The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Fisherman]

I thought that too Rob, but I didn't want to kick a man when he's down. I've always had a sneaking liking for 'Fisherman'.

If you are looking for somebody to kick when heīs down, I am not who you are searching for.

The best,
Fisherman

[Stewart P Evans]

Complex Argument

Stewart P Evans:
I have no doubt that he was told in his brief that Cross had lied at the inquest, and not that the likelihood was that it was Mizen who was misleading in his evidence.

I have very grave doubts about that, however! Whatever information Edward may have provided will have been along the lines of pointing out that there was a major disagreement over the facts at the inquest. That is how he normally words it.
...
Fisherman

In a complex argument such as this it is not good enough to simply state that 'there was a major disagreement over the facts at the inquest.' The nature and details of the 'disagreement' should be given and both arguments presented in full. There is no other way that a balanced opinion can result.

[Fisherman]

As if I should have thought that you could be such a cad. There was no such implication being made, it merely being implied that a man previously of assumed good character was now being painted as a serial killer on no solid grounds. As far as I'm aware your colleague has a friend who is in some way related to Lechmere.

Yes, but that will not clear him - he AND she regarded "Cross" as a probable killer BEFORE the name Lechmere surfaced.

As for the grounds, they were solid enough to impress James Scobie and Andy Griffiths very much. And I can live with that. I can also live with Ripperologists not being able to recognize this. Apparently blood presure and stomach juices will run amok in such a case, and we canīt have that, can we?

If the views of Scobie and Griffiths could be dismantled and leave only ten per cent to vote by, Lechmere would nevertheless be the best of the bunch. If tehy cannot be dismantled - and it hasnīt happened yet - Lechmere is not ahead of the others: he is already sipping umbrella drinks in Brazil, celebrating his victory while the others are still trying to tie their shoelaces.

Im off for now, since the old "ah, but you are so wrong but I wonīt tell you why" tune has started to play again.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

In a complex argument such as this it is not good enough to simply state that 'there was a major disagreement over the facts at the inquest.' The nature and details of the 'disagreement' should be given and both arguments presented in full. There is no other way that a balanced opinion can result.

Latst effort: who says it wasnīt presented? Oh, sorry, I know now: you do. And of course, you were there when the case was presented?

The best,
Fisherman

[Stewart P Evans]

Experience

...
...
And as you may have seen, the likelihood that Mizen was misleading is not a large one. He was given a very good grade, he seemingly lived a very useful and productive life, he was a deeply religious man - and all of his actions after meeting Lechmere are in accordance with having been lied to.[/I]
...
Fisherman

It is my experience that a person's grade, a 'seeming very useful and productive life' and a person's religion often bear no resemblance to the wrongful actions they get caught out for. Indeed, I once arrested a priest.

[Stewart P Evans]

Then...

Latst effort: who says it wasnīt presented? Oh, sorry, I know now: you do. And of course, you were there when the case was presented?
The best,
Fisherman

Then do tell us exactly what was presented.

[tji]

Hi Obs

Your expertise in all manner of subjects is awe inspiring. You're a genuine one off. DNA, The Law, you take everything in your stride. Awesome!

Chris was taken to task questioning the DNA results also.......look who turned out to be right.

Tracy

[Fisherman]

Then do tell us exactly what was presented.

Before I go: I cannot tell you, and I would not want to suggest that I could. I was as absent as you were.

The best,
Fisherman

[Observer]

Hi Obs



Chris was taken to task questioning the DNA results also.......look who turned out to be right.

Tracy

Yes, that appears to be the case, sort of. As I said, Awesome!

[Stewart P Evans]

Statements

...
As I have already said, the actions of Mizen after the encounter tells the story. And if that does not suffice to sway you, hereīs another question:
Why does Mizen not acknowledge that TWO carmen spoke to him? Why is there that discrepancy inbetween what Mizen and Lechmere said? More specifically, can you identify a potential gain for either part by telling a differing story?
...
Fisherman

'Why does Mizen not acknowledge that TWO Carmen spoke to him?'

That the two Carmen met Mizen together is not in doubt. '...Cross called his attention to the woman, but being dark they did not notice any blood, and passed on with the intention of informing the first constable they met, and arriving at the corner of Hanbury St. and Old Montague St. they met P.C. 55H Mizen and acquainted him of what they had seen...' - Inspector Frederick G. Abberline MEPO 3/140, ff 242-243, Wednesday 19 September 1888.

In Mizen's testimony it states 'When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street.'

