The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Bitsie]

Does anyone have a theory about the blood/lack of that contradicts Fishermans?

[robhouse]

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?

In my opinion, it is not at all difficult to figure out what happened, either at the inquest, or when Paul and Cross approached Mizen.

Clearly, Cross took the lead in talking to Mizen, while Paul stood by and said very little. Cross told Mizen that they found a woman lying in Buck's Row and that "She looks to me either dead or drunk." Paul then merely added "I think she's dead".

It is no mystery why, in his inquest testimony, Mizen only mentioned Cross speaking to him. It is clearly because Cross did most of the talking, and Paul merely added a brief comment after Cross spoke.

Mizen obviously acknowledged that he was approached by two men, as is reported in numerous accounts:

"The Coroner - There was another man in company with Cross?
The Witness - Yes. I think he was also a carman."
--- Morning Advertiser, Sep 4, 88

It is entirely possible (if not probable, as I believe Stewart is suggesting) that Mizen reported that Cross said "You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman" in order to explain why he continued to knock-up houses after speaking to them.

Where is the great mystery here?

RH

[Fisherman]

Got to answer this one.

Much better for Mizen that only one witness was contradicting him rather than two. He did not want to be proved to be lying. I am sure that he received a right royal dressing down from his supervisors and they would want the matter to pass relatively unnoticed as quickly as possible.

But how would Mizen know that Lechmere and Paul would not corroborate each other on the point of both having spoken to him? Lechmere testified after him, and Paul was not even there.

I find it very far-fetched to Think that Mizen would want to risk getting caught out on this.

I am also slightly amused by how his late colleague is painting him out as a criminal mastermind, deviously planning to lie and try and scheming to only admit that one man spoke to him. I mean, if you find the Lechmere suggestion outrageous, then what shall we say about this...?

As an aside, Andy Griffiths immediate reaction when I brought up the scam and said that some thought that Mizen would have been trying to slip away from his responsibilities (yes, we DID speak of the alternatives, in spite of your misgivings!), was to say that Mizen would have had nothing to fear.

As you realize, I do not agree at all - but thanks for the effort!

The best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

Does anyone have a theory about the blood/lack of that contradicts Fishermans?

What exactly is Fisherman's theory?

[Bridewell]

And again [and I may have missed it] where is the evidence that the dress was up to the hips, all I can recall ever having read is Paul saying that he pulled it down.

My recollection is that it was Robert Paul who referred to pulling the clothing down, but the documentary claimed that it was pulled down by Lechmere to conceal the ghastly deed from Paul.

[Fisherman]

In my opinion, it is not at all difficult to figure out what happened, either at the inquest, or when Paul and Cross approached Mizen.

Clearly, Cross took the lead in talking to Mizen, while Paul stood by and said very little. Cross told Mizen that they found a woman lying in Buck's Row and that "She looks to me either dead or drunk." Paul then merely added "I think she's dead".

It is no mystery why, in his inquest testimony, Mizen only mentioned Cross speaking to him. It is clearly because Cross did most of the talking, and Paul merely added a brief comment after Cross spoke.

Mizen obviously acknowledged that he was approached by two men, as is reported in numerous accounts:

"The Coroner - There was another man in company with Cross?
The Witness - Yes. I think he was also a carman."
--- Morning Advertiser, Sep 4, 88

It is entirely possible (if not probable, as I believe Stewart is suggesting) that Mizen reported that Cross said "You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman" in order to explain why he continued to knock-up houses after speaking to them.

Where is the great mystery here?

RH

I like this explanation a lot more than Stewarts, actually. I think it is by far the best one ( I have given the matter much thought), but it still falls woefully short of the suggestion that Mizen was telling the truth and that just the one man approached him.

If two men had approached and spoken to him, it stands to resaon that he would have said that two men did just that. He was alone in the street, it was in the dead of night, all quiet, and if he had been approached by two men, I believe he would have said so at the inquest.

The wording "in company with" does in no way tell us that Paul ever approached Mizen. It does not establish any distance inbetween Lechmere and Paul, it only tells us that Mizen at some stage made the assumption that the two were tied to each other. That could - and to my mind would - for example have happened as the two came down Baker´s Row.

After that, if we go by the Echo, stating that Mizen spoke of "the other man (Paul), who went down Hanbury Street, we get a scenario where Lechmere took on the role of Communicator, where Paul (who was in a hurry) passed by and continued down Hanbury Street, where Lechmere spent few seconds telling Mizen "Officer, there´s a woman lying flat on her back in Buck´s Row. And there´s a colleague of yours awaiting you there, another PC. He told us to tell you!"

