Lechmere Continuation Thread

[David Orsam]

I do, however, find myself to be somewhat embarrassed by my unfamiliarity with the phrase 'false inversion'. Perhaps you might be so good as to explain....Regardless of logical arguments, why should Cross's testimony not be afforded the same latitude in terms of recall versus precise duplication?

What I mean by false inversion is that you can't turn around "If Mizen's evidence is correct, then Cross lied" into "If Cross's evidence is correct, then Mizen lied". To do so would be a false inversion. (I appreciate you didn't actually do this because you asked a question which is why I said it "would be" a false inversion).

I have already explained why Cross's testimony is different to Mizen's but I'll do it again.

If Mizen's evidence is correct then Cross told him there was a policeman wanting him in Buck's Row which means that Cross must have lied because there was no such policeman.

If, on the other hand, Cross's evidence is correct (and Mizen's is not) then Cross never said there was a policeman in Bucks Row. So Mizen either lied about what Cross said or he misheard him or he misunderstood him or he heard him correctly at the time but later recalled it wrong.

But, to repeat, if Mizen's evidence is correct there is no room for any misunderstanding or failure of recollection because it means that Cross did tell him there was a policeman wanting him in Bucks Row and there is no other explanation than that it was a lie.

[GUT]

Or Cross forgot mentioning that.

[David Orsam]

Or Cross forgot mentioning that.

Forgot to mention what?

If Mizen's evidence is correct then Cross told him there was a policeman in Bucks Row who was calling for him. There's nothing that Cross could have forgotten to mention which would change his statement from a lie to anything else.

[Pcdunn]

Forgot he had mentioned...

Forgot to mention what?

If Mizen's evidence is correct then Cross told him there was a policeman in Bucks Row who was calling for him. There's nothing that Cross could have forgotten to mention which would change his statement from a lie to anything else.

I took GUT's post "Or Cross forgot mentioning that" to mean that Cross forgot he had mentioned a policeman to Mizen when he spoke to him in passing, not necessarily that he forgot to add anything to his statement at the inquest.

Why did he mention a policeman to Mizen, but tell the authorities, "No, because I didn't see a policeman?" Maybe, as others have suggested, he did mention a policeman in order to get Mizen to hurry off, but simply forgot about this, and later told the truth when questioned. So-- was it an unintentional lie, as opposed to an intentional one?

[Columbo]

Clearly not because you've missed out the possibility that Cross lied and it was a meaningful lie.

That's the most important possibility of all because the fact that it exists is a reason for suspicion to be cast against Lechmere.

As for all the other options, I may be banging my head against a brick wall, but I don't know why you've bothered setting them out because they are not relevant to the debate I was having with Harry, although perhaps you are engaged in a different debate.

Let me answer your two responses with this:

I understand your argument just fine, but in this post above you say "the fact that it exists is reason for suspicion to be cast against Lechmere".

The fact that what exists? because of the denial of Mizen and no real corroboration that Lechmere said it means we don't know "for a fact" that Lechmere told him he was needed. I haven't seen anything that says Paul agreed with Lechmere that he told the Mizen he was needed. Fisherman's theory is partially based on the assumption that Lechmere walked ahead of Paul and talked to Mizen out of earshot of Paul. So there is nothing other than a newspaper account that either said anything.

You may think it's weak because you have no argument for it, but it has been proven already that the newspapers don't get it right and sometimes are so far off the mark it makes them useless. So if you want to trust all the newspapers wrote go ahead. It's all we have to go on unfortunately. Just because they printed doesn't make it true.

Columbo

[David Orsam]

I took GUT's post "Or Cross forgot mentioning that" to mean that Cross forgot he had mentioned a policeman to Mizen when he spoke to him in passing, not necessarily that he forgot to add anything to his statement at the inquest.

But the lie I am talking about is that Cross lied about speaking to a policeman who supposedly summoned Mizen to Bucks Row. So whether Cross forgot at the inquest that he lied is neither here nor there.

Why did he mention a policeman to Mizen, but tell the authorities, "No, because I didn't see a policeman?" Maybe, as others have suggested, he did mention a policeman in order to get Mizen to hurry off, but simply forgot about this, and later told the truth when questioned. So-- was it an unintentional lie, as opposed to an intentional one?

I don't dispute that there might be reasons for him lying other than him being the murderer, and I have stated such a reason myself, but you are leaping ahead because the only point I'm making is that if he lied there is a reason for suspicion given that we don't actually know why he lied.

[David Orsam]

Let me answer your two responses with this:

I understand your argument just fine, but in this post above you say "the fact that it exists is reason for suspicion to be cast against Lechmere".

The fact that what exists?

