Lechmere Continuation Thread

[David Orsam]

The British justice system is based on the idea that someone is innocent until proven guilty. but advocates of Cross the Ripper presume Cross guilty until proven innocent and make mountains out of molehills. Cross used a name that could easily be traced back to him. Big deal it indicates nothing.

That may be true about advocates of Cross as the Ripper, John, but why have you felt the need to make such a point in middle of this current debate which is simply about whether there is any suspicion attaching to anything that Cross did?

[Fisherman]

Gentlemen, I really should visit Hallands Väderö more often.

Coming back, I find how David throws out the simple thruth that on the surface of things, Lechmere seems to have lied to Mizen - and he is immediately attacked from all directions by people who cannot see the simple truth of what he is saying.

He qualifies hios statement by saying - a thousand times - that he is NOT saying that Lechmere DID lie to Mizen, nor that he would himself in any way believe that the carman is more probable to have lied than not.

Does it help? No. He has combined the two words "Lechmere" and "lied" and that is something that one must not do out here, no matter what.

Posters flaunt their ignorance by stating "A dead or dying woman (as Nichols was) would constitute an emergency. Mizen knew only that she was drunk or dead", without taking any notice about the fact that Mizen never said that he was informed about how the woman could be dead. Consequently, if Mizen was truthful, he was NEVER told that the woman could be an emergency at all.
So EXTREMELY basic. And so totally impossible to swallow.

Read the inquest reports before commenting on the errand, and form a durable ground to stand on.

And for Gods sake, David, learn from your mistake! Never, EVER, use the two words "Lechmere" and "lied" in the same sentence, for it will bring down the wrath of the selfproclaimed rigtheous (but rather daft) guardians of the carman upon your head.
You are not wrong, of course - and you really cannot be wrong on this errand, the way you worded it - but be kind to yourself and avoid upphill struggles like these. They will only make people think you are a closet Lechmerian, and you will begin to significantly use up whatever trust you have built.

Welcome to my world, David. Pretty, ainīt it?

[Pierre]

Gentlemen, I really should visit Hallands Väderö more often.

Coming back, I find how David throws out the simple thruth that on the surface of things, Lechmere seems to have lied to Mizen - and he is immediately attacked from all directions by people who cannot see the simple truth of what he is saying.

He qualifies hios statement by saying - a thousand times - that he is NOT saying that Lechmere DID lie to Mizen, nor that he would himself in any way believe that the carman is more probable to have lied than not.

Does it help? No. He has combined the two words "Lechmere" and "lied" and that is something that one must not do out here, no matter what.

Posters flaunt their ignorance by stating "A dead or dying woman (as Nichols was) would constitute an emergency. Mizen knew only that she was drunk or dead", without taking any notice about the fact that Mizen never said that he was informed about how the woman could be dead. Consequently, if Mizen was truthful, he was NEVER told that the woman could be an emergency at all.
So EXTREMELY basic. And so totally impossible to swallow.

Read the inquest reports before commenting on the errand, and form a durable ground to stand on.

And for Gods sake, David, learn from your mistake! Never, EVER, use the two words "Lechmere" and "lied" in the same sentence, for it will bring down the wrath of the selfproclaimed rigtheous (but rather daft) guardians of the carman upon your head.
You are not wrong, of course - and you really cannot be wrong on this errand, the way you worded it - but be kind to yourself and avoid upphill struggles like these. They will only make people think you are a closet Lechmerian, and you will begin to significantly use up whatever trust you have built.

Welcome to my world, David. Pretty, ainīt it?

The problematic word here is "intentionality".

[Pierre]

It seems obvious that there is dissonance. Mizen gives one account, Cross another. Both cannot be true.

Which leaves us with several permutations of what happened.

1: Cross lied. A petty meaningless lie, but he lied.
2: Cross misspoke. No malice intended, the words just came out wrong.
3: Cross told the truth

Or
1: Mizen lied. No reason for him to, and certainly not about that of all things, but he did it anyway.
2: Mizen misremembered. He generally recalls being needed in a certain place, he shows up to find another cop there, he rewrites the dialogue in his head to reflect that, like we all do from time to time. Totally understandable given the circumstances.
3: Mizen told the truth

And then when asked about it on the stand,
1: Cross lied again about what he said
2: Cross had no memory of saying what he said, and since he didn't remember seeing a cop, can't think why he would have said such a thing
3: Cross told the truth
or
1: Mizen lied about what was said to him
2: Mizen sincerely remembers Cross saying something that Cross really didn't say.
3: Mizen told the truth

Or both men both lied a little and got it wrong a little.

