Favorite suspect/s?

[GUT]

Hi Caz

I think you're forgetting that Crossmere had the coolness, resourcefulness and energy of James Bond. When he was faced with the problem of dealing with Paul and Mizen he was stirred but not shaken.

He was the kind of chap who could do a murder before work, beat up the missus after work and not even break into a sweat.

And leap tall buildings, in a single bound.

[caz]

The women were killed along his route/s to work.

Well, one woman was killed on one of Lechmere's routes to work. But then she would, wouldn't she, or he'd never have been the one to find her.

And now it's 'equally' possible that this woman had just finished servicing a punter on this route when Lechmere happened along, instead of having met him on the main road during those missing eleven minutes. So it must be equally possible that it was the punter who killed her, instead of leaving her alive for Lechmere to do the job.

Love,

Caz
X

[FrankO]

But to me, since there is no evidence Paul did say anything about it, it’s mizens word against lech. And Paul is irrelevant anyway. Whether he’s right there with them or halfway down the street.

I wouldn't say Paul's irrelevant, Abby. If Lechmere did tell a lie to Mizen and Paul heard it, Paul could put the police on Lechmere's trail and a guilty Lechmere would know this. So, the best thing for a case against Lechmere would be that Paul was out of earshot.

The best,
Frank

[Abby Normal]

I wouldn't say Paul's irrelevant, Abby. If Lechmere did tell a lie to Mizen and Paul heard it, Paul could put the police on Lechmere's trail and a guilty Lechmere would know this. So, the best thing for a case against Lechmere would be that Paul was out of earshot.

The best,
Frank

Hi frank
I understand all that, but he apparently he didn’t hear it or did but didn’t care.
We don’t know either way.

[Robert]

But Abby, Mizen said that Paul was present during the conversation.

I don't know, but maybe you believe that he heard the start of the conversation but edged away after that. In that case, the first thing Mizen should have done when he heard the word 'dead' would have been to ask for both men's names and addresses. If Crossmere immediately reassured Mizen by saying, "No need - we've already seen a policeman" then Paul would have heard that.

It beggars belief that Crossmere would have stood there exchanging pleasantries with Mizen until Paul was safely out of earshot.

[FrankO]

It could however be illuminating to look at the full text of that particular quote:


By the Coroner - There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness. The other man, who went down Hanbury-street, appeared to be working with Cross.


That can, and I respectfully suggest should be read as:
The Coroner (Baxter) asks Mizen if another person was present when Cross spoke to him.
Mizen replies yes, the other man who went down Hanbury Street with Cross, they appeared to be colleagues.
...
It therefore appears that the idea that they seperated is not supported by the sources.

I agree, Steve. While, if we would very loosely interpret the Echo snippet, we might see Paul walking on along Hanbury Street while Lechmere was talking to Mizen, snippets from the Star of 3 September and the Times of the following day do not concur with this view.

The Star reads: “Cross, when he spoke to witness about the affair, was accompanied by another man. Both went down Hanbury-street. ” And the Times couldn’t be much clearer: “When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street.”

If Paul actually did walk along while Lechmere spoke to Mizen, one might wonder why Mizen would have told this in such an unclear way when he was asked by the coroner if there was a man in company of Lechmere. Why not simply say something like: there was another man with Cross as they turned into Hanbury Street from Baker’s Row, he appeared to be working with Cross, but he continued down Hanbury Street while Cross spoke to me.

If Mizen actually did say words along these lines, the Echo snippet would fit with it, but the Times snippet certainly would not. If, however, Mizen actually did say words in line with the Times snippet, the Echo snippet would still fit, even though it didn’t give the whole picture.

The best,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Michael

I'm not sure if I've got this right, but I think it was OK for officers to knock people up, but they weren't supposed to do it for money.

Since officers obviously couldn't walk around carrying a pole, maybe a row of houses had a pole propped up somewhere out of reach of thieves, but I haven't a clue where.

It was actually considered part of their jobs (but, as you say, they couldnt accept any extra payment for it) Im unsure who i found this out from but i think that it was David Orsam and Neil Bell.

[Robert]

And presumably the time taken doing this was allowed for when the length of the beats and walking speed expected were worked out.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And presumably the time taken doing this was allowed for when the length of the beats and walking speed expected were worked out.

Thats a good point Robert and something id never considered.

