Lechmere Continuation Thread

[David Orsam]

David Orsan,
I did not say you made the suggestion that Mizen should be believed because he was a policeman.I was putting my view w ithout naming a particular poster,as I usually do,and you choosed to respond using my name..Read my original post.

Your post#543, to which I was responding, was addressed to me, so it did name 'a particular poster". That post said, "my argument is against a suggestion that because Mizen was a policeman,and on that particular alone,Mizen should be believed." I responded by saying "In which case (as I have suspected from the start) you are arguing against a suggestion that I haven't made."

Note that I did not accuse you of saying that I had made the suggestion that Mizen should be believed because he was a policeman, only that you were arguing against a suggestion that I had not made. Therefore, why address your post to me?

[David Orsam]

Where do I say Mizen should be disbelieved?

It would be helpful if you use the quote function when responding to something I say because what I said was "In fact, it seems that you are the only one putting forward such an argument, if you are suggesting that Mizen should be disbelieved."

Note the words "seems" and "if". The reason I wrote that sentence was because you said: "my argument is against a suggestion that because Mizen was a policeman,and on that particular alone,Mizen should be believed."

If you are arguing against a suggestion that Mizen should be believed because he was a policeman then the natural conclusion is that you think he should be disbelieved. If not, then what are you saying? That he should be believed despite the fact he was a policeman?

[David Orsam]

You say if Mizen's evidence is correct.That is the problem.You, nor I, nor anyone can prove it is,therefor it has no value in determining Cross's honesty.

But I'm not using Mizen's evidence to determine Cross's honesty.

You continue to argue against things I'm not saying.

I'm aware that no-one can prove whether Mizen's evidence is correct (or incorrect) which is why I say no more than that Mizen's evidence is a reason for suspicion against Cross. But it's not conclusive in any way.

[David Orsam]

Had Mizen done what he should have,that is recorded the conversation,then or at the earliest opportunity,that would have certainly been a point in his favour.As it is,it appears the evidence relies on memory.Is that enough to point the finger of suspicion at Cross?

The answer is clearly yes (although we don't need to use a dramatic phrase like "the finger of suspicion", as it's only one reason to be suspicious). Most evidence given in court relies on memory. Forget what you think Mizen should have done. The fact of the matter is that Lechmere's evidence conflicts with Mizen's. What the resolution of that conflict is I don't know but one possibility is that Lechmere lied and one possible reason for that lie is that he committed the murder. That does not mean that Lechmere did commit the murder or even that he did lie. It also does not mean that Lechmere probably did commit the murder or that he probably did lie. But you must admit that if you were a police officer in 1888 you would want to resolve the conflict of evidence and the reason you would want to do that is because that conflict of evidence is a reason to suspect Lechmere of committing the murder.

Perhaps the police did resolve the conflict in 1888 but we simply don't know and cannot just assume that they did. That is why I have continually said that there remains an element of suspicion against Lechmere but it really is no more than that so I don't understand your continued reluctance to accept this very simple point.

[harry]

David Orsam,
Now you go back to my post 519 where I addressed to no one.You then replied against my post in post 531 using my name,so do not accuse me of starting the argument between us.Furthermore do not tell me how to post.You want to use quotes do so,I prefer not to.So i'll not argue against you .Anything I post can be taken as being of a general nature addressed to no one in particular.

[harry]

Cross is entitled to be free of suspicion of lying,unless evidence of lying proves otherwise.The onus is not on him to prove innocence.Mizen's statement does not prove Cross lied.I believe Cross.He had no motive to lie.His e vidence does not conflict with Paul ,the only other person who could give evidence of a policeman being or not being in Bucks Row when they left the body of Nichols.Cross testified under oath in a court of law.Neither the court or the police appear to suspect him of any wrong doing.Of course mine is an opinionWhat is not an opinion is that Cross should be considered innocent until proven guilty.There is no proof,either of lying or killing.If, maybe,possibly doesn't enter into it.

[John Wheat]

Cross is entitled to be free of suspicion of lying,unless evidence of lying proves otherwise.The onus is not on him to prove innocence.Mizen's statement does not prove Cross lied.I believe Cross.He had no motive to lie.His e vidence does not conflict with Paul ,the only other person who could give evidence of a policeman being or not being in Bucks Row when they left the body of Nichols.Cross testified under oath in a court of law.Neither the court or the police appear to suspect him of any wrong doing.Of course mine is an opinionWhat is not an opinion is that Cross should be considered innocent until proven guilty.There is no proof,either of lying or killing.If, maybe,possibly doesn't enter into it.

I agree 100% with you harry

Cheers John

[Harry D]

Cross testified under oath in a court of law.Neither the court or the police appear to suspect him of any wrong doing. .

Ohohoho, of course they didn't, because they only had mustache-twirling Jews on their radar and wouldn't suspect a working class Brit of anything. Or something like that.

[David Orsam]

David Orsam,
Now you go back to my post 519 where I addressed to no one.You then replied against my post in post 531 using my name,so do not accuse me of starting the argument between us.Furthermore do not tell me how to post.You want to use quotes do so,I prefer not to.So i'll not argue against you .Anything I post can be taken as being of a general nature addressed to no one in particular.