Does that seem to sum it up?

Both could have been truthful.

[harry]

I agree with you absolutely John.
It is what every defence of Cross should have.It is what he is entitled to.
A belief of innocence is what a defence would have shown,had a prima facia case been acted on, We have been told there was a prima facia case,should anyone state I am making that up too,and before a prima facia case,there must be a police charge.There was nothing, which proves what?.In my opinion a complete show of police trust in the evidence Cross gave.
Of course today,anything that might seem to implicate Cross is eagerly seized upon,there is so little to choose from.Here it is the words(unsupported by evidence) of a P.C. Plod,15 years in the force and still a constable.Might seem a little hard on Mizen,but it is a fact. Then there is my lack of English expression.Seems to annoy at least one poster,but why it should have any impact on events of 1888 is a mystery to me.As is the fact, the poster responds to something he cannot fathom.Strange!

[Columbo]

Gentlemen, I really should visit Hallands Väderö more often.

Coming back, I find how David throws out the simple thruth that on the surface of things, Lechmere seems to have lied to Mizen - and he is immediately attacked from all directions by people who cannot see the simple truth of what he is saying.

He qualifies hios statement by saying - a thousand times - that he is NOT saying that Lechmere DID lie to Mizen, nor that he would himself in any way believe that the carman is more probable to have lied than not.

Does it help? No. He has combined the two words "Lechmere" and "lied" and that is something that one must not do out here, no matter what.

Posters flaunt their ignorance by stating "A dead or dying woman (as Nichols was) would constitute an emergency. Mizen knew only that she was drunk or dead", without taking any notice about the fact that Mizen never said that he was informed about how the woman could be dead. Consequently, if Mizen was truthful, he was NEVER told that the woman could be an emergency at all.
So EXTREMELY basic. And so totally impossible to swallow.

Read the inquest reports before commenting on the errand, and form a durable ground to stand on.

And for Gods sake, David, learn from your mistake! Never, EVER, use the two words "Lechmere" and "lied" in the same sentence, for it will bring down the wrath of the selfproclaimed rigtheous (but rather daft) guardians of the carman upon your head.
You are not wrong, of course - and you really cannot be wrong on this errand, the way you worded it - but be kind to yourself and avoid upphill struggles like these. They will only make people think you are a closet Lechmerian, and you will begin to significantly use up whatever trust you have built.

Welcome to my world, David. Pretty, ainīt it?

Glad your back! I looked up the islands. Beautiful place.

Columbo

[John Wheat]

That may be true about advocates of Cross as the Ripper, John, but why have you felt the need to make such a point in middle of this current debate which is simply about whether there is any suspicion attaching to anything that Cross did?

To David

Because it's relevant. I don't see anything particularly suspicious about anything Cross did.

Cheers John

[drstrange169]

Hello John,

I hope that little outburst made you feel better, now could we get back to the actual debate?


>> However, you are seemingly so lacking in objectivity you even challenge this basic fact: if Mizen didn't have an impeccable record then he must have been subject to disciplinary action …<<

I guess I must be lacking objectivity.

Impeccable: from the Latin, meaning without sin. OED – of the highest standards.

What evidence suggests Mizen surpassed his fellow police colleagues of mere good record to be accorded the accolade” impeccable”?

If no record of wrongdoing defines “impeccable” should Xmere also be awarded the adjective?

David mentioned two citations Mizen got for capturing criminals, does this make him impeccable?

Sgt Thick received, according to Lloyds Weekly, 121 such citations, does this mean he was “without sin” or was of “the highest standards?


>>And, just in case you're still struggling with the basic argument, let me provide you with an analogy. William Wallace …<<

I’m definitely struggling with your analogy. Could you explain how this in any way relates to the PC Mizen or is it in some way related to Xmere?


