Leaving one's beat

[Elamarna]

The data is there. And you have said we shall wait for your theory. I therefore do not tell you that there is no theory. I wait. Gladly.

As do I for yours. And I do not deny your theory, I say several times that I find it interesting, and I have told you before that I consider the basic on the idea about the policeman has valid as any. .

I donīt know why you say it is almost impossible to disprove.

There is nothing connecting Lechmere to any other murder. The only thing connecting him to 31st August is the finding of Nichols on the site nearest his home.

That is sufficient to disprove it.

I disagree, it makes it highly unlikely, but it does not disprove.
We may be disagreeing here over the use of words rather than basic concepts, I am not sure.

But people have become so used to reading poor so called theories that they believe that is all there can be.

But it isnīt.

I agree



Dear Steve, I am well aware of my responsibility. That is why I am taking a little time now to produce texts, a few pages and chapters when I have the time, outside of this forum.

Cheers, Pierre

Pierre, if it came across I was having a dig such was not my intention.
I happily wait for you to finish, how ever long it takes.
If you are correct great, if not we'll that life, however the debates will be enlightening and of a high standard I am sure.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Steve,

CL and Paul both had a good reason to lie to Mizen. Neither wanted to be late for work and so naturally wouldn't have wanted to hang around (they were both already late.) Of course I'm not claiming this to be a fact but it has to be at least a possibility.

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;426221]

No, it is based on the hypothesis that Cross had a motive for lying.

Ok point accepted. But that goes hand in hand with you failure to see a motive for Mizen to lie

It is very different, Steve. I do not claim that Cross was the killer, just a witness.

The conclusion is indeed different but the reasoning process is very similar

The interpretation is not based on a view. The view is partly (a very small part) based on interpretation, which is based on comparison. You saw it.

It does not really matter what terms we use to say how we arrive at the conclusion, it remains a choice and it is subjective

Absolutely not. They had their motives for doing it the way they did.

Again it's a subjective conclusion. One can find a motive for anything, which was part of the purpose of some of the ideas floated on the slaughter men.



Steve

[Pierre]

You suggested I was inventing conspiracy to cover for not having an answer for how Train's cape arrived in Winthrop Street, and to a degree I was, however I have a very clear view of how it probably got there, no conspiracies at all.

Has I said I was trying out wild ideas to get a response.


Steve

Thanks for an honest answer. I think you have some hypothesis about the cape being some key to an understanding for why Mizen, as in your hypothesis, would have lied.

I think you have been trying to estimate minutes for the beats. But it is not reliable.

I think maybe you think the guy Tomkins was picked as a witness since he was not in the slaughter house at the point in time when the cape was left there. So he did not know the name of the PC who left it.

Tomkins was testifying day 2 when Neil and Thain was not at the inquest.

I think you think that Tomkins had Neil and Thain mixed up. Loyalty was to Neil from Mizen and Thain. Neil did not find Nichols after Cross and Paul. Mizen came to the site and Nichols was lying there but Neil was not there when he should have been.

Mizen lied and said there was a PC (meaning Neil) at the murder site to protect Neil.

Did Neil leave the cape at the slaughterhouse? Did he fetch it? Was it his cape?

I am just guessing.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

But there was nothing to expose. As you yourself say, they decided to believe Cross and to believe that Mizen misunderstood.

Yes it was the easier option to take .
If they decided one of the two actually lied, they would have to take further action.


But you do. There were loyalties and disloyalties and lies and truths told, according to yourself. Remember?

Maybe you missed the posts where I made it clear that I was putting forward a myriad of idea, many of which I did not actually agree with, to see what feedback there was.



With regards to slaughter men? What do you mean, Steve?

You suggested I was inventing conspiracy to cover for not having an answer for how Train's cape arrived in Winthrop Street, and to a degree I was, however I have a very clear view of how it probably got there, no conspiracies at all.

Has I said I was trying out wild ideas to get a response.


