Guy]

Technically, serial killing takes three victims - but of course, thes was not a term that had been invented at that stage.

Hi Christer

I don`t have the details to hand but Nick Warren`s "Ripperana" found a US magazine published before 1888 that used the term serial killer or murderer

[caz]

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?

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.

As far as I recall, my question above (or rather, three questions in one) has not been put to you before. It certainly has not been answered by you. Entirely your choice to duck any questions you find too tedious or difficult, but I was genuinely interested in your thoughts on Mizen, had Lechmere the killer and Paul the cop-hating witness both decided not to talk about it, and whether the world would ever have known of their existence and involvement in the case.

In some ways, I find PC Mizen the more interesting character in your novel approach to making a comic book super villain out of a man who saw a woman lying in the street and went to find a policeman.

Do you feel in any way sorry that this hard-working husband and father could have been totally innocent? You know he can never be proved guilty, so do you keep going because you are equally confident he can never be proved innocent and you therefore see him as 'fair game'?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

So a bit thick, a bit lazy, a bit incompetent or a bit too quick to cover his own back?

Either way, Mizen looses and becomes the fall guy.

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.

But whatever happened to the possibility that he started to doubt that he had heard Lechmere correct? Where do you sort that in? Under thick, lazy, incompetent or lying to cover his back?

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?

You see, Caz (well, to be fair, I fear that you donīt see much at all, but anyway...) just as you say, if Mizen was dead certain that he had been told about the extra PC, he would reasonably have made a fuss about it. We have no record of such a mess, or of any ensuing investigation into Lechmere. So the possibility that Mizen became doubtful of what he had heard - which would be very natural, given that Lechmere was correct on the point that there WAS no other PC in Bucks Row as he left - must remain the perhaps likeliest development.

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 you somehow are trying to argue that such a thing would undermine the Mizen scam, which is beyond ridiculous.

The scam never was about whether Mizen was doubtful or not. It was - and is - about whether Lechmere LIED or not.

Should not be all that hard hard to grasp, should it?

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

[Fisherman]

Ooh, ooh, please sir, can I tackle this one? If Mizen - as your only witness - even entertains the slightest doubt about his own powers of hearing, interpretation or recollection, the Mizen Scam becomes dust in your hand. Not "almost" certainly - certainly certainly.

It can only survive with Mizen knowing that Cross said he was wanted by a policeman, but then being so ineffectual, or so worried about the consequences to himself, that Cross's denial is allowed to stand unchallenged, while Mizen's 'knowledge' dissolves into nothingness.

Your choice.

Love,

Caz
X

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.

It should be perfectly easy to understand.

It is also interesting to note how you are trying to push a point without any realistic possibilities to ever underpin it with facts. No matter how convinced you are personally that it was Mizens level of hearing and understanding that governed whether Lechmere lied or not (I never thought I would hear such a brainless suggestion, but hey - it has happened now), it applies that neither you not I will be able to establish what level of certainty Mizen ascribed to.
Even if he went to his superiors and said "But I am absolutely convinced that the carman said that there was a PC in Bucks Row", we cannot know if they did not tell him "Well, Jonas, since we all know that there WAS no PC there, you MUST be wrong".

And donīt try and give me any but-the_police-would-have-seen-through.the-scam-at-that-stage, since you and the rest of the ripperologists and historians who have studied the case for 125 years plus, did NOT see the potential relevance of Lechmereīs words! So by calling the cops morons, you would add yourself to that tally.

So where has all of this gotten you, in the end?

Nowhere at all, I would suggest. And you are wasting my valuable time banging your head against the wall. Please stop doing that.

[Fisherman]

The attacks on Tabram and Smith were not just 'near the same spot' but almost within spitting distance.

I've walked it enough times to know.

And the genital area of both victims was attacked.

Love,

Caz
X

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

By the bye, since when is not "almost within spitting distance" not "near the same spot"...? Can you explain, Caz? I always thought both expressions hinted at a near proximity.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer

I don`t have the details to hand but Nick Warren`s "Ripperana" found a US magazine published before 1888 that used the term serial killer or murderer

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

Took some time to catch on!

[Fisherman]

caz: As far as I recall, my question above (or rather, three questions in one) has not been put to you before. It certainly has not been answered by you. Entirely your choice to duck any questions you find too tedious or difficult, but I was genuinely interested in your thoughts on Mizen, had Lechmere the killer and Paul the cop-hating witness both decided not to talk about it, and whether the world would ever have known of their existence and involvement in the case.

Okay. Iīll duck then. It IS kind of tedious, like most of the cudda-shudda-wuddas.

In some ways, I find PC Mizen the more interesting character in your novel approach to making a comic book super villain out of a man who saw a woman lying in the street and went to find a policeman.

Super villain? I donīt know about that. He would have had a quick mind and he would be rather resourceful, but then that is about it.
Which are your criteria for super hero-ships, Caz?

Do you feel in any way sorry that this hard-working husband and father could have been totally innocent? You know he can never be proved guilty, so do you keep going because you are equally confident he can never be proved innocent and you therefore see him as 'fair game'?

I actually have reasonable hope that he will be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In a general sense, of course - we are not speaking about YOUR doubts.

I deeply resent the rest of your suggestions for obvious reasons, classless, ugly and unsavoury as they are. I have no inclination to call people killers for the sheer joy of it as you tastelessly seem to predispose.