>> Nor does the evidence of Paul, such as it is, support your attempts to denigrate an officer with an impeccable record.<<

He’s what I said about Mizen’s testimony concerning the extra policeman,
“… a perfectly understandable mistake …”

Could you explain how that is “attempts to denigrate”?

What I am questioning, amongst other things is your use of the word “impeccable”. As I see it as an attempt at deliberate bias on your part when you put it in context against Xmere.


>> Finally, may I respectfully offer this piece of advice.<<

You haven’t shown any degree of respect thus far, so I’m assuming you don’t mean what you’re writing.


>> Before you seek to patronize another poster with nonesense such as, "if we take the drama out of your post" …<<

Caligo Umbarator posted a polite and reasoned post (#544) to which you replied using some of the following terms,

"Are you seriously suggesting that PC Mizen was so stupid …"
"… assuming it was an outrageous lie?"
"… frankly, that's absurd."
"Or perhaps you're implying that Mizen was so incompetent that he completely forgot what was told to him and just decided to make up a story!"
"Are you seriously suggesting …"
"… any failure to respond immediately was not a serious dereliction of duty?"
"And if your not suggesting that's what happened, what exactly are you suggesting?"
"… then I'm afraid I cannot help you."

I don’t know you, so perhaps in your world, that is not considered “being dramatic”, but to the rest of us it's an over the top response to Caligo's post.

My point in post #567 remains, “... if we take the drama out of your post and look at the actual information available ...”

It is interesting between all the insults you haven’t actually addressed any of the points raised.

[Fisherman]

Since there seems to be a lot of confusion going on, I may as well reiterate what I have said before about the differences inbetween what Lechmere said and what Mizen said. There are three major issues where the two differ.
1. Mizen says that he was told that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row, whereas Lechmere denies that such a thing was stated.
2. Mizen says that he was told that there was a woman lying flat on her back in Bucks Row, whereas Lechmere claims that Mizen was told that she could be drunk or dead, but his own best guess was that the woman was dead.
3. Mizen says that "a man" came up and spoke to him in the junction of Hanbury Street and Bakers Row, whereas Lechmere claims that both he and Robert Paul spoke to the PC.

These three points are troublesome for the carman, and they must be a fair ground for suspicion against him. Together, they form a logical pattern of action on the carmans behalf if he was the killer.
In case 1, it would have been of immense importance to Lechmere to be able to pass by the police instead of being taken back to the murder site as the discoverer of the body.
In case 2, it would have been vital to the carmans chances of being able to pass by the police that the severity of the errand was played down.
In case 3, the carman stood to gain a lot if he could convince the inquest that both himself and Paul had spoken to, or been within earshot of, PC Mizen, since that would have spoken in favour of the carman not having lied to the constable.

These three points all represent lies to my mind. When discussing them, it deserves mentioning that Jonas Mizen would have known from the outset that he stood the risk of being outnumbered by the carmen when the errand was discussed, provided that both carmen came forward. Consequently, if Mizen claimed at the inquest that he had been told that there was another PC in Bucks Row, and that he had not been told about the severity of the errand and that he had been spoken to by one man only (which was more or less exactly what he DID say at the inquest), then the combination of Lechmere and Paul would be able to disclose him as a liar if he was not telling the truth about the three points.
That in itself serves as a useful indication that the PC was indeed truthful. Why would he run the risk of being exposed as a liar? To conceal that he had been lacking in his duties on the murder night? Nope - since he was never such a thing at all, and consequently, he suffered no criticism at all at the inquest.
Another indication of who was the liar lies in how Mizen does not seem to have come forward to correct Neil about having been the first man to find the body. It would seem that Mizen thought that this was true. But how could he do that, if the carman had told how HE was the finder? Maybe because the carman never did tell him that - but instead said that there was a PC in place in Bucks Row, a man who Mizen understandably came to identify with Neil the moment he met him by the body?

The odds are therefore heavily stacked against the carman, regardless of the fact that we cannot conclusively prove that he lied at the inquest.

[drstrange169]

The general points you make cannot be ruled out. But to suggest that the odds are heavily stacked against Xmere is to ignore the other perfectly valid alternatives.