That´s a generous amount of speaking, going by the inquest recordings - but it only took me nine seconds to say it, with no stress (I timed it). At that stage, Paul would have gotten around fifteen yards down Hanbury Street at that stage, and it would have been easy-peasy for Lechmere to catch up with him, ensuring Mizen that his estimation that they were Walking together was correct.

This is totally allowed for by the evidence - the Echo is the only paper to in any shape or form place Paul somewhere, apart from the loosely formed and uninformative "in company" - which, as I said, in no shape or form describes any specific distance.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

My recollection is that it was Robert Paul who referred to pulling the clothing down, but the documentary claimed that it was pulled down by Lechmere to conceal the ghastly deed from Paul.

Both did - When Paul arrived, the clothing was pulled down over the abdominal wounds - obviously we think Lechmere did this.
Then, before they left together, Paul tried to pull the dress further down, but it would only come down to the knees.

So both men pulled - but Lechmere did his pulling before Paul arrived.

The best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

My recollection is that it was Robert Paul who referred to pulling the clothing down, but the documentary claimed that it was pulled down by Lechmere to conceal the ghastly deed from Paul.

G'day Bridewell

Every newspaper account of the inquest has Paul saying it was around the stomach and he (Paul) pulled it down.

But the cheer squad insist it was around the hips.

Then comes the buggy, why then didn't Paul see the abdominal wounds, gee since he also didn't notice the throat cut to the bone I wonder? Oh that's right it was dark.

[Bridewell]

If Lechmere could be shown not to have been standing alone with the body, then Scobie needed to know this. But it can´t.

If you were walking along the street on your own, as Lechmere was, and found a body, Fish, what would you do? Attract the attention of the first person to come along? Draw his or her attention to the body? Decide, between the two of you, what should be done next? Or do something totally different from this?

Lechmere was on his own when he found the body. That's not evidence of guilt or innocence; it just means that he walked to work on his own. I'm sure that, if he had realised he was going to find a body on his way to work, he would have ensured the presence of someone who could corroborate all his story, and not just part of it as Robert Paul did. But then hindsight is a wonderful thing and he didn't know that he was going to be accused of the murder 120 odd years later.

[GUT]

Both did - When Paul arrived, the clothing was pulled down over the abdominal wounds - obviously we think Lechmere did this.
Then, before they left together, Paul tried to pull the dress further down, but it would only come down to the knees.

So both men pulled - but Lechmere did his pulling before Paul arrived.

The best,
Fisherman

Where is the proof that when Paul arrived the clothing was over the abdominal wounds Paul says it was up to the stomach or was he lieing too?

[Bitsie]

What exactly is Fisherman's theory?

Hi Chris,

Well, I'm hardly the best person to explain it but the way I've understood it is that there was no blood on or around Nichols when Paul and Cross/Lechmere examined her together yet minutes later, when the first police officer arrived there was a pool of blood coming from her neck - the theory being that she must have just been killed before Paul and Cross examined her if he blood hadn't yet had time to seep onto the pavement.

[GUT]

Hi Chris,

Well, I'm hardly the best person to explain it but the way I've understood it is that there was no blood on or around Nichols when Paul and Cross/Lechmere examined her together yet minutes later, when the first police officer arrived there was a pool of blood coming from her neck - the theory being that she must have just been killed before Paul and Cross examined her if he blood hadn't yet had time to seep onto the pavement.

G'day Bitsie

Not sure what you mean by blood pool coming from her neck but Dr Llewelyn says there was about a wine glass and a half, not sure how Cross and Paul would have seen this when it was too dark to even see that her throat was cut to the bone.

[Bitsie]

Where is the proof that when Paul arrived the clothing was over the abdominal wounds Paul says it was up to the stomach or was he lieing too?

What are you trying to distract us from with this nitpicking over the lady's dress? I'd love to know

[Bitsie]

G'day Bitsie

Not sure what you mean by blood pool coming from her neck but Dr Llewelyn says there was about a wine glass and a half, not sure how Cross and Paul would have seen this when it was too dark to even see that her throat was cut to the bone.

Ok, interesting, thank you.

[GUT]

Well Bitsie I'm doing what needs to be done picking apart the case thread by thread

Standing over the body - Gone
Name - Gone
Lech pulled down her dress - Gone

You ought to try it some day it's how you dismantle any case.

The blood looks to be on the brink now.