Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Fisherman 9 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Fisherman 26 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by harry 29 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Sam Flynn 38 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Kansas Physician Confirms Howard Report - by Varqm 59 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Fisherman 1 hour and 13 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - (44 posts)
General Discussion: Ripper was several people... - (12 posts)
General Discussion: Eddowes' Shawl - (7 posts)
General Discussion: Jack The Ripper and Venus - (7 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: So what happened to that femur...? - (5 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Kansas Physician Confirms Howard Report - (4 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > General Suspect Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #791  
Old 06-07-2018, 01:35 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert View Post
I would not expect Mizen to say that there was no man in company with Crossmere, since there obviously was.

Now to Hanbury St : of course the two men didn't go down it together. How could they? You see, what actually happened was that Crossmere stood there chatting with Mizen, talking about the weather, and football, and the previous year's Jubilee, and by the time he remembered that he was in a great hurry to get to work on time, Paul had long gone.
Correct, there can be no expecting Mizen to deny that there was a man in company with Cross. Regardless of whether he was one, tree, five or ten yards away.

The rest of your post is the usual Robertic twaddle. Not very true, not very fun and not very much in need of a response. Just more of your jester thing. Bitter, are we?

Last edited by Fisherman : 06-07-2018 at 01:37 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #792  
Old 06-07-2018, 01:39 AM
Robert Robert is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,895
Default

And the Morning Advertiser has Mizen saying that he was approached at what time?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #793  
Old 06-07-2018, 01:42 AM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,874
Default

Fisherman,
I would suggest if Scobie needed a defence,he come to the boards,heed what is being written, and then reply.Now who is the prosecution that built a case against Cross,that helped Scobie arrive at his decision? why yourself of course.

How very curriousl.You say both you and I know that there is no defence.You are completely wrong again.When have I ever given that impression?I am of the opinion there is no cause for suspicion of guilt in the actions of Cross.Are you again leading in the direction where I have to call you a liar.

Here is something else for you and Scobie to ponder.It too was taken from the web. "If the prosecution cannot present evidence supporting each element of a case,defendent must be aquitted"
So what are the elements you use in deciding Cross was the killer of Nichols?
How do they prove guilt? Standing in the road near her body? Not likely as you have already in a post stated that is not evidence of killing.So what else?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #794  
Old 06-07-2018, 01:42 AM
Robert Robert is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,895
Default

Well, Fish, you are bitter, and if you choose to lump me in with the mystical 'we, together,' 'with,' 'in company with' and 'present' then I guess I must be bitter too, though I don't feel it.

Keep checking those dictionaries, Fish.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #795  
Old 06-07-2018, 01:45 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert View Post
And the Morning Advertiser has Mizen saying that he was approached at what time?
All papers have mistakes, Robert. It has a superficial bearing on matters on the whole, since we must realize that they can be wrong and thus we should not invest too much in them unless we have many practically corroborating sources.

However, in this case, all we have is a number of reports where we can see that all the talk about the two carmen being "in company" derives from the question Baxter asked Mizen.

The exact phrasing of Baxters question is impossible to establish.

It therefore applies that Mizen may have answered yes only to the question whether Lechmere was trekking alone or not.

That is all we can say. To try and take it further the way you try to, you must start to pick and choose between the reports, all the while opting for versions that support your take and accepting to use somebody who was never in Bucks Row as the primary source for that choice.

Good luck with that, Robert.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #796  
Old 06-07-2018, 01:48 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert View Post
Well, Fish, you are bitter, and if you choose to lump me in with the mystical 'we, together,' 'with,' 'in company with' and 'present' then I guess I must be bitter too, though I don't feel it.

Keep checking those dictionaries, Fish.
I don´t have to. I have already taken your argument apart, and the errand has come to an end. It cannot in any shape or form be decided that Paul was within earshot of Lechmere as the latter spoke to Mizen.

Which, incidentally, is what I have suggested all along.

It actually offers me a possibility to quote Hans Rosling from that clip I posted earlier:

I am right and you are wrong and there can be no discussion about that.

Mind you, that does not mean that Paul WAS out of earshot, but it does mean that it cannot be excluded that he was.

Last edited by Fisherman : 06-07-2018 at 01:54 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #797  
Old 06-07-2018, 01:51 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
Fisherman,
I would suggest if Scobie needed a defence,he come to the boards,heed what is being written, and then reply.Now who is the prosecution that built a case against Cross,that helped Scobie arrive at his decision? why yourself of course.

How very curriousl.You say both you and I know that there is no defence.You are completely wrong again.When have I ever given that impression?I am of the opinion there is no cause for suspicion of guilt in the actions of Cross.Are you again leading in the direction where I have to call you a liar.

Here is something else for you and Scobie to ponder.It too was taken from the web. "If the prosecution cannot present evidence supporting each element of a case,defendent must be aquitted"
So what are the elements you use in deciding Cross was the killer of Nichols?
How do they prove guilt? Standing in the road near her body? Not likely as you have already in a post stated that is not evidence of killing.So what else?
Yes, Scobie would face a defence if he took the case to trial.

No, there is no defence as it is - meaning that we cannot prove that Lechmere was innocent of any of the Ripper murders.

Back then, there may well have been evidence to clear the carman, and if there was, then he was not the Ripper.

The gist of the matter lies elsewhere, though: Scobie saw a useful and practically working case good enough to warrant a trial.

Once more, which other suspect warrants a trial? And on what evidence?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #798  
Old 06-07-2018, 01:53 AM
FrankO FrankO is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 830
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Looked this up. Yes, more than one source has the information. Two do, as far as I can see, both evening newspapers:

Echo: 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.

Star: Cross, when he spoke to witness about the affair, was accompanied by another man. Both went down Hanbury-street.

In the Echo version, we can see that Mizen WAS of the meaning that the two appeared to be co-workers.

We can also see that the Echo has Paul going down Hanbury Street, while the Star have them both going down the street - but not necessarily together!

So this is it, and we may very well have the same original source for the reports, since they both follow the same schedule.
You forgot the Times, Christer: "When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street.

The best,
Frank
__________________
"You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #799  
Old 06-07-2018, 01:57 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankO View Post
You forgot the Times, Christer: "When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street.

The best,
Frank
Thanks, Frank, missed that one - but it is the same wording more or less exactly.

How do you feel about Mizens options? Was he likely to answer "no" to Baxters question? Regardless if they were one, three, five or ten yards apart?

And how do you feel about what I am saying about the Morning Advertiser? Surely, it leaves the door wide open for Paul having been out of earshot?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #800  
Old 06-07-2018, 01:57 AM
Robert Robert is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,895
Default

Now to the double Mizen scam : if Paul was party to the scam, why would he stand a good distance away while Crossmere lied to Mizen? Was it perhaps to make sure that he couldn't be accused of being implicated in the scam? If so, then it's odd that in his Press interview Paul goes out of his way to place himself at the centre of things.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.