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: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - by caz 3 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - by Herlock Sholmes 28 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - by caz 34 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - by Herlock Sholmes 37 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - by Herlock Sholmes 40 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - by Herlock Sholmes 43 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - (25 posts)
Torso Killings: torso maps - (11 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (5 posts)
General Discussion: What Would an "Investigation" Consist of? - (3 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Was the ripper and also the torsomans crimes totally non sexual in nature? - (2 posts)
Conferences and Meetings: The East End Conference 2018: London - (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
  #1321  
Old 06-13-2018, 10:46 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
And that is worrying, because you'd think if one or both carmen had been telling outright porkies, Mizen's account would have challenged theirs.

Love,

Caz
X
Not so, Iīm afraid. The story the carman told was confirmed to Mizen as he saw Neil up in Bucks Row - there WAS a PC in place, just as had been stated.

Following on, when Neil said that he was the finder of the body and that it was not true that two men had found it before him, Mizen had a reaffirmation of the carmans story.

Everything added up AS LONG AS NEIL STUCK TO HIS STORY.

Mizen must have been flummoxed, to say the least, by the developments that ensued. I think there is every chance that he will have asked himself where things did not add up, and that he may have weighed in the possibility that he himself could have in some way misheard or misunderstood the carmans words.

What I think he did was to then go to the inquest and state as honestly as he could what he thought had transpired, and I think he did so without nourishing any suspicion against Lechmere, something that was overall reflected by the rest of the participators too. None of them will have realized the explosive power built into the disagreement between Mizen and Lechmere. I have heard it stated that this suggestion is stupid and that anybody would realize that power, but the fact of the matter is that it was overlooked by generations of ripperologists and armchair detectives, and so I think it must be accepted that it was simply overlooked by the inquest too.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1322  
Old 06-13-2018, 10:50 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Hi Steve,

What I find quite amusing is that Fish needs both men to have lied about the fact that Paul did his own share of the talking while in PC Mizen's company, but PC Mizen isn't playing ball.

What Fish needed was for PC Mizen to have exposed their lies by stating that not only did Paul not utter a sodding word to him, but he was not even in a good position to hear or confirm what Cross had told him, let alone judge how he - Mizen - should have reacted.

The problem for Fish is that PC Mizen never said anything like this, but meekly went along with the basic fact that two men were there when he was told about the woman and he just said "All right" in response. If Cross was the first to speak, then it was Cross who informed Mizen of the situation, with Paul chiming in. But if Paul never chimed in and wasn't even within earshot, it's a great pity for Fish that Mizen never did make that clear.

Love,

Caz
X
Itīs a pity for all of us that the issue was never clarified, Caz. Itīs a problem we all share. Pauls assertion of having spoken to Mizen is only laid down unequvocally in the Lloyds article, and we know that does not give a true reflection of what happened. Furthermore, it may be that the reporter spiced things up, and that Paul didnīt actually say that he did the talking.

Any which way, the issue is no more of a problem for me than for you.

Last edited by Fisherman : 06-13-2018 at 10:53 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1323  
Old 06-13-2018, 10:52 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
Fisherman,who would want to troll you.All you appear to be is a mouthpiece for two indiviuals who so far have not come forward to confirm you are telling the truth about them.That's stating a fact,not trolling.

What have you proven so far as guilt applies ?Nothing.Can you
place Cross in the company of Nichols while she was alive?No you cannot.

Can you prove factually,that Cross cut the throat of Nichols and caused the mutilatins to her body? No you cannot


Can you prove,that on leaving home that morning,or later on his way to work,the intent to kill and mutilate was a driving force? No you cannot
.

Can you prove that in his possession that morning was a weapon that caused the injuries to Nichols?No you cannot.

You have nothing in the way of proof.Nothing,and you claim to have prima facis evidence of guilt.How strange.
Sorry, Harry, but you have disqualified yourself from discussing the case with me.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1324  
Old 06-13-2018, 10:55 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Hi Caz

Yes indeed it is. Of course the aim of Mizen was to prevent certain public questions being asked about his performance (none of which had any effect on the actual murder) and this he achieved perfectly, to the extent it was not looked at seriously until Lechmere was proposed as a suspect.

