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:
Mary Ann Nichols: What Direction Was Polly Travelling When She Was Killed? - by Sam Flynn 6 minutes ago.
Mary Ann Nichols: What Direction Was Polly Travelling When She Was Killed? - by Batman 34 minutes ago.
Mary Ann Nichols: What Direction Was Polly Travelling When She Was Killed? - by Simon Wood 47 minutes ago.
Mary Ann Nichols: What Direction Was Polly Travelling When She Was Killed? - by Batman 1 hour and 6 minutes ago.
Mary Ann Nichols: What Direction Was Polly Travelling When She Was Killed? - by Simon Wood 1 hour and 23 minutes ago.
Mary Ann Nichols: What Direction Was Polly Travelling When She Was Killed? - by John G 1 hour and 25 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Mary Ann Nichols: What Direction Was Polly Travelling When She Was Killed? - (48 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: The Bucks Row Project Summary Report. - (39 posts)
Klosowski, Severin (George Chapman): Can George Chapmam reform himself to being a calculating poisoner seven years later?. - (37 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (4 posts)
Doctors and Coroners: Sedgewick Saunders ....... why did he say the things he said ? - (2 posts)
Abberline, Inspector Frederick: Hinting at something? - (1 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 > Witnesses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #481  
Old 07-19-2016, 04:18 PM
Errata Errata is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tennessee, U.S.
Posts: 2,937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
If Lechmere murdered Nichols why do you say his lie, in this context, would be meaningless?
Because while the act of lying would not be meaningless, the actual misinformation contained in the lie really is. I mean, what is the point of saying "a cop needs you there" (obvious paraphrase) when no cop needs him there? Is a dead body insufficient reason for this cop to go check it out, but the request of another officer makes a difference? So it's an odd lie. One that doesn't do anything for the potential killer. It doesn't help the killer. It doesn't hurt the cops. It's just an odd lie.

So because the initial lie is insignificant, the subsequent lie is also pretty insignificant. Lying to cove up a previous lie is suspicious, but also totally normal. Something he could get out of easily with one of a dozen explanations. So again, an odd lie. He could have copped to saying it and explained it away, he didn't. He lied about not saying it. So again, we are left with an act that is significant, lying, but content that is kind of rubbish.

It raises no red flags for me, honestly. I'm still of the opinion that people are weird, and they sometimes do inexplicable generally harmless things five times a day. So thats me.

But as far as content goes, it really is a meaningless lie.
__________________
The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #482  
Old 07-19-2016, 04:58 PM
Caligo Umbrator Caligo Umbrator is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Dallas, previously London.
Posts: 142
Default

Hi, all.

Would it not be reasonable to expect that Lechmere, having seen the body close up and believing it to be lifeless, might, upon meeting P.C. Mizen, say something like this: "A Policeman is wanted in Bucks Row, there is a woman lying on her back. She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead."
The precise wording need not be important. Such phrasing might easily introduce to P.C. Mizen the impression that a policeman had sent Lechmere and Co. to find assistance. Subsequently discovering P.C. Neil already at the scene would tend to confirm that impression. This would then lead to him offering the testimony he did at the inquest.
For Lechmere, he would know in his mind that he had never been sent by a policeman and that he had never stated as such. He may well not have considered it important to clear up any apparent misunderstanding regarding the matter.
Clearly, however, a sharp-minded Juryman noticed the discrepancy in the testimony, but Cross's answer seems to have ended the matter to the satisfaction of those in charge of the inquest, as the matter was not visited again.

Your, Caligo
__________________
"I know why the sun never sets on the British Empire: God wouldn't trust an Englishman in the dark."
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #483  
Old 07-19-2016, 05:08 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,359
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caligo Umbrator View Post
Hi, all.