>>In case 1, it would have been of immense importance to Lechmere to be able to pass by the police instead of being taken back to the murder site as the discoverer of the body.<<

True, IF he was the killer and IF he still had the knife on him.

There are however numerous variations that are equally applicable if he was innocent. If we, for the sake of argument, just take two;

Xmere considered getting to work more important than getting involved.

Xmere thought that he had passed on all the information that he considered relevant to the situation as he saw it.

With these two alone the “odds” are already two to one in favour of Xmere’s innocence.


>>In Case2<<

Case two is exactly the same as case one.


>> In case 3, the carman stood to gain a lot if he could convince the inquest that both himself and Paul had spoken to, or been within earshot of, PC Mizen, since that would have spoken in favour of the carman not having lied to the constable.<<

If Paul was with Xmere when he spoke to Mizen, and there is no evidence that directly disputes it, then that’s a point in Xmere’s favour.

If Xmere committed the murder, spoke to Mizen out of earshot of Paul and lied to the inquest, he ran a significate risk of being caught, as he would have no way of knowing if Paul would appear at the inquest and call him a liar.

If Xmere committed the murder and spoke to Mizen out of earshot of Paul, he lied knowing that Mizen would call him a liar.


With those three explanations alone, the odds are three to one in favour of Xmere being truthful.

These explanations are off the top of my head I’m sure others could come up with more, so in fact, the odds are distinctly in favour of Xmere being innocent.

That doesn’t prove he is innocent, but it definitely doesn’t prove he is guilty or increase the odds of him being guilty.

[harry]

Cross does appear to have convinced the inquest he was no liar.Even had he not known that perjury,a serious crime, could be levelled at him,it was the duty of the coroner,if that person felt Cross was lying,to caution Cross of the consequencies.No such thing happened.(Maxwell was cautioned).Ditto for the police,they would have needed to caution Cross,if they suspected him of lying.
No such thing happened.He was never suspect either of murder or lying.
It is only persons today,who must feel they are superior to the policemen of 1888,who insist Cross must be suspect,of both murder and lying. Such arrogance.

[Fisherman]

The general points you make cannot be ruled out. But to suggest that the odds are heavily stacked against Xmere is to ignore the other perfectly valid alternatives.

Itīs a game of likelihoods, viabilities, probabilities. There will always be disagreements, of course. I will comment on your post in order to show what I am talking about.

>>In case 1, it would have been of immense importance to Lechmere to be able to pass by the police instead of being taken back to the murder site as the discoverer of the body.<<

True, IF he was the killer and IF he still had the knife on him.

There are however numerous variations that are equally applicable if he was innocent. If we, for the sake of argument, just take two;

Xmere considered getting to work more important than getting involved.

Xmere thought that he had passed on all the information that he considered relevant to the situation as he saw it.

With these two alone the “odds” are already two to one in favour of Xmere’s innocence.

If it was that easy, you would win every argument. There can always be levelled more than one suggestion of innocence but only one of guilt. It is therefore the QUALITY of the argument that rules the day, not the number of conjured-up innocent explanations.
In this case, the idea that Lechmere wanted to get to work with not disturbance is not a very good one - it would involve great risk. If he lied about the extra PC and Mizen found out that it was a lie, then he would have out himself at peril.
Your other suggestion does not take into account the part about the extra PC, does it?


>>In Case2<<

Case two is exactly the same as case one.

No, it is not. It is a separate issue, so I can only reason that you are offering the same innocent alternatives. Which is another thing.
As for the second alternative, that Lechmere thought that he had offered sufficient information, it is up to everyone to try and establish whether the suggestion is a good one or not. On the surface of things, it perhaps sounds reasonable - but I think you are forgetting about Mizen. If he was told that there was a possibly (or even probably) dead woman lying in Bucks Row, then he should have taken a profession interest in who found her. So if Lechmere was not clear on the point, I am suggestion that Mizen would have asked him to be so.
My contention is that the carman never left the question open - he said that there was another PC in place, leding on that this PC was the finder.