Of course i beleive that the combination of Neil's testimony on 1st and the Lloyds article 2nd are the reason for Mizen's story ( and i use that word intentionally) at the inquest on the 3rd.
However i came to this conclusion from anaylisis of the various sources, i didn't come up with the idea and then go looking for the stuff to support it.

Steve
Then again, you apparently also came to the conclusion that Kelly died twice and that it is proven that Paul was never out of earshot in Bucks Row.

And you did that all on your own too, analysing the various sources.

I must say I am looking forward to your book by now.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1325  
Old 06-13-2018, 11:19 PM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,983
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Itīs a pity for all of us that the issue was never clarified, Caz. Itīs a problem we all share. Pauls assertion of having spoken to Mizen is only laid down unequvocally in the Lloyds article, and we know that does not give a true reflection of what happened. Furthermore, it may be that the reporter spiced things up, and that Paul didnīt actually say that he did the talking.

Any which way, the issue is no more of a problem for me than for you.
Unless the reporter spoke to the witness first hand, or was present when the witness said what he did, then the evidence is secondary and has to be treated with caution !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1326  
Old 06-13-2018, 11:46 PM
FrankO FrankO is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 815
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
However, the way I see things, Baxter did not entertain any suspicion at all versus Lechmere, wherefore he had absolutely no reason to try and establish the exact distance inbetween the carmen and whether they were within earshot of each other or not. His question - however it was phrased (only Steve claims to know that well enough to be able to conclude factually from it) - was therefore more likely than not aimed to establish Pauls overall presence, and not the exact distance between the carmen.
I more or less agree, Christer. I think that the information Baxter had, upon which he based his questions to Mizen, simply didn’t give Baxter any cause to think there was any significant distance between Lechmere and Paul throughout the whole encounter.

Quote:
We seemingly agree on that and so in my book, establishing (or trying to establish) the different likelihoods of a certain distance between the carmen at a certain time is a waste of good discussion power.
That would be a waste indeed, Fish.
__________________
"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
  #1327  
Old 06-14-2018, 12:25 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankO View Post
I more or less agree, Christer. I think that the information Baxter had, upon which he based his questions to Mizen, simply didn’t give Baxter any cause to think there was any significant distance between Lechmere and Paul throughout the whole encounter.
Or, indeed, any reason to think that he needed to establish that distance so as to rule in or out that Paul could have been out of earshot.

A very fair and balanced post, Frank.

Last edited by Fisherman : 06-14-2018 at 12:33 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1328  
Old 06-14-2018, 12:27 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Unless the reporter spoke to the witness first hand, or was present when the witness said what he did, then the evidence is secondary and has to be treated with caution !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
The Lloyds article must absolutely be treated with caution, yes.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1329  
Old 06-14-2018, 12:55 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is online now
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
The Lloyds article must absolutely be treated with caution, yes.
All the press accounts of the inquest need to be treated with caution, too. Most, if not all, seem to derive from a news agency report, anyway, and if that was flawed then we need to be even more careful.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1330  
Old 06-14-2018, 01:15 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
All the press accounts of the inquest need to be treated with caution, too. Most, if not all, seem to derive from a news agency report, anyway, and if that was flawed then we need to be even more careful.
And still, Steve was able to prove that Paul was never out of earshot - using press accounts only. Astonishing! He used three basically similar accounts and said that since there were not as many accounts contradicting them, they became true. Abra-cadabra!

Canīt have that, can we?

... but if we CAN, it applies that the press accounts from the find of the uterus bundle in the Jackson case contains three or more versions where it is said that the lower abdomen or the abdomen of a woman was found in the bundle. And the fewest accounts gainsay it, so I guess it must be true. Ā la Steve.

Ridiculous, ainīt it?

If it werenīt for the press accounts, ripperology would be a meagre discipline indeed. Weighing the material fairly and with an open mind is always a clever thing to do.

Last edited by Fisherman : 06-14-2018 at 01:26 AM.
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 06:45 AM.


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