James Scobie, who was presented with a one-sided case for the prosecution and came to his conclusion based upon that. As I’ve said before on here, if as Scobie had read each point allegedly in favour of Lechmere he’d heard the full opposing viewpoint would he have come to the same conclusion? I find it almost impossible to believe that he would have.
He was asked to assess the case for the prosecution and found it excellent. I´m sure though, that if you had been around to tell him that you don´t think Lechmere did it, he would have changed his mind pronto.
Aaaah! How silly... this idea that a guilty man might flee. This GRIFFITHS fellow... he's the chap employed for the documentary about how it was Lechmere what done it, right?
John Henry Wigmore was an American legal scholar, widely considered a pioneer in the field of evidentiary law. In 1904 he published his 'Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law'.
"Flight from justice, and its analogous conduct, have always been deemed indication of a consciousness of guilt. The wicked flee, even when no man pursueth; and the righteous are as bold as a lion."
"A criminal act leaves usually on the mind a deep trace, in the shape of a consciousness of guilt, and from this consciousness of guilt we may argue to the doing of the deed by the bearer of the trace."
So. Perhaps the idea is not quite as laughable as you need it be.
As with much of your scenario. The apparent, reasonable, SIMPLE explanation is never used because it condemns your theory. He approached Paul even as he tried to avoid the situation not because he had found the body but because he'd just done murder and had to employ a ruse, a bluff... on a man he could have walked away from in the dark... or simply ALLOWED to walk away from HIM in the dark, as he tried to do.
So, a passage from a 1904 text, where the originator states that "the wicked flee".
I’m sure that if any of us could afford to seek out an expert to bolster our opinions we could easily find many that would disagree with Mr Griffiths.
It simply flies in the face of reason that the killer given the 2 options would have chosen so poorly between:
a) Escape to almost guaranteed freedom to continue your campaign of terror.
b) Loiter around for the footsteps to arrive to find you next to a mutilated corpse, possibly with blood on you but definitely with the murder weapon on you.
1) the footsteps are a police officer - you’re stuffed.
2) the person says, “not our problem let’s leave her.” - you’re lucky/ then again who’s to say that Paul might not come forward later and identify you as the person that was alone with the corpse.
3) the person says “let’s go find a police officer.” - you’re pretty much stuffed. Unless you can, pretty much on the spot, come up with a plan to avoid that police officer and be sure that that persons behaviour doesn’t stuff up the plan.
4) could Lechmere have said “forget the police officer, someone will find her.” - nope, of course not.
Faced with this ‘jump off a cliff/don’t jump 0ff a cliff’ decision what does our killer do? Given of course that he did nothing else as suicidally stupid during the rest of his campaign. Given that he had enough of a sense of self-preservation to remain uncaught in those police patrolled streets. Given that he was allegedly clever enough to come up with the ‘scam.’
Two simple choices.
I do not exclude that you may find yourself an expert who does not agree totally with Griffiths over whether Lechmere would have stayed or fled. What counts, though, is that he as a seasoned murder squad leader with academical training and merits in criminology, actually was quite adamant that there was no way Lechmere would have fled.
He was more certain of this than I was, and although you are doing your utmost to dispell and dissolve the importance of that fact by presenting it as a fact (whoopla, Herlock - well, it´s for a good cause!) that other experts would disagree, that establishes that there is an obvious possibility that there would not have been any flight.
let us be clear about this, James Scobie was at the time of the Production, a highly rated and qualified Barrister, no more and no less.
His view is just the view of one individual from his profession, based on the evidence supplied to him by the Program makers. G
iven what is presented in the program itself, one must question if he was given a full historically accurate account, one not full of bias, unlike the program itself.
Question away. I cannot say more than this: it is a sad thing when criticism must start from a point of how something presented by an expert in a docu should not be believed, especially when no evidence whatsoever can be presented that this was so.
It goes hand in hand with the allegations of me not being truthful or only pointing to different matters because I am infatuated with lechmere.
If you can´t shoot down the message, shoot the messenger instead. If you do not like what an expert says, lead on that he or she has been misinformed, bribed or threatened.
I just read this thread myself, catching up... I recalled that I wrote this on these boards on 11-1-2016. After considering Christer's Mizen Scam I found this to have been the more likely, of not apparent, course of events. I don't think I'd change much if I'd written it today...