So, as you see, it is all about the QUALITY of the suggestions we make. And not about the number of them. I could suggest that Mizen misheard, that Mizen lied, that Lechmere spoke sloppily, that Lechmere wanted to get to work, that Mizen liked to con PC:s for the hell of it, that Lechmere made a bet with Paul etcetera, etcetera, and all of these suggestions would be possible - but they would to my mind not be as viable as the suggestion that he lied.


>> In case 3, the carman stood to gain a lot if he could convince the inquest that both himself and Paul had spoken to, or been within earshot of, PC Mizen, since that would have spoken in favour of the carman not having lied to the constable.<<

If Paul was with Xmere when he spoke to Mizen, and there is no evidence that directly disputes it, then that’s a point in Xmere’s favour.

There is evidence that directly disputes it. The Star wrote that Mizen spoke of "The other man (Paul), who went down Hanbury Street".
What there is not is any other distinction that allows us to place Paul at any established distance from the event.
Otherwise, you are of course correct: IF Paul was with Lechmere when he spoke to Mizen, than that is in favour of Lechmere. Your one and only problem is that this has not been established and it would seem it cannot be established either.

If Xmere committed the murder, spoke to Mizen out of earshot of Paul and lied to the inquest, he ran a significate risk of being caught, as he would have no way of knowing if Paul would appear at the inquest and call him a liar.

If he was the killer, then he was also a risktaker. And what was his choice? To say at the inquest "I made sure the other carman could not overhear what I told the PC"?
I donīt think so. Do you?

Letīs say that the Star is correct, and that Paul was not within earshot of the conversation between Mizen and Lechmere. How hard would it be for Lechmere to afterwards say "Oh, so you did not hear that? My impression was that you were there...?"
And then Paul would say "Nah, I was some little way ahead of you, so I heard nothing".
Does that sound like the revealing of a lie to you, or as a very understandable mistake?

If Xmere committed the murder and spoke to Mizen out of earshot of Paul, he lied knowing that Mizen would call him a liar.

You seem very bent on applying the term lie to what would probably be experienced as a misunderstanding. It was only if the issue was rehashed and scrutinized that the term lie would enter the issue. Mizen had his say, and he said that "a man" spoke to him and that there was another man present at the scene, but that this other man went down Hanbury Street. He may well have accepted that both men arrived with the intention to tell him about Nichols, and so it would not be a hard pill to swallow if Lechmere said that he and Paul informed Mizen.



With those three explanations alone, the odds are three to one in favour of Xmere being truthful.

I am sorry, but I am never going to be able to produce more than one suggestion of guilt, so this whe game of "I have twentythree innocent explanations and you only have one guilty explanation, so I win!" is completely moot.
Give it some afterthought, and I am sure you will see what I mean. It should hopefully elevate the discussion somewhat when (if) you do! Accusing somebody of serial murder is to walk on the edge of a knifeblade. It is a very thin and demanding pathway to walk. Conjuring up alternative innocent explanations is to use the rest of the space in the room, all of it but the sharp knifeīs edge.
It is infinitely easier, and allows for just about anything. As you are showing us all right now.

These explanations are off the top of my head I’m sure others could come up with more, so in fact, the odds are distinctly in favour of Xmere being innocent.

There was just the one accusation against Ridgway, Dahmer, Sutcliffe - and anybody with an active brain cell could think up ten innocent alternative explanations for each man. Ridgway could have enjoyed the scenery of the Green River, he could have been a peeping Tom, he could have had a doppelganger, he could...

The suggestion of guilt will always be unchangeably just the one - he did it. I am content with that, though, and I would not swop it for your plethora of alternative innocent explanations, since - as I said - quality should govern our thinking, not quantity.

That doesn’t prove he is innocent, but it definitely doesn’t prove he is guilty or increase the odds of him being guilty.

Mizen apparently readily accepted Neils claim to be the finder, in spite of how he must have known that it was not correct - UNLESS he had been lied to about that extra PC.

That dramatically changes the odds for guilt.

Mizen would have known that if he lied, Paul would potentially be able to point him out as a liar.

That has the same effect on the odds. They remain heavily stacked against the carman. He is significantly more likely to be guilty than innocent on this score.

[Fisherman]

harry: Cross does appear to have convinced the inquest he was no liar.