What does your post #519 have to do with anything? Since then you've posted at #543 and #553, both posts addressed to me by name.

And where have I accused you of 'starting the argument between us'? I've done no such thing. Again, if you used the quote function that would be much clearer. If you don't want to use the quote function fine, but please don't then invent things that I'm supposed to have said.

[David Orsam]

Cross is entitled to be free of suspicion of lying,unless evidence of lying proves otherwise.The onus is not on him to prove innocence.Mizen's statement does not prove Cross lied.I believe Cross.He had no motive to lie.His e vidence does not conflict with Paul ,the only other person who could give evidence of a policeman being or not being in Bucks Row when they left the body of Nichols.Cross testified under oath in a court of law.Neither the court or the police appear to suspect him of any wrong doing.Of course mine is an opinionWhat is not an opinion is that Cross should be considered innocent until proven guilty.There is no proof,either of lying or killing.If, maybe,possibly doesn't enter into it.

That is such a confused post, mixing up the concept of suspicion with the concept of proof. You seem to be unable to distinguish between the two. If you can only suspect someone of lying when you have proved they are lying, it renders that suspicion meaningless because you've already proved it!

[harry]

Thank you John. I'm sure I didn't appear confused to you.

I do not invent things.Ivé not accused anyone of anything without reason.I do not try to mislead.
I offer no apologies,none should be needed.

I know what suspicion means.I know what proof is.Starting with the premise that Cross told the truth,under oath,(I'm entitled to do that),I find there is no evidence that Cross lied,and wihout proof, no reason for suspicion that he did.
If my grammar,spelling,syntax,and method of presentation offends,bad luck,learn to live with it.Dont read it', don't respond,you have the option.

[drstrange169]

Hello John G,

>>Are you seriously suggesting that PC Mizen was so stupid that he would not have anticipated his evidence, to the effect that another police officer was already in attendance, wouldn't be challenged by Cross/Paul assuming it was an outrageous lie? Because, frankly, that's absurd.<<

Why do Xmereites always resort to absolutisms in debates?

Calico O. made no such suggestion, so why suggest it?

Try reversing the question, would Xmere insert himself into the investigation knowing full well a policeman and an independent witness would dispute his story.

Whilst neither scenario his can positively ruled out, neither seems particularly credible.


>>Or perhaps you're implying that Mizen was so incompetent that he completely forgot what was told to him and just decided to make up a story! <<

I'm not sure why you would characterize Mizen making a perfectly understandable mistake in such terms as "incompetence" and "making up stories (lying)" I'll leave Calico O to reply definitively, but that's not what was written in his/her post.


>>Are you seriously suggesting that, if Mizen was informed that there was a woman lying dead, it seriously injured, and not made aware that another officer was already in attendance, then any failure to respond immediately was not a serious dereliction of duty?<<

Again, if we take the drama out of your post and look at the actual information available, Xmere is reported as saying,

"There's a woman lying in Buck's-row. She looks to me as though she was dead, or drunk." The other man then said, "I believe she is dead."

Or alternatively,

“Witness said to him, "There's a woman lying down in Buck's-row on the broad of her back. I think she's dead or drunk." The other man said, "I believe she's dead."

Point one: Both these statements are in accordance we what both Xmere and Paul described seeing in Buck’s Row.

Point Two: Neither man described Mrs. Nichols as being “seriously injured”.


>>If you recognize that the newspaper accounts were inconsistent, then why do you argue that Cross should be believed over Mizen?<<

Whilst the newspapers are inconstant on some matters they are not inconsistent on these specific matters being currently debated.


>>PC Mizen was a serving police officer with an impeccable record. Cross, on the other hand, was a man discovered next to a woman who may have recently been murdered. Does that prove that Cross committed murder? No. But if you don't believe that, at the very least, the fact that his story was directly contradicted by Mizen isn't at least suspicious then I'm afraid I cannot help you.<<

All of which means if Xmere’s version was given preference then there should have been a reason behind it to do so.

I note that you have now elevated Mizen’s record to “impeccable”.
Could you share your sources for the upgrading?

Wasn't Sir Charles Warren was brought in as Commissioner of the Met. because a series of scandals, showed the force to have endemic corruption and policemen on the beat regularly accused of laziness in pursuing there duties?
Under such circumstances, for someone to be described as "impeccable" would require a some strong evidence to support it.

[David Orsam]

I know what suspicion means.I know what proof is.Starting with the premise that Cross told the truth,under oath,(I'm entitled to do that),I find there is no evidence that Cross lied,and wihout proof, no reason for suspicion that he did..

Starting with the premise that Cross told the truth is an utterly absurd way of carrying out a murder investigation in the face of contradictory evidence from a police officer. No wonder you are perversely refusing to accept that there is any possible suspicion against the man. You might as well say that on the basis that Cross is innocent you conclude that Cross is innocent!