Would it not be reasonable to expect that Lechmere, having seen the body close up and believing it to be lifeless, might, upon meeting P.C. Mizen, say something like this: "A Policeman is wanted in Bucks Row, there is a woman lying on her back. She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead."
The precise wording need not be important. Such phrasing might easily introduce to P.C. Mizen the impression that a policeman had sent Lechmere and Co. to find assistance. Subsequently discovering P.C. Neil already at the scene would tend to confirm that impression. This would then lead to him offering the testimony he did at the inquest.
For Lechmere, he would know in his mind that he had never been sent by a policeman and that he had never stated as such. He may well not have considered it important to clear up any apparent misunderstanding regarding the matter.
Clearly, however, a sharp-minded Juryman noticed the discrepancy in the testimony, but Cross's answer seems to have ended the matter to the satisfaction of those in charge of the inquest, as the matter was not visited again.

Your, Caligo
Even "your wanted in Bucks row" and when he gets there Miz finds another copper, what does his brain translate Cross' words with in hindsight.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #484  
Old 07-19-2016, 05:21 PM
Caligo Umbrator Caligo Umbrator is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Dallas, previously London.
Posts: 142
Default

Hi, Pierre.

You asked in #468 " 10. What is the evidence that there was not an unknown policeman beside Polly Nichols in Buck´s Row?

If you have posted regarding this already and I have missed it, then I apologise.

You appear, in the asking of this question, to be making the suggestion that there is an unaccounted constable involved in some manner. Is it your proposal that this is the policeman that gave Lechmere and Paul an errand and thus sent them away from the scene?
Further to this, are you offering that the killer may have been either a policeman or had adopted clothing sufficient as to make himself appear such?

Yours, Caligo
__________________
"I know why the sun never sets on the British Empire: God wouldn't trust an Englishman in the dark."

Last edited by Caligo Umbrator : 07-19-2016 at 05:23 PM. Reason: punctuation
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #485  
Old 07-19-2016, 06:34 PM
drstrange169 drstrange169 is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 980
Default

>>No it isn't. Where's the evidence that Paul corroborated Lechmere's account?<<

“They looked to see if there was a constable, but one was not to be seen

Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen.”

The Times
__________________
dustymiller
aka drstrange


"Whenever an expert says something that bolsters the Lechmere theory, it is not my task to disprove him ..."
Fisherman
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #486  
Old 07-19-2016, 10:59 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Columbo View Post
On the face of it he may have lied, but it is not a fact that he lied.
Have you misunderstood the argument too Columbo? I can't for one moment understand why you felt the need to say that. No-one is saying that it is "a fact" he lied. But if Mizen's evidence is correct he did lie.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #487  
Old 07-19-2016, 11:02 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Columbo View Post
Let's not forget this is a newspaper discrepancy, not an official inquest discrepancy. Argue people might on the accuracy of the reporting, but it's still not the official record.
That's weak. There's no reason to distrust the various newspaper reports on this point. Further, it's obvious that Mizen's evidence was correctly reported because Cross was specifically asked whether he mentioned a policeman to him.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #488  
Old 07-19-2016, 11:07 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Errata View Post
B I mean, what is the point of saying "a cop needs you there" (obvious paraphrase) when no cop needs him there?
Well he is concealing from Mizen the fact that he found the body and that he (and Paul) have left a woman, unattended, lying on the street. Had Mizen known this he might have asked Cross and Paul to accompany him to where the body was lying. If Cross is the murderer then he is carrying a knife and might be discovered if the police decide to search him. If he is caught he is hung.

Is that meaningful enough for you?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #489  
Old 07-19-2016, 11:08 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caligo Umbrator View Post
Would it not be reasonable to expect that Lechmere, having seen the body close up and believing it to be lifeless, might, upon meeting P.C. Mizen, say something like this: "A Policeman is wanted in Bucks Row, there is a woman lying on her back. She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead."
In which case, Mizen's evidence is not correct.

The premise of my argument is that Mizen's evidence is correct.

And if Mizen's evidence is correct then Lechmere was lying.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #490  
Old 07-19-2016, 11:10 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post
Even "your wanted in Bucks row" and when he gets there Miz finds another copper, what does his brain translate Cross' words with in hindsight.
In which case, I have to repeat, Mizen's evidence is not correct.

The premise of my argument is that Mizen's evidence is correct.
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 12:56 PM.


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