In the evidence of Cross as given in the Illustrated Police News, 'Witness and the other man left the woman, and in Baker's-row they saw police constable Mizen. They told him that a woman was lying in Buck's-row, witness adding, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk." The other man [Robert Paul] observed, "I think she's dead." The policeman replied, "All right."

From the evidence of Robert Paul, 'Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montague-street, and told him what they had seen.

[Stewart P Evans]

Word

...
...
Regardless if Lechmere was the killer or not, did Mizen in any way stand to gain from not telling the inquest that both men spoke to him?
Itīs all in the details, as far as Iīm concerned.
The best,
Fisherman

Of course he did. As it stood at that early stage, 3 September, it would be his word against Cross's as to the exact wording. At this time Paul was not appearing as a witness and did not, indeed, until 17 September.

Mizen was in quite a spot. There had been newspaper allegations two days before about his lack of immediate response in attending a woman lying in the road possibly dead and he had failed to note who his informant were. You display a distinct lack of appreciating how police officers worked and what their responsibilities were. He could have received a charge of neglect of duty had the matter been taken further. As it was it appeared that the police did not want to give the press any more ammunition and the matter finally 'went away' without further action.

[Fisherman]

'Why does Mizen not acknowledge that TWO Carmen spoke to him?'

That the two Carmen met Mizen together is not in doubt. '...Cross called his attention to the woman, but being dark they did not notice any blood, and passed on with the intention of informing the first constable they met, and arriving at the corner of Hanbury St. and Old Montague St. they met P.C. 55H Mizen and acquainted him of what they had seen...' - Inspector Frederick G. Abberline MEPO 3/140, ff 242-243, Wednesday 19 September 1888.

In Mizen's testimony it states 'When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street.'

In the evidence of Cross as given in the Illustrated Police News, 'Witness and the other man left the woman, and in Baker's-row they saw police constable Mizen. They told him that a woman was lying in Buck's-row, witness adding, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk." The other man [Robert Paul] observed, "I think she's dead." The policeman replied, "All right."

From the evidence of Robert Paul, 'Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montague-street, and told him what they had seen.

Yes, Stewart (if I may?), I know all of this. I have seen it a zillion times and most of it, I know by heart.

But my question was why MIZEN did not say that two men had spoken to him. Lechmere claims that this was so at the inquest, but Mizen says that he was approached and spoken to by a man, not two men.

Please observe that Pauls statement that "they" told him what they had seen, is not any evidence that Paul spoke to Mizen. They refers to a number, in this case two. The entity of two persons spoke to Mizen thus.
I have just had a long discussion with Robert about this on the other site, giving many examples of this lingustic construction; if, say, five men go to see a buddy who celebrated his birthday, and one of the five say "We love you, buddy", then it applies that all five man afterwards can say that "they" told thier buddy that they loved him. When the five men return home and are asked by their viwes "Did you tell him that you love him?", they can all truthfully answer "Yes WE did".

I suspect that the former total blindness to see the Mizen scam to some extent lies in peoples failure to see the linguistic connotations.

But regardless of this explanation, it neverthless still applies that Mizen never says "there were these two men sho spoke to me" or "two man came up to me" or "these two carmen informed me". He consistently speaks of just the one man bringing over the message, and what I asked from you is why he would not admit that they were two men speaking to him? What - if anything - did he stand to gain from that? And what did Lechmere stand to gain from disinforming the inquest about it?

You will find that one man has nothing at all to gain, whereas the other manīs life may hang on it.

Now I really must go. But please donīt quote anything more, and opt for the question I put to you instead!

All the best,
Fisherman
still standing

[Stewart P Evans]

Not looking

If you are looking for somebody to kick when heīs down, I am not who you are searching for.
The best,
Fisherman

I'm not looking for anyone to kick while they are down, I didn't even indicate that.

[Robert]

Stewart, from personal experience I can inform you that you are about to be sucked into a linguistic discussion. Good luck!

[Fisherman]

Of course he did. As it stood at that early stage, 3 September, it would be his word against Cross's as to the exact wording. At this time Paul was not appearing as a witness and did not, indeed, until 17 September.

Mizen was in quite a spot. There had been newspaper allegations two days before about his lack of immediate response in attending a woman lying in the road possibly dead and he had failed to note who his informant were. You display a distinct lack of appreciating how police officers worked and what their responsibilities were. He could have received a charge of neglect of duty had the matter been taken further. As it was it appeared that the police did not want to give the press any more ammunition and the matter finally 'went away' without further action.

I see that you have - not - already answered my question. Precisely why would Mizen gain from not acknowledging that BOTH Lechmere and Paul had spoken to him?
No matter if he could have been subjected to allegations of neglect, how would acknowledging that both men spoke to him worsen things?

The best
Fisherman