Review of Bob Mills article in Ripperologist 170

[Trevor Marriott]

The moronic idea that Lechmere becomes less suspicious the further he is removed from Nichols is a game the naysayers invented. Of course, if he was the killer and wanted to deflect guilt, he woul move AWAY from the body, not stay by it.

I think fleeing the scene would be more apt, and he had ample time to do that, thats of course he was the killer, which we all know he wasnt except you !!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[drstrange169]

>You are welcome to keep posting untrue things and make up stories.<<

That's the thing, they can't be untrue if I'm posting your exact words.

[drstrange169]

>>Of course, if he was the killer and wanted to deflect guilt, he woul move AWAY from the body, not stay by it.<<

Thank you. I'll cut and paste that to all the Lechmerians like Bob who keep spreading the myth, he was standing over the body. Would you like to post that to clark2710 that your TV show was wrong?

[drstrange169]

>>a recognition of how Baxter spoke of Nichols having been found by Lechmere in close proximity to 3.45. <<

Other than Robert Paul, I didn't think anyone has ever disagreed with Baxter.

The three policeman confirm a time of 3:45 so Cross and Paul's discovery must have been "not far" from that time.

[drstrange169]

>>I think fleeing the scene would be more apt, and he had ample time to do that <<

Well it was the killer's M.O. to flee the scene before someone arrived. It's what they did in every case.

[drstrange169]

>>I have already said that I have no access to my computer right now and that I will post the material you claim I dont have when returning back home.<<

So in which post did you lie, this post or post #3695 on the "Evidence of Innocence" thread?

C'mon Christer, the hole you are digging yourself is so deep we are having trouble hearing you.

It's a new year, just make a promise to be honest with us this year. A fresh start and a clean slate.

[Doctored Whatsit]

How about turning the tables and looking at how you rely on how Paul spoke to Mizen; how does that sit with your information about the truthfulness of Paul. I trust Mizen on the matter, but you trust the devious Robert Paul.

Oh, for the shame!

You can trust Mizen if you wish, as it is crucial to your allegation that Lechmere lied to him. However, the evidence that Mizen was trustworthy is dubious to say the least.

I think it is a reasonable assumption to say that as Lechmere admits to being found alone with the body, and Mizen claimed that Lechmere immediately lied to him about the facts, then the most moronic detective on the planet would recognise the need to check Lechmere's story carefully. The police had the chance to question both Lechmere and Paul later to resolve any discrepancies in their stories. We don't have the details of statements taken, and any interviewing officers' reports, but we do have the later findings of Abberline and Swanson.

I think that both Paul and Lechmere must surely have told basically the same story about seeing Mizen and both of them advising him together. Abberline wrote in his report on September 19th that Paul and Cross found PC Mizen "and acquainted him of what they had seen". No reservations expressed there about Cross having lied, or that there was any doubt about the facts. Swanson wrote on 19th October that Cross and Paul, left the body and "they informed PC Mizen". Again, there was not the slightest hint of doubt in his report.

I think that the only way that the most senior police officers could have rejected PC Mizen's claim that Lechmere lied, is if both Paul and Cross reported that they both spoke to Mizen together. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised if that is what must have happened, because Paul is reported to have claimed in Lloyd's Weekly, "I told him what I had seen", then he complained that Mizen continued calling people up, "after I had told him the woman was dead." Lechmere at the inquest also said of the conversation with Mizen, "the other man stated he believed her to be dead." So those statements match perfectly. I have no evidence to suggest that both Abberline and Swanson were clearly morons.

One thing that concerns me about Mizen's claim that Lechmere lied, is when did he first allege this? I am quite uncertain of when he first reported the existence of Paul and Lechmere. He doesn't seem to have told PC Neil that he got the message from the two men he sent for help. Did he make any official report on the morning of the murder that he had seen Paul and Lechmere, who were clearly absolutely crucial witnesses? I don't believe that he did. Neil seemed to know nothing of them. Can anyone identify when Mizen first declared that he had been directed to the murder by those two carmen? Did he say nothing until the newspaper report made it unavoidable? I am quite unsure. I think that a responsible police officer would have reported this at once.

At present, I don't trust Mizen on the matter, and, it seems, neither did Swanson or Abberline. In fact, if you take Swanson's and Abberline's reports as accurate, and why wouldn't you, then they are admitting that their police officer lied on oath at the inquest! They are unlikely to have reached that decision lightly!

[drstrange169]

It's weird that one poster is missing from this thread.

When I wrote my article on Lechmere for Rip. I made myself available to answer all questions/complaints/praise. Why is the author not replying to the errors in his article? He is currently posting on Casebook.