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:
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by Herlock Sholmes 5 hours ago.
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by Elamarna 5 hours ago.
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - by Herlock Sholmes 5 hours ago.
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - by Elamarna 6 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Abby Normal 7 hours ago.
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by Fisherman 8 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - (17 posts)
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (8 posts)
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - (7 posts)
Rippercast: Oh, Dear Boss: The Ripper Had All The Luck - (3 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (2 posts)
General Discussion: Mug Shots from 1908-1911 - (2 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
  #1211  
Old 06-12-2018, 01:57 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,152
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
To question the content of the information provided to Scobie and Griffiths is not implying that they were "lied to", Fish.
No, that all hinges on the phrasing. As long as it is accepted that the two gave their views after NOT having been lied to or intentionally misled, I am fine with things. One can always offer the suggestion that if the defence were allowed to have their say, that could have influenced Griffiths and Scobie.

But I think that we both know that there have been unsavoury accusations of foul play in this matter. And I for one am not willing to let that pass until the accusations are backed up with something more than pure maliciousness and ill will.

Now I am really not interested in going over this old ground again, inflamed as it is.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1212  
Old 06-12-2018, 02:02 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,152
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
More victim mentality. You accused me shedding tears because you were accusing CL of being the ripper you are doing the same on the documentary makers behalf. What is being said is simply that Scobie and Griffiths both appear to have been given a one sided (prosecution) standpoint. A point which you have accepted on this thread.
There is no victim mentality other than in your head and tiresome and repeated propaganda. I am saying that experts should not be implied to have been misled unless there is evidence to prove it. If you disagree, then say so.

As for the tears shed for Lechmere and the implications that I am being disrespectful for researching him, I stand by how it is an utterly ridiculous standpoint. These are Ripper research boards, and the first thing we should expect out here is that suspects will be presented. If you disagree with that, then say so.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1213  
Old 06-12-2018, 04:56 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,043
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
There is no victim mentality other than in your head and tiresome and repeated propaganda. I am saying that experts should not be implied to have been misled unless there is evidence to prove it. If you disagree, then say so.

As for the tears shed for Lechmere and the implications that I am being disrespectful for researching him, I stand by how it is an utterly ridiculous standpoint. These are Ripper research boards, and the first thing we should expect out here is that suspects will be presented. If you disagree with that, then say so.
This is victim mentality piled upon victim mentality. I have not used ‘propaganda’ and I have not stated or implied that either Scobie or Griffiths were misled.

My initial point was about Scobie who appeared to be basing his judgment on a dossier which was basically the case against CL. You pointed out that this was standard practice. My following, and ongoing ‘point’ would be that it’s difficult to understand how, on one hand you accept that Scobie only heard one side of the debate, whilst on the other you keep using his opinion (arrived at by reading a one-sided viewpoint) to show the ‘strength’ of the case against CL.

The point about you accusing CL being the ripper was made in response to points being made and wasn’t meant to be my suggestion that suspects shouldn’t be researched. I was merely suggesting that before we outright accuse someone of being Jack The Ripper (with a high level of confidence) we should at least ensure that that we have significant and sufficient evidence. We should not accuse lightly is another way of putting it. And yes I’m not keen on accusing people of being a serial killer on the flimsiest of pretexts.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1214  
Old 06-12-2018, 05:39 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
Fisherman
Getting a little mixed up in your thinking it seems.Prima Facia is the condition reached in a lower court in a hearing conducted by a Magistrate.It is to assess whether the evidence of guilt is sufficient to warrantt a trial.If the magistrate believes there is,the accused is sent for trial in a higher court where the evidence of guilt has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

To reach such a decision the magistrate must consider both guilt and innocence,and generally such hearings must show an excess of guilt,which reminds me of an earlier addmission of yours.It was that the evidence of Cross,
element by element,can be shown to be equally of innocence or guilt.

There is nothing in what I have written that favours the criminal,the many cases remanded for trial proves that,but the system prevents many from being subjected to a trial built on the kind of evidence you present.
Hi Harry,

That just about wraps it up for me.

I almost typed 'warps it up' by mistake, but I expect Fish'll do that purposefully.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1215  
Old 06-12-2018, 06:36 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Actually its very clear, Baxter asked who was present when Mizen spoke to Lechmere.
Mizen answered, refering to the other carman who walked down Hanbury Street with Lechmere.

Steve
Then I would have to ask Fish why he thinks PC Mizen was either stupid, deliberately misleading, or both. Why did he think he was being asked about anyone else who was present when a conversation had taken place between him and the man who had just come from the scene of the latest murder?? Just something to say to pass the time of day?

If the other carman had walked off out of earshot, and was not present for all or part of that conversation, or had an ear trumpet that he wasn't using, that's what Mizen should - and arguably would - have stated, to make it clear that this other man wasn't actually in on what was being said.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1216  
Old 06-12-2018, 06:44 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
How are your "large flaps" these days, by the way?
That's a bit personal, Gareth.

Ah, you were asking Fish, regarding his signature tune. Thank cod for that.

Reminds me:

Q: What are the vital statistics of your average mermaid?

A: 36-22-three and six a pound.

I think that was one of Tommy Cooper's.

Q: How does a tailor take a woman's inside leg measurement?

A: He sticks the tape measure up the leg as far as it will go, takes the wet from the dry and adds half an inch for turn-ups.

Now that was one of my late father-in-law's gems.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov



Last edited by caz : 06-12-2018 at 06:47 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1217  
Old 06-12-2018, 06:48 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 9,948
Default

Blimus, Caz!
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1218  
Old 06-12-2018, 07:20 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Now, if Paul was some way away from Lechmere, and out of earshot, as I suggest may have been the case, what was Mizen supposed to answer?
"The other man was some way away from the man I now know to be Cross, and out of earshot when we spoke, so he wasn't technically present at the time"?