The fact that the possibility that Lechmere lied exists is reason for suspicion to be cast against Lechmere.

In other words, because we can't discount the possibility that he did lie, we have to regard Lechmere with suspicion. Any other attitude in a criminal investigation would be perverse.

[David Orsam]

You may think it's weak because you have no argument for it, but it has been proven already that the newspapers don't get it right and sometimes are so far off the mark it makes them useless. So if you want to trust all the newspapers wrote go ahead. It's all we have to go on unfortunately. Just because they printed doesn't make it true.

Newspapers do sometimes make mistakes when reporting court proceedings but on the whole they are correct, especially when there are a number of different reporters all reporting the same thing.

To dispute a newspaper report of an inquest simply because it is a newspaper report is absurd. Unless there is some kind of reason to believe part of a report is wrong, it is perfectly acceptable to rely on it as true. The authorities themselves relied on newspaper reporting of inquests in 1888. Reports from the Times and Telegraph were pretty much accepted as official inquest reports.

You really are way on the wrong lines here.

[John G]

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.

I strongly disagree. Firstly, you cannot assume that a killer/serial killer will act rationally in these circumstances:consider, for example, Sutcliffe and the Jean Jordan murder. Moreover, he might have been feeling paranoid, concerned that Paul might suspect him. Also consider that fact that, if had murdered Nichols, he wouldn't have had the opportunity to dispose of the murder weapon, which would, presumably, be still on his person. And then there's the fact that, at the inquest, he seemed to downplay the extent of Nichols' injuries, telling the inquest that he didn't believe that Nichols had any serious injuries, and was possibly in a "swoon"

In these circumstances if Lechmere had murdered Nichols he had every reason to lie in the way that he did. Thus, he wouldn't have wanted to return, with PC Mizen, to the body-because once Mizen became aware of the seriousness of the injuries he may have had to answer some uncomfortable questions and, worse, could have been asked to consent to a search.

By apparently downplaying the seriousness of the incident, and informing the officer that another policeman was already attendance, PC Mizen may have been under the impression that this wasn't the type of incident that merited his immediate attention and, just as importantly, he would have assumed that the other officer had already questioned Lechmere and was satisfied with his responses, i.e. to the extent that he was prepared to let him leave the scene of the crime.

Does this prove that Lechmere murdered Nichols? No. However, it demonstrates that he had every reason to lie to PC Mizen if he had something to hide.

[Errata]

I strongly disagree. Firstly, you cannot assume that a killer/serial killer will act rationally in these circumstances:consider, for example, Sutcliffe and the Jean Jordan murder. Moreover, he might have been feeling paranoid, concerned that Paul might suspect him. Also consider that fact that, if had murdered Nichols, he wouldn't have had the opportunity to dispose of the murder weapon, which would, presumably, be still on his person. And then there's the fact that, at the inquest, he seemed to downplay the extent of Nichols' injuries, stating that he didn't believe that Nichols had any serious injuries, and was possibly in a "swoon." In contrast, Paul told the inquest that he believed she may have been dead, although he also said he thought he'd dedicated shallow breathing.

In these circumstances if Lechmere had murdered Nichols he had every reason to lie in the way that he did. Thus, he wouldn't have wanted to return, with PC Mizen, to the body-because once Mizen became aware of the seriousness of the injuries he may have had to answer some uncomfortable questions and, worse, could have been asked to consent to a search.

By downplaying the seriousness of the incident, and informing the officer that another policeman was already attendance, PC Mizen may have been under the impression that this wasn't the type of incident that merited his immediate attention and, just as importantly, he would have assumed that the other officer had already questioned Lechmere and was satisfied with his responses, i.e. to the extent that he was prepared to let him leave the scene of the crime.

Does this prove that Lechmere murdered Nichols? No. However, it demonstrates that he had every reason to lie to PC Mizen if he had something to hide

All of which I totally get. The act of lying is suspicious. But he had no way of knowing that saying another cop wanted Mizen at the scene was going to result in him being left to go on his way. In fact he had every chance that Mizen was still going to want to talk to him about what he saw. The fact that Mizen let them go is fortuitous, but not in the realm of expectation. There are other lies that had better chance of getting him out of there unexamined, and the one he told was not one of those lies.

It was a meaningless lie. Maybe it turned out well for him beyond reasonable expectation, but it was beyond reasonable expectation. He couldn't possibly have foreseen that outcome based on what he said.

[John G]

All of which I totally get. The act of lying is suspicious. But he had no way of knowing that saying another cop wanted Mizen at the scene was going to result in him being left to go on his way. In fact he had every chance that Mizen was still going to want to talk to him about what he saw. The fact that Mizen let them go is fortuitous, but not in the realm of expectation. There are other lies that had better chance of getting him out of there unexamined, and the one he told was not one of those lies.