Someone must know.......Steve, Gareth?

[Jon Guy]

Earlier on the morning of the Alice McKenzie murder two of the patrolling police officers, Constables Allen and Andrews, stopped to talk briefly when they passed each other near Wentworth Street, and one of them mentioned a man who needed to be knocked up at 5am.
Whether this was a reminder for someone new to the beat, or just small talk I don`t know, but it shows how the job of knocking up certain people at certain times was part of their beat duties.

[jerryd]

PC Pennett had knocked up Jeremiah Hurley in Ellen Court at 5 a.m. in September of 1889. Shortly before 5 a.m, while patrolling his beat, he looked into the arch in Pinchin Street and saw nothing. After waking Hurley and proceeding back on route to Pinchin Street, he discovered the torso about 5:30 a.m.

[Joshua Rogan]

And presumably the time taken doing this was allowed for when the length of the beats and walking speed expected were worked out.

According to Supt. Arnold's report of 22 Oct, the beats in H division, although shorter than some other districts, often had to be lengthened due to insufficient officers available to patrol them all.

[Fisherman]

Priceless! Leave you guys to it for a few days on your own, and you will inevitably start a fiesta, celebrating how you agree about things.

Problem: It does not matter, since the scenario allows for more interpretations than the ones you favour.

You all agree that when it is said that there was another man present as Lehmere spoke to Mizen. it MUST mean that the carmen were closer than Siamese twins, and Paul MUST have heard what was said.

Problem 2: That is simply not correct. We do not know which "present" is referred to, and therefore, the wider versions must be accepted as possibilities: present in the street, present in the crossing.

One of you - was it Gareth, Robert or somebody else? - decided that five yards is the absolute limit, which is rather a funny thing to say. Five yards and an inch? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Five yards? Yes, of course!

If you cannot see how ridiculous that kind of reasoning is, I can do little for you.

Problem 3: The concept Robert had problems to grasp - Lechmere may have persuaded Paul to agree with serving Mizen the scam, with Lechmere assuring him that it was in order to be able to get to work quicker.

Meaning? Meaning that even if we were to accept the outright joke about a five yard limit for when we are present in relation to somebody else (or "with" somebody else), it does not clear away the scam anyway.

So it´s much ado about nothing - as always.

Other inclusions in this brainstorm of yours is Steves "Mizen did not say that Paul did not speak to him, so Paul may have done so".

Why the PC in such a case would have said that "a man", identifying that man as Lechmere, came up to him and spoke, instead of saying "there were these TWO men who spoke to me", is a tad hard to understand.

Even harder to understand is why you try to lesson me about what "present" means - although there is no definition of the word in terms of measurements - and then you have a VERY hard time understanding how "a man" differs from "two men".

That makes you a bunch of hypocrites, I´m afraid.

Then there is the post inferring that Lechmere could never, NEVER, have met Nichols in Whitechapel Road, and taken her to Bucks Row to kill her.

As if that was true.

As if we know who took who were.

The quality of your arguments is apalling, as always.

Lechmere could have spoken to Mizen with Paul out of earshot. You all don´t THINK that he did, but that is what it is - your thinking.

I think otherwise.

And it is only in your weird world I cannot possibly be right, whereas you MUST be. You need to stop patting each other on each others backs and start using your heads instead. Not to pat, but for thinking.

Oh, and Harry, my snippet about Prima Facie cases was from a side about legal matters on the net. You know what? I think that had it right and you have it wrong.

And just as with the rest of the great minds out here, you must also realize that regardless of that, Scobie STILL said that Lechmere would warrant a trial. Who else would? Hutchinson? Kosminski? Druitt? Bury?

Now, back to the real world; I´ll look in on you esteemed thinkers some way further down the line. I could, though, have provided answers for what you are going to say right now - it is no secret, is it?

Thanks to Abby for providing some much needed sense to the... ehh, the... hmmm, the.... well whatever you want to call it.

Caz, Robert, Herlock, Gareth - take heart, you are not alone! You are WITH each other. Meaning no more than exactly five yards from each other at most ...

[Robert]

So Paul was in on it too! No need for him to have been out of earshot, then.

[Sam Flynn]

And just as with the rest of the great minds out here, you must also realize that regardless of that, Scobie STILL said that Lechmere would warrant a trial

What precise information, written or verbal, did Scobie have to work with?