I donīt think we can word it like that - it makes it sound as if the question was up on the table, and it was not, quite apparently.
Nevertheless, I would quite agree that the carman would not have come across as a liar or a dishonest person. When he was asked by a juror if he had really told Mizen about an extra PC, his answer in the negative seems to have satisfied the inquest. And Dew remembered him as a typical East-Ender, rough around the corners but not giving any dishonest impression as such.
The problem is that very many serial killers have been very accomplished liars and quite able to sway people into thinking that they were innocent. So there is nothing much to be gained by our agreement that Lechmere was not looked upon with suspicion. Furthermore, this was an era of criminal anthropology, and Lechmere was arguably about as far removed from the archetypical criminal as one could get. So saying that if the inquest did not suspect him, then neither should we is - with the utmost respect - a tad silly. There are things that we know about him that they did not know, to begin with, so in many a way we are better equipped to judge whther suspicion should attach to him than they were.

Even had he not known that perjury,a serious crime, could be levelled at him,it was the duty of the coroner,if that person felt Cross was lying,to caution Cross of the consequencies.No such thing happened.(Maxwell was cautioned).Ditto for the police,they would have needed to caution Cross,if they suspected him of lying.

So they did not suspect that, apparently. But as I have said, that is of little use unless we can prove that they had evidence to free Lechmere. If any such evidence ever existed, then it has gone VERY lost. But we may conclude that if there was suspicion enough against him to justify an investigation to clear him, then he would have been known by the name of Lechmere long before the 21:st century...

No such thing happened.He was never suspect either of murder or lying.

No, he was not. And no, that is not equivalent with innocence.

It is only persons today,who must feel they are superior to the policemen of 1888,who insist Cross must be suspect,of both murder and lying. Such arrogance.

Thanks, Harry - one can always rely on you to be decent. Let me counter in the same vein:

It is idiotic to claim that I feel superior to the police of 1888. They would have represented a group of people that held men that were less smart than I am, and people who are as smart as I am, and people who are smarter than I am. Thatīs how it always tends to end up.
If I was transferred to 1888 and given the upbringing and education that was open to these men, I would in all probablity have ended up where they ended up - with no catch.

Can you see what I am saying here? If so, I would advice you not to touch your keyboard before you engage your brain the next time.

We know more about Lechmere today than the investigating force did back then in many a way, and less in others. The point being that we have DIFFERENT information and DIFFERENT angles to work from, coupled with insights abut serialists that were unknown to the Victorians. We may therefore look over the case again and shed new light on it (or bitterly puke over other peopleīs efforts, itīs anybodys choice).

As for arrogance, I think the utmost arrogance that can be traced here is the one working from the assumption that if THEY could not solve it, then WE cannot solve it either - meaning that nobody should come and say to you that they may have advanced further than you have, since that would be utterly ridiculous to suggest.

Thereīs arrogance for you. And thereīs suggesting some sort of superiority.

[David Orsam]

To David

Because it's relevant. I don't see anything particularly suspicious about anything Cross did.

But that wasn't the point you made in your post. You said firstly "The British justice system is based on the idea that someone is innocent until proven guilty". That's got nothing whatsoever to do with suspicion in general - of course you can suspect people of a crime who have not been proven guilty of that crime - nor does it have anything to do with whether Cross did anything suspicious.

Then you said "Cross used a name that could easily be traced back to him. Big deal it indicates nothing." But Lechmere's use of the name Cross is nothing to do with the point under discussion. The point is whether he lied about speaking to a policeman in Bucks Row.

So nothing you said in your post, I'm afraid, was relevant.

[David Orsam]

It is only persons today,who must feel they are superior to the policemen of 1888,who insist Cross must be suspect,of both murder and lying. Such arrogance.

The irony of this statement is unbelievable. You are the one who is saying that a policeman of 1888 gave incorrect evidence in the witness box. Furthermore only a few posts ago you referred to that same officer as 'PC Plod'. So who is really being arrogant?

The fact of the matter is that there is a discrepancy in the evidence of Mizen and Cross. I have no idea if that discrepancy was investigated and/or resolved by the police in 1888. It depends if they regarded that discrepancy as significant. But the discrepancy exists and there is no evidence of any attempt by anyone to resolve it.