[John G]

Hello John G,

>>Are you seriously suggesting that PC Mizen was so stupid that he would not have anticipated his evidence, to the effect that another police officer was already in attendance, wouldn't be challenged by Cross/Paul assuming it was an outrageous lie? Because, frankly, that's absurd.<<

Why do Xmereites always resort to absolutisms in debates?

Calico O. made no such suggestion, so why suggest it?

Try reversing the question, would Xmere insert himself into the investigation knowing full well a policeman and an independent witness would dispute his story.

Whilst neither scenario his can positively ruled out, neither seems particularly credible.


>>Or perhaps you're implying that Mizen was so incompetent that he completely forgot what was told to him and just decided to make up a story! <<

I'm not sure why you would characterize Mizen making a perfectly understandable mistake in such terms as "incompetence" and "making up stories (lying)" I'll leave Calico O to reply definitively, but that's not what was written in his/her post.


>>Are you seriously suggesting that, if Mizen was informed that there was a woman lying dead, it seriously injured, and not made aware that another officer was already in attendance, then any failure to respond immediately was not a serious dereliction of duty?<<

Again, if we take the drama out of your post and look at the actual information available, Xmere is reported as saying,

"There's a woman lying in Buck's-row. She looks to me as though she was dead, or drunk." The other man then said, "I believe she is dead."

Or alternatively,

“Witness said to him, "There's a woman lying down in Buck's-row on the broad of her back. I think she's dead or drunk." The other man said, "I believe she's dead."

Point one: Both these statements are in accordance we what both Xmere and Paul described seeing in Buck’s Row.

Point Two: Neither man described Mrs. Nichols as being “seriously injured”.


>>If you recognize that the newspaper accounts were inconsistent, then why do you argue that Cross should be believed over Mizen?<<

Whilst the newspapers are inconstant on some matters they are not inconsistent on these specific matters being currently debated.


>>PC Mizen was a serving police officer with an impeccable record. Cross, on the other hand, was a man discovered next to a woman who may have recently been murdered. Does that prove that Cross committed murder? No. But if you don't believe that, at the very least, the fact that his story was directly contradicted by Mizen isn't at least suspicious then I'm afraid I cannot help you.<<

All of which means if Xmere’s version was given preference then there should have been a reason behind it to do so.

I note that you have now elevated Mizen’s record to “impeccable”.
Could you share your sources for the upgrading?

Wasn't Sir Charles Warren was brought in as Commissioner of the Met. because a series of scandals, showed the force to have endemic corruption and policemen on the beat regularly accused of laziness in pursuing there duties?
Under such circumstances, for someone to be described as "impeccable" would require a some strong evidence to support it.

Well, for irony this post certainly takes the biscuit! Like a lot of posters you've become so obsessed with knocking down suspect theories that objectivity has gone completely out of the window.

I'm not suggesting for one minute that there's anything like conclusive evidence against Cross. The argument is simply that a suspicion is raised against Cross because his evidence, the evidence of a man found next to a dead body, is contradicted by a police officer, and one with an impeccable record.

However, you are seemingly so lacking in objectivity you even challenge this basic fact: if Mizen didn't have an impeccable record then he must have been subject to disciplinary action, which he wasn't. In fact, to the contrary, David has highlighted two occasions when he was commended for his police work. Frankly, your argument is almost Pierre- esque in its "logic".

And, just in case you're still struggling with the basic argument, let me provide you with an analogy. William Wallace, in a famous case, was accused of murdering his wife. There are a number of issues which raise suspicion against his behaviour, however, the case against him certainly was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt: in fact, if the evidence of at least one independent witness is to be accepted it would have been virtually impossible for him to have committed the crime. The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) agreed and squashed his conviction for murder, i.e. on the grounds that no reasonable jury could have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, based upon the evidence before them.


And as for what Cross is supposed to have said to PC Mizen, this is also disputed by the officer: PC Mizen contender that he had simply been informed that that he was wanted in Bucks Row were there was a woman "lying." And, frankly, Cross' testimony at the inquest is so contrary, that in itself is enough to raise a further suspicion. I mean, he variously described the victim as being possibly "dead", "drunk", not "seriously injured", in a "swoon."

Nor does the evidence of Paul, such as it is, support your attempts to denigrate an officer with an impeccable record. Paul we are told simply went off to tell a police officer what he'd seen. Okay, well what he saw was a woman lying in the street. We are therefore certainly not entitled to assume thst he proceeded to regale PC Mizen with his amateur physician's/ forensic Psychologist's opinion that the woman was dead, or hardly breathing.

Finally, may I respectfully offer this piece of advice. Before you seek to patronize another poster with nonesense such as, "if we take the drama out of your post", it would be helpful if you could demonstrate that you have a far greater grasp of the basic facts than you have erstwhile demonstrated (it would also help if you desisted from applying Pierre-esque logic, with absurdities such as implying that PC Mizen might not have had an impeccable record, presumably because evidence might emerge, at presumably some indeterminate time in the future, that challenges the known facts!)

[John Wheat]

The British justice system is based on the idea that someone is innocent until proven guilty. but advocates of Cross the Ripper presume Cross guilty until proven innocent and make mountains out of molehills. Cross used a name that could easily be traced back to him. Big deal it indicates nothing.