We know from “Fisherman”, et al that much of their “evidence” against Lechmere is based upon the testimony of PC Jonas Mizen, the presumptive victim of the now infamous “Mizen Scam”. Yet, when one analyzes the information it’s clear that there was a “Mizen Scam” and it was Jonas Mizen who orchestrated it, and he did so for very simple and understandable reasons.
What do we know of PC Mizen’s behavior upon being informed that “a woman was lying in Buck’s Row”? Both Lechmere and Paul offer similar descriptions of Mizen’s reaction upon hearing this information. Lechmere stated that he replied, “Alright” and walked on. Paul states, “I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up…”
Both Lechmere and Paul stated that they informed PC Mizen that the woman in Buck’s Row may be dead. Lechmere stated in his inquest testimony that he told Mizen, “She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." Paul in his statement to ‘Lloyd’s Weekly’ flatly stated, “I had told him the woman was dead.” Mizen, however, contended that he was told only that a woman was “lying in Buck’s Row”, stating that he was told, “You are wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row, where a woman was lying.”
This brings us to another major inconsistency. Mizen claimed at the inquest that he was told that by "Cross" that he was “wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row”. It’s been suggested that such a statement may have led Mizen to assume that Lechmere and Paul had been interrogated and released by a policeman already on the scene in Buck’s Row. Thus, he (Mizen) let the men go on their way, forgoing questioning them further, or searching either man. However, neither Paul nor Lechmere agree with Mizen on this point. Lechmere testified on day two of the Nichols’ inquest. He was asked directly if he’d told Mizen another policeman was awaiting him in Buck’s Row. This exchange was published in Telegraph on Tuesday, September 4:
A Juryman: “Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's Row?”
Witness: “No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's Row.”
Robert Paul’s statement in Lloyd’s makes no mention of a policeman waiting in Buck’s Row.
“I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see.”
Paul makes it clear that no policeman was present in Buck’s Row. In fact, he stresses that he believes that the police had not been doing their jobs effectively, inferring that the police had not been adequately patrolling the area.
The available information tells us that PC Jonas Mizen was likely not forthcoming about his meeting with Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul on the morning of the Nichols’ murder. Further, Mizen did not relate even a mention of his meeting Lechmere and Paul to PC Neil at the scene. He also did not inform his superiors – it seems – as PC Neil testified on Saturday, September 1, that he and he alone discovered “Polly” Nichols body.
PC Mizen was not called to give testimony in the inquest until Monday, September 3, the day after Robert Paul’s interview appeared in ‘Lloyd’s Weekly’. Paul stated in his interview that he “saw (a policeman) in Church Row, just at the top of Buck's Row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come….” It is reasonable to assume that Paul’s statement either compelled Mizen to share his encounter with Paul and the heretofore unnamed “other man” in Bakers Row, or Mizen had been asked about Paul’s statement by his superiors. Duty rosters would easily have identified the PC on duty “in Church Row, just at the top of Buck's Row” at 3:45am on August 31.
Based upon what we know, it’s obvious that PC Mizen was not truthful about many details of what occurred in Baker’s Row. His reasons for being less than honest are understandable, albeit not the sinister reasons many researches may hope for. It’s clear the Mizen assumed that the two men he’d met in Baker’s Row had simply come across a woman lying drunk on the pavement. He continued “calling people up” for work. He reacted with no urgency whatsoever. He asked the men no questions. He didn’t ask their names. He was in no great hurry to report to Buck’s Row. Stating that he was told a PC was already on the scene absolves him somewhat. Stating that he not told the woman was dead, makes his apparent (to both Paul and Lechmere) inaction somewhat more understandable. Mizen’s untruthful statements were made to protect his job and his reputation. It’s clear to anyone willing to see the obvious.
A few other points I made later in the thread:
In order to understand PC Mizen’s behavior, we must first look at the night of the Nichol’s murder in the context of it's time and place.
“Polly” Nichols is generally considered to have been the first victim of “Jack the Ripper”. Thus, what has become known as ‘The Autumn of Terror’ hadn’t yet begun. However, there had already been several previous incidents that had both the police and public on heightened alert, and the Met's inability to catch the perpetrator(s) had brought them criticism from both the media and the public.
