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:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by Joshua Rogan 2 hours ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by Sam Flynn 3 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Was the ripper and also the torsomans crimes totally non sexual in nature? - by c.d. 3 hours ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by Sam Flynn 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Herlock Sholmes 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (18 posts)
Torso Killings: torso maps - (12 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (5 posts)
General Discussion: Mystery photographs found in car-boot sale box - (3 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Was the ripper and also the torsomans crimes totally non sexual in nature? - (2 posts)
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - (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 > Suspects > General Suspect Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #801  
Old 06-07-2018, 01:59 AM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,336
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?

Harry the elements of the offence that need to be proven would be (murder)


Willfully, not negligently, accidentally etc

He killed someone, not maimed them, not injured them etc

Willfully, not negligently, accidentally etc

Without lawful excuse, ie not self defence, act of war, execution etc


Now that’s simplified to the extreme but gives you the idea.
__________________
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
  #802  
Old 06-07-2018, 01:59 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert View Post
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.
We know that Paul gives a faulty picture of his own part in that interview, Robert. It is one thing to brag to a reporter - or have the reporter brag on your behalf - and another one to lie to an inquest.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #803  
Old 06-07-2018, 02:07 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,351
Default

What we would need to be able to keep the course suggested by Gareth, Robert, Herlock et al, would be either a direct quotation from Mizen acknowledging that the two men stood by each others sides as they spoke to him (and effectively, Mizen seems to suggest the exact opposite by only acknowledging that ONE man came up to him and talked), or his answer "yes" given to a wording on behalf of Baxter that encompassed asking whether the carmen stood closely by each others sides during the conversation with the PC.

As it stands, we have neither. We don´t even know how Baxter worded himself. And even if Baxter HAD asked "Constable Mizen, as carman Cross spoke to PC Mizen, was there somebody else present at the site, somebody who was in company with Cross?", Mizen would have been entirely justified to say "yes" even if Paul was ten yards away.

He was of the meaning that the carmen were co-workers trekking to job, and in that respect, they WERE in company, but not grounded on the specific distance inbetween them but instead based simply on being co-workers en route to work.

Last edited by Fisherman : 06-07-2018 at 02:14 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #804  
Old 06-07-2018, 02:13 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,274
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
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?
Why on earth should he have been? The two men had discovered and examined the woman, and went TOGETHER to find a policeman, after all.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

Last edited by Sam Flynn : 06-07-2018 at 02:15 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #805  
Old 06-07-2018, 02:20 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Why on earth should he have been? The two men went TOGETHER to find a policeman, after all.
Not glued to each other, Gareth. And nowhere along the road do we have any information about how close or distant the two men were.

I hope you are not going to once again argue "as they left Bucks Row together, there is no way Lechmere could have spoken to Mizen without Paul hearing what was said".

As has been shown very clearly this morning, that does not apply at all.

As I said, no matter what you suggest, you are welcome to that suggestion, including that they were closer than Chang and Eng were.

However, you must also respect that it may well be that Paul was out of earshot when Lechmere spoke to Mizen. There is nothing in the evidence that precludes such a thing, plus we know that Mizen very clearly said that it was one man, not two, who approached him and talked to him, identifying that man at the inquest as being Lechmere.

Based on the facts, there can be no further denying that. That particular battle is now over.

The question about why Paul would have been out of earshot is something I suggest can have the answer "Because Lechmere had decided to lie his way past Mizen and did not want Paul to hear the lie since that would mean that Paul could corroborate Mizen on the point if push ever came to shove."

And as we know, it did.

Last edited by Fisherman : 06-07-2018 at 02:32 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #806  
Old 06-07-2018, 02:42 AM
Robert Robert is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,832
Default

Not glued to each other, Gareth. And nowhere along the road do we have any information about how close or distant the two men were.

Daily Telegraph (Paul testimony) :

The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #807  
Old 06-07-2018, 02:44 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
I am not the one wriggling. You are, now that it has been established that you rely on a person who was not even in Bucks Row.

Wriggle, wriggle, little worm.
No people are relying on both the questions by Baxter and the replies by Mizen.
Oh almost forgot they are also not excluding the Tesimony of Lechmere or trating is as unreliable.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #808  
Old 06-07-2018, 02:47 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert View Post
Not glued to each other, Gareth. And nowhere along the road do we have any information about how close or distant the two men were.

Daily Telegraph (Paul testimony) :

The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman.
Yes, and where in this text does it say how close or distant they were? Where does it say that they both walked up to Mizen? Where does it say they both talked to him? Where is the distance to Paul given, as Lehmere spoke to Mizen? Where does it say that "saw" means spoke to? They saw a PC, meaning they visually noticed him, is as far as I can see just as viable an interpretation.

Come on, Robert - you are revisiting old ground now. The issue has moved on.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #809  
Old 06-07-2018, 02:48 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert View Post
Morning Advertiser :


Police constable George Maizen (sic), 55 H, said - On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row).

What happened to the policeman in Buck's Row, Fish?
More importantly for the accuracy of the report is the time given.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #810  
Old 06-07-2018, 02:51 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
No people are relying on both the questions by Baxter and the replies by Mizen.
Oh almost forgot they are also not excluding the Tesimony of Lechmere or trating is as unreliable.


Steve
The only reply is a "Yes. I think he was also a carman." as far as this particular errand goes.

And then, all sorts of interpretations are made from that.

It is using Baxter as the primary source, somehow trying to transfer his question (however THAT was worded!) into Mizens view. As evidence, it is useless if you want to prove that Paul was within earshot as Lechmere talked to Mizen.
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 06:48 PM.


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