Steve

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;426221]

Dear Steve,

that was not the testimony of Mizen. I.e. Mizen did not state at the inquest that Cross told him there was a person impersonating a London Police Officer in Buckīs Row.

No he did not but said

You know what the implication of the second point was for senior officials. Such could not be had. And therefore was not.


I took that to infer the alternative was itt was someone dressed in a police uniform. If such a man was not a London Police Officer he was therefore impersonating one, or have I misunderstood uou
that the POLICE knew one of there men had not spoken to Lechmere and did not wanr

But there was nothing to expose. As you yourself say, they decided to believe Cross and to believe that Mizen misunderstood.


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;426215]

If there was a person impersonating a London Police Officer

Dear Steve,

that was not the testimony of Mizen. I.e. Mizen did not state at the inquest that Cross told him there was a person impersonating a London Police Officer in Buckīs Row.

I fail to see why they would not want to expose such.

But there was nothing to expose. As you yourself say, they decided to believe Cross and to believe that Mizen misunderstood.

I am afraid I do not buy into the conspiracy theory.

But you do. There were loyalties and disloyalties and lies and truths told, according to yourself. Remember?

It seems quite ironic given your post on theories with regards to slaughter men.

With regards to slaughter men? What do you mean, Steve?

And my friend while there are the sources to back my view, has you ackowledge by debating them above, there is no data, other than Mizen's statement, to support the idea you propose, is there?

Just as you have not published your conclusions yet, I have yet to publish data.

Your hypothesis is based on the belief that Mizen had no reason to lie.

No, it is based on the hypothesis that Cross had a motive for lying.

It is your intpretation and is no different from that of of the pro Lechmere people.

It is very different, Steve. I do not claim that Cross was the killer, just a witness.

You make a choice based on your intpretation of Mizen and Lechmere, based on the completely subjective view of who is the least likely to lie.

The interpretation is not based on a view. The view is partly (a very small part) based on interpretation, which is based on comparison. You saw it.

However that means you have to write off actually data from the sources as the Police refusing to acknowledge the situation as you see it.

Absolutely not. They had their motives for doing it the way they did.

You make an interesting argument, However it is clear such cannot be supported by the data.

The data is there. And you have said we shall wait for your theory. I therefore do not tell you that there is no theory. I wait. Gladly.

Of course that does not mean you are wrong, as like the pro Lechmere theory, while it cannot be proven, it is almost impossible to conclusively disprove.

I donīt know why you say it is almost impossible to disprove.

There is nothing connecting Lechmere to any other murder. The only thing connecting him to 31st August is the finding of Nichols on the site nearest his home.

That is sufficient to disprove it.

But people have become so used to reading poor so called theories that they believe that is all there can be.

But it isnīt.

You of course are well aware of this.

Dear Steve, I am well aware of my responsibility. That is why I am taking a little time now to produce texts, a few pages and chapters when I have the time, outside of this forum.

Cheers, Pierre

[Elamarna]

QUOTE=Elamarna;426184



Indeed!

That is the first point. Senior officials did not accept the idea that anyone of their police constables asked Lechmere for assistance in Buckīs Row.

Because they did not.

And now the second point. Senior officials did not accept the idea that an unknown policeman asked Lechmere for assistance in Buckīs Row.

And obviously you have analyzed the sources and found this.

You know what the implication of the second point was for senior officials. Such could not be had. And therefore was not.

Poor Mizen.

Cheers, Pierre

If there was a person impersonating a London Police Officer I fail to see why they would not want to expose such. I am afraid I do not buy into the conspiracy theory.
It seems quite ironic given your post on theories with regards to slaughter men.


And my friend while there are the sources to back my view, has you ackowledge by debating them above, there is no data, other than Mizen's statement, to support the idea you propose, is there?

Your hypothesis is based on the belief that Mizen had no reason to lie.
It is your intpretation and is no different from that of of the pro Lechmere people.
You make a choice based on your intpretation of Mizen and Lechmere, based on the completely subjective view of who is the least likely to lie.
However that means you have to write off actually data from the sources as the Police refusing to acknowledge the situation as you see it.