On February 28, 1888, 38 year old Annie Millwood was attached by a man she described as a stranger. She was stabbed with a knife in the “legs and lower torso”. She was admitted to Whitechapel Workhouse Infirmary. She recovered and was released on March 21. However, ten days later Millwood collapsed and died. The coroner determined the cause of death as, “'sudden effusion into the pericardium from the rupture of the left pulmonary artery through ulceration.”
On March 28, 1888, Ada Wilson answered a knock at the door of her home. A man used force to enter and demanded money. Wilson refused. She was stabbed twice in the throat. Wilson survived her injuries.
On April 3, 1888, Emma Smith reported that she was attacked by three or four “youths”. She was raped and beaten, and robbed. Her assailants thrust a blunt object into her vagina, tearing her perineum. She was able to return to her lodging house. She was admitted to the London Hospital where she died of her injuries for days later.
On August 7, 1888, Martha Tabram was found murdered in the George Yard Buildings. She had been stabbed thirty-nine times, primarily about the abdomen, breasts, and pelvic area.
On the morning that PC Jonas Mizen was informed that a woman was lying in Buck’s Row it had been a little more than three weeks since Martha Tabram has been found murdered but a short distance from Buck’s Row. Her murder was preceded that year by three further attacks on women. Despite all this, it seems likely that PC Mizen felt that the situation in Buck’s Row was not a serious one. His actions indicate that he likely found it far more likely that the woman the men had seen was passed out, drunk. The men had not noticed her wounds, thus they’d not reported them to Mizen. Lechmere had said that Nichols “looks to me to be either dead or drunk”. Mizen might reasonably have assumed the latter. What we know of Mizen’s actions upon hearing the men’s information indicate just that.
A bit more:
The only reason this exchange is the topic of conversation at all is that one of the key aspects of "Fisherman's" Lechmere the Ripper theory is the "Mizen Scam". One of the lynchpins of the "Mizen Scam" is that Mizen was duped by Lechmere, who told him that a policeman had sent them from Buck's Row and that he (Mizen) was wanted there, where a woman was lying (Mizen contends he wasn't told anything beyond that). This explains why Mizen did not ask Paul or Cross/Lechmere their names, why he didn't (so far as we know) inspect their clothing, why he didn't ask the men to accompany him back to Buck's Row. He simply said, "Alright" and continued calling people up, tricked into believing that the two men had been "cleared" by the (non-existent) PC in Buck's Row and not having been told (as both Paul and Lechmere contended) that she was dead/likely dead.
I contend that Mizen (possibly with the endorsement of his superiors at the Met who had unknowingly allowed Neil to testify that he'd found the body without mentioning Mizen, Cross, Paul) testified as he did after reading Paul's comments published in Lloyd's Weekly the previous day.
And a bit more:
So our chronology of events looks like this:
Friday, August 31: Nichols' is murdered.
Saturday, September 1: PC Neil testifies at the Nichols' inquest that he discovered the Nichols' body. He does not mention Mizen having spoken to two Carmen. His testimony was reported in the Telegraph:
"Yesterday morning I was proceeding down Buck's-row, Whitechapel, going towards Brady-street. There was not a soul about. I had been round there half an hour previously, and I saw no one then. I was on the right-hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street. It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row. I went across and found deceased lying outside a gateway, her head towards the east. The gateway was closed. It was about nine or ten feet high, and led to some stables. There were houses from the gateway eastward, and the School Board school occupies the westward. On the opposite side of the road is Essex Wharf. Deceased was lying lengthways along the street, her left hand touching the gate. I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat. She was lying on her back, with her clothes disarranged. I felt her arm, which was quite warm from the joints upwards. Her eyes were wide open. Her bonnet was off and lying at her side close to the left hand. I heard a constable passing Brady-street, so I called him. I did not whistle. I said to him, "Run at once for Dr. Llewellyn," and, seeing another constable in Baker's Row, I sent him for the ambulance. The doctor arrived in a very short time. "
Sunday, September 2: No inquest testimony. Robert Paul's comments appear in Lloyd's.