It was a meaningless lie. Maybe it turned out well for him beyond reasonable expectation, but it was beyond reasonable expectation. He couldn't possibly have foreseen that outcome based on what he said.

I don't accept it was a meaningless lie, especially when you consider his options were limited. Moreover, he may not have acted to completely rationally. Thus, Sutcliffe left some incriminating evidence, a £5 note from a wages delivery, following the murder of Jean Jordan.he returned to the body but couldn't find the note. He then proceeded to attempt a decapitation-contrary to his previous MO. He subsequently explained his reasoning: his intention was to hide the head somewhere to "make a big mystery out of it". In other words, he was trying to make it look as though she hadn't been killed by the Yorkshire Ripper. However, this was a crazy idea. The police weren't going to fail to investing the murder, or the incriminating evidence, simply because of his attempts to confuse them. And, of course, they didn't, and Sutcliffe was extremely lucky that he escaped the dragnet.

Returning to Lechmere. Firstly, if he was the killer he couldn't very well refuse to look for a police officer, as that would have seemed extremely suspicious to Paul. Once they came across PC Mizen his options were very limited, particularly as Paul was also in attendance and could have given Mizen a very different account (and Paul believed the victim to be dead, or at least close to death.) Therefore, attempting to downplay the incident, by suggesting the victim may merely have been drunk, and referring to another officer already in attendance-in the hope that PC Mizen wouldn't subject him to close scrutiny or require him to accompany him to the crime scene, on the assumption that the other officer had already questioned him and was satisfied with his account-was probably the best he could do, or the best strategy he could come with, in the limited time frame available to him. Assuming he was the perpetrator, of course.

[David Orsam]

It was a meaningless lie. Maybe it turned out well for him beyond reasonable expectation, but it was beyond reasonable expectation. He couldn't possibly have foreseen that outcome based on what he said.

I don't think you mean to say "meaningless lie". I think you mean "pointless lie". You are trying to say that the lie could not reasonably have had any benefit to Lechmere and there was only a downside in him being caught out.

Where I think you are going wrong is that you are not sufficiently factoring in the fact that if he was the murderer he must have carrying a knife and he might have had blood on his hands and his clothes. He had to act normally with Paul but his clear motive would have been to get as far away as possible from Bucks Row and from any police officers.

His very life was at stake.

So if you put yourself into the mind of Lechmere as the murderer, the lie did have a possible benefit for him and I would say the outcome (i.e. being allowed on his way) was one he could reasonably have anticipated.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;388395]

Yes, Pierre, that is what a lie means by definition. The evidence is the evidence of PC Mizen at the Nichols inquest that Cross said to him that "he was wanted by a policeman".

If that evidence is correct, then Lechmere was lying (end of story) because Mizen was not wanted by a policeman.

So what is the evidence that this "evidence", i.e. the statement by Mizen that he was told he was wanted by a policeman in Buck“s Row, is corresponding to such a statement made by Lechmere?

As a matter of historical fact, we do not have that statement. It is nowhere in any source.

[Pierre]

I don't think you mean to say "meaningless lie". I think you mean "pointless lie". You are trying to say that the lie could not reasonably have had any benefit to Lechmere and there was only a downside in him being caught out.

Where I think you are going wrong is that you are not sufficiently factoring in the fact that if he was the murderer he must have carrying a knife and he might have had blood on his hands and his clothes. He had to act normally with Paul but his clear motive would have been to get as far away as possible from Bucks Row and from any police officers.

His very life was at stake.

So if you put yourself into the mind of Lechmere as the murderer, the lie did have a possible benefit for him and I would say the outcome (i.e. being allowed on his way) was one he could reasonably have anticipated.

And I would say that a lie would just make things complicated and increase the risk of a non suspect becoming a suspect.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;388456]

Newspapers do sometimes make mistakes when reporting court proceedings but on the whole they are correct, especially when there are a number of different reporters all reporting the same thing.

That is not correct. A lot of reporters reporting the same thing does not mean they are correct. It is just a phenomenon of copying each other. One paper may be correct when all else are wrong. You have to analyse the articles and look for the provenience of statements.

To dispute a newspaper report of an inquest simply because it is a newspaper report is absurd. Unless there is some kind of reason to believe part of a report is wrong, it is perfectly acceptable to rely on it as true. The authorities themselves relied on newspaper reporting of inquests in 1888. Reports from the Times and Telegraph were pretty much accepted as official inquest reports.

Oh, dear. So we should "believe" the newspapers because "authorities" in 1888 did so? That is really a naive and incorrect statement, David. Do you understand the differences between their society and ours? They hardly had any relevant education at all.