You make an interesting argument, However it is clear such cannot be supported by the data.

Of course that does not mean you are wrong, as like the pro Lechmere theory, while it cannot be proven, it is almost impossible to conclusively disprove.
You of course are well aware of this.

Cheers

Steve




Cheers

Steve

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Elamarna;426184

Data from several other sources which strongly suggest that senior officials did not accept Mizen's statement was accurate.

Indeed!

That is the first point. Senior officials did not accept the idea that anyone of their police constables asked Lechmere for assistance in Buckīs Row.

Because they did not.

And now the second point. Senior officials did not accept the idea that an unknown policeman asked Lechmere for assistance in Buckīs Row.

And obviously you have analyzed the sources and found this.

You know what the implication of the second point was for senior officials. Such could not be had. And therefore was not.

Poor Mizen.

Cheers, Pierre

[Elamarna]

There is nothing supporting an hypothesis that PC Mizen did not tell the truth.


They had the knowledge that no one of their PC:s was the policeman seen by Cross. And that knowledge did not contradict the statement of Mizen. Therefore, there is no support of the hypothesis that Mizen lied or misunderstood.

There certainly is supporting data that his report was not accepted as an accurate account of what happened.

Especially not when the explanatory power lies in the support for Cross not being entirely honest at the inquest. But people are afraid of stating that Cross was not honest, since that notion is so contaminated by the Lechmere idea.



And it was absolutely clear to them that none of their policemen had asked Cross for assistance in Buckīs Row! So that was that.

And Lechmere gained a lot by coming to the inquest. He got the chance to declare in the papers that he had not seen a policeman in Buckīs Row.

Pierre

And I say to you again my Friend, that apart from Mizen's disputed statement, which it appears his own superiors were less than enamoured, there really is nothing to support Lechmere seeing a man in a uniform in Bucks Row is there?

At present we seem to have 4 theories at least:

1. The policeman in Bucks Row, proposed to support a scam by Lechmere.
Apparently based on accepting Mizen's statement and disbelieveing Lechmere and disregarding Paul.
No other source based data to back such up.

2. The genuine misunderstanding.
Based on accepting that both Lechmere and Mizen told the truth, but again
No other source data to back it up.

3. Your take on the policeman idea.

Much as first, but with entirely different reasoning and motive.
At present no other source data, but possibly some to come at later date.

4. My as yet not fully disclosed theory.

Mizen did not tell the truth, there will be a reason supplied for this, indeed much of it already has been. Data supporting the motive for such is contained in the inquest testimony.
Data from several other sources which strongly suggest that senior officials did not accept Mizen's statement was accurate.

We must accept that there are insufficient sources which will ever allow us to reach a consensus view on this issue.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve
I personally think to much is being read into these ambiguities which have arisen, not only on this thread but with regards to other inquest testimony relative to some of the other victims.

As we know the purpose of an inquest was to simply determine the cause of death, which would encompass the facts leading up to that death. These witnesses clearly went to the courts and gave their evidence in good faith. Did any of them lie, if they did for what purpose, and what was there to be gained by lying, or did they just tell it as it was?

Hi Trevor, much of that is possibly true.

When I post full details of my view on Mizen, you will see where I am coming from and possible reasons for lying.
You may not agree with the conclusion given, but the reasoning will I hope be sound and it will be backed by evidence.

Its not as if any evidence given in any of the inquests was going to get anyone hung, as there was never anyone arrested, or in the frame for the murders. I am sure the courts could see these ambiguities as the testimony was given but clearly decided not to expand on them to the point of clarification.

They were not to know that 129 years later the testimony would be looked at and scrutinised in the way it is today. Its a shame because from my perspective there are many important and probing questions which in my opinion could, and should have been asked of some of the witnesses in all of the murder inquests, had that have taken place, the way we look at this mystery 129 years later may have been totally different to how it is viewed by many.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Again that is well within reason.
The ambiguities has you call them, generally do not have a direct impact on the Murders, at least in the Nichols case. And has is obvious from my research we should not place too much emphasis on particularly words or phrases as it is clear much of what we have is not word perfect by any means.