Monday, September 3: Mizen testifies at the inquest. Mizen stated that “at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body.”
Also testifying that day was Charles Cross/Lechmere. Remember that Lechmere had not been asked his name by Mizen. He had not been described in any way by Paul in his comments in Lloyd's. Paul called him simply "a man". In fact, Paul diminished Lechmere's involvement in both Buck's Row and Baker's Row. He has himself as the prime actor and speaker. And this is what Christer calls a 'bombshell' that forced Lechmere to appear at the inquest 24 hours after it appeared in print?
I think not. I think it's clear that Lechmere came forward of his own accord because he felt that was the right thing to do. These actions fit with what we know of the man, as well. He maintained solid, steady employment throughout his life. At the time of the murder he'd been employed by Pickford's for 20 years. He and his wife had 11 children, 10 of which survived to adulthood. He and his wife were married for more than 50 years. He continually improved his family's circumstances throughout his life. After his retirement he became a business owner, opening a small shop and working there himself. He died in his bed, past the age of 70, leaving his wife a sizable inheritance. So far as anyone knows he was never arrested, institutionalized, or accused of being a man of ill-humor (despite Christer's hyperventilation at seeing his picture in his worldwide sent documentary).
One more post about how good a family man Lechmere was, from the guy who is supposedly quite aware that it has no bearing on the risk of such a man being a serial killer.
One more post about alternative innocent explanations.
Some more errors (for example, I don´t think anybody at all has suggested that Mizen was given the idea that the carmen had been interrogated by "the other PC" - such a thing would predispose that they were on the scene before that ghost PC. Instead, what has been - and is - suggested is that Lechmere would have given the picture that he and Paul arrived at the murder site AFTER the PC, and so never were considered as suspects in any shape or form. If they had been found with the body, they would certainly not have been sent on their way!).
I will leave you to your personal form of reasoning. There is no need to comment further on it, and nothing new offered.
Last edited by Fisherman : 09-11-2018 at 01:19 AM.
How long elapsed between the moment that Lechmere the Ripper heard Robert Paul approaching and decided to stay put and the point where they ran into PC Mizen?
It can’t have been long?
So in that short time we are asked to believe that Lechmere comes up with the ‘scam’ on the spot? He was with Paul all that time. Paul doesn’t give the impression of being the silent type. So they would have been discussing the situation. How difficult is it to come up with a plan with such important consequences whilst holding a conversation with someone? And then to manipulate the situation so that he speaks to Mizen out of Paul’s hearing and Paul isn’t in the slightest bit suspicious about this secretive conversation and mentions it to no one. And then to cleverly slip in the idea of telling Mizen that there was a police officer in Buck’s Row just to give Mizen the impression that they had already been questioned and let go! Lucky for Lech the Ripper that Paul was so compliant.
Quite an achievement in such a short space of time whilst holding a conversation with a complete stranger. A stranger that Lechmere could have had no way of predicting when it came to his actions that night. The whole scam relies on Paul meekly allowing Lechmere to take control of events. If Paul hadn’t have complied it would have been curtains for the scam. And yet we’re asked to believe that Lechmere chose these risks, with the unknown factors (Paul’s behaviourfor one) rather than simply walking away as soon as he heard Paul’s footsteps.
No more than four minutes elapsed from the moment Paul saw Lechmere up until the point when they met Mizen. And yes, it is remarkable to come up with the sort of story Lechmere came up with if he was the killer. It would predispose very cool and quick thinking, with no panick involved and a talent for lying.
Guess what category of people would be best suited to do that?
As for the "what if´s", I have sadly run right out of interest with them.
[QU So they would have been discussing the situation TE]
According to Cross's testimony, they didn't speak much and in both accounts neither man could give much information about the other.
The obvious conclusion is neither man regarded the incident as important at the time, just an obstacle to getting to work on time and potentially losing all important pay.[/quote]
Eh ... you don´t know what they spoke about and how they perceived the matter, so I think we are some serious mileage away from being able to draw any "obvious conclusions". Furthermore, if Lechmere was the killer, why would that make him incredibly interested in speaking as much as possible and mainly about who he and Paul were?
I find that an intriguing question.
Sadly, I may not be around to hear your answer to it. The whole charade out here is becoming too ridiculous.