And Cross would have been cross - seething in fact - to learn that Mizen had been both meticulously accurate and perceptive to a fault.

Quote:
All the hullaballoo about how Mizen would have offered the information that Paul was in company with Lechmere as the latter spoke to him suddenly evaporates when we look at the real picture.
I think you mean the surreal picture, Fish. It's the English nuance thing again, so not your fault.

Quote:
But is HAS now been established that there are no viable grounds for claiming that they must have been close to each other.
Wrong way round. It has NOT been established that there are viable grounds for claiming that Paul wasn't a party to the conversation, especially considering his account of it in the newspaper. How could he have hoped to get away with his complaint about Mizen if he didn't actually have a clue what Cross had reported to him?

CROSS TO PC MIZEN : Ah, officer, you are wanted by PC Daft in Buck's Row, where a cat has its eyes on a pigeon. No rush, he says, just poodle along there when you've finished knocking up and had a nice cuppa and a full English.

PAUL TO THE PRESS : Shame on that copper for leaving the poor bird to her fate. Cold as ice she was and feathers - sorry, blood [got carried away there] all over the shop. I told him she was a gonner but would he listen? Would he fvck? All coppers are bastards etc etc...

Quote:
All in all, I think matters like these are extremely crucial to the Lechmere case.
Crucial to making a case, you mean.

Quote:
Once we dismantle prejudiced, faulty and baseless assumptions that have...
...been used to try and build a case from nothing, Fish will just find another way of 'mantling' them all over again.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov



Last edited by caz : 06-12-2018 at 07:25 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1219  
Old 06-12-2018, 07:26 AM
FrankO FrankO is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 792
Default

Christer,

A late reaction, I know, but I had other things to do. I don’t think it will change anything, but here it is anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Thanks, Frank, missed that one - but it is the same wording more or less exactly.
Not exactly, Christer. True or not, it tells that Paul didn’t walk on while Lechmere spoke to Mizen.
Quote:
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?
Not likely to answer “no”, but if Paul walked on when Lechmere stopped to talk to Mizen, then just an outspoken “yes” would be odd, certainly from a police officer. An outspoken “yes” would only fit with Paul not walking on.

It would be interesting to know how Mizen got the impression that Paul and Lechmere were co-workers walking to work together. It’s logical to think he thought so because they entered the street together (more or less next to each other), walked together to where Mizen was and that they both looked like carmen. But it wasn't because Lechmere told Mizen that HE AND THE OTHER MAN had found a woman, according to the statements of both Mizen and Lechmere.
Quote:
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?
If you only take into account what this particular newspaper printed, then it would leave the door wide open for that. But, as it stands, we can’t just ignore what the Times and other newspapers printed. Bottom line is that what we’ve got paints the picture of Lechmere and Paul entering Hanbury Street and walking together to where Mizen is, that Lechmere does (at least most of) the talking - which involves no more than a few short sentences - and that Paul does not walk on. Whether he’s out of earshot or not can’t be determined (if we leave Lechmere’s statement out), much less if this was a result of Lechmere’s doing. But it’s not suggested by the evidence as a whole.

Cheers,
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
  #1220  
Old 06-12-2018, 07:43 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,152
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankO View Post
Christer,

A late reaction, I know, but I had other things to do. I don’t think it will change anything, but here it is anyway.
Not exactly, Christer. True or not, it tells that Paul didn’t walk on while Lechmere spoke to Mizen.Not likely to answer “no”, but if Paul walked on when Lechmere stopped to talk to Mizen, then just an outspoken “yes” would be odd, certainly from a police officer. An outspoken “yes” would only fit with Paul not walking on.

It would be interesting to know how Mizen got the impression that Paul and Lechmere were co-workers walking to work together. It’s logical to think he thought so because they entered the street together (more or less next to each other), walked together to where Mizen was and that they both looked like carmen. But it wasn't because Lechmere told Mizen that HE AND THE OTHER MAN had found a woman, according to the statements of both Mizen and Lechmere. If you only take into account what this particular newspaper printed, then it would leave the door wide open for that. But, as it stands, we can’t just ignore what the Times and other newspapers printed. Bottom line is that what we’ve got paints the picture of Lechmere and Paul entering Hanbury Street and walking together to where Mizen is, that Lechmere does (at least most of) the talking - which involves no more than a few short sentences - and that Paul does not walk on. Whether he’s out of earshot or not can’t be determined (if we leave Lechmere’s statement out), much less if this was a result of Lechmere’s doing. But it’s not suggested by the evidence as a whole.

Cheers,
Frank
A shining example of how a post should be written, if I may say so - you stick with your picture, but wisely leave the door open for being wrong.

You acknowledge that Mizen was not likely to answere "no" - but you think that if Paul walked on, then you would have expected more than a "yes". Of course, there is also the option that Paul simply stayed on the other side of the street, waiting, as Lechmere spoke, and so he could have been out of earshot.

You ask why Mizen got the impression that the two men were trekking together, and just as you suggest, I think they may well have turned the corner up at Bucks Row together, perhaps even speaking to each other. That, however, is no guarantee that they remianed together subsequently - which you wisely recognize.

I am with you when it comes to the impression given by the various papers - it speaks of two men in company with each other. I am also with you on how that does not guarantee that they were in close company as Lechmere spoke to Mizen. You do ot mention it, but I believe you -just like me - will ascribe some of the doubt one can have on the point to how Mizen said that " a man" came up to him and spoke, not "two men". It is - at least in my view - indicative of Paul not having been part of that conversation. Not conclusive, but clearly indicative.

A very good post, Frank, and much needed.
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 12:43 PM.


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