I am moving on to the official police reports in the next few days, it would be good to have your comments given your experience.

Cheers

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;426173]

Hi Steve
I personally think to much is being read into these ambiguities which have arisen, not only on this thread but with regards to other inquest testimony relative to some of the other victims.

Hi Trevor,

I agree with you.

As we know the purpose of an inquest was to simply determine the cause of death, which would encompass the facts leading up to that death. These witnesses clearly went to the courts and gave their evidence in good faith. Did any of them lie, if they did for what purpose, and what was there to be gained by lying, or did they just tell it as it was?

An hypothesis about lying should be backed by data from the case. We know that Lechmere called himself Cross at this particular event but otherwise Lechmere. Therefore he told half the truth. This is support for his statement that he did not tell Mizen he saw a policeman in Buckīs Row. He took it back and therefore he was not telling the truth.

There is nothing supporting an hypothesis that PC Mizen did not tell the truth.

They had the knowledge that no one of their PC:s was the policeman seen by Cross. And that knowledge did not contradict the statement of Mizen. Therefore, there is no support of the hypothesis that Mizen lied or misunderstood.

Especially not when the explanatory power lies in the support for Cross not being entirely honest at the inquest. But people are afraid of stating that Cross was not honest, since that notion is so contaminated by the Lechmere idea.

Its not as if any evidence given in any of the inquests was going to get anyone hung, as there was never anyone arrested, or in the frame for the murders. I am sure the courts could see these ambiguities as the testimony was given but clearly decided not to expand on them to the point of clarification.

And it was absolutely clear to them that none of their policemen had asked Cross for assistance in Buckīs Row! So that was that.

And Lechmere gained a lot by coming to the inquest. He got the chance to declare in the papers that he had not seen a policeman in Buckīs Row.

Pierre

[Trevor Marriott]

Pierre,

Of course not however given Neil's Saturday testimony it is clear at that point he had no knowledge of the story Mizen was going to tell 2 days later.

Steve

Hi Steve
I personally think to much is being read into these ambiguities which have arisen, not only on this thread but with regards to other inquest testimony relative to some of the other victims.

As we know the purpose of an inquest was to simply determine the cause of death, which would encompass the facts leading up to that death. These witnesses clearly went to the courts and gave their evidence in good faith. Did any of them lie, if they did for what purpose, and what was there to be gained by lying, or did they just tell it as it was?

Its not as if any evidence given in any of the inquests was going to get anyone hung, as there was never anyone arrested, or in the frame for the murders. I am sure the courts could see these ambiguities as the testimony was given but clearly decided not to expand on them to the point of clarification.

They were not to know that 129 years later the testimony would be looked at and scrutinised in the way it is today. Its a shame because from my perspective there are many important and probing questions which in my opinion could, and should have been asked of some of the witnesses in all of the murder inquests, had that have taken place, the way we look at this mystery 129 years later may have been totally different to how it is viewed by many.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I wanted to join the thread but I have to admit to being a little(ok, more than a little) baffled. Can I just ask a couple of questions? You may not want to answer as you've been over this ground so I'll understand.

1. Pierre, are you suggesting that CL saw a policeman with the victim (making him the killer)?
2. If so, why didn't he mention it to Paul or anyone else for that matter?
3. What leads you to believe these things?

I'm not criticising your opinions here Pierre I'm just trying to get an overall picture of how you've formed them. I am having a very 'distracting' time at the moment so I have to admit that I'm probably not following some threads as closely or with as much thought as I'd like to (that's my excuse anyway )

[Elamarna]

Absence of evidence is not evidence. But you already know this.

Pierre,

Of course not however given Neil's Saturday testimony it is clear at that point he had no knowledge of the story Mizen was going to tell 2 days later.

Steve