Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Favorite suspect/s?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    The same source, indeed the same sentence/paragraph, which says "[Coroner:] There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness".

    In other words, when Cross spoke to Mizen, Paul was with him.
    Which is the exact distance inbetween people disclosed by the phrase "in company of"? Please expand on that, since it seems there is a lot to learn.

    Comment


    • Me, I will withdraw intermittently - or permanently - from the debate on this thread. It is not a very useful one at this stage. Actually, it could be that it was Caz´s underwear that was the final straw.

      Anyways...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        Have you forgotten all the old threads...? He may have wanted to keep his real name from those who knew his paths and could start suspecting him.
        Why on earth should they have done so? Did Davis, Dymshitz et al suffer such indignities?

        And what do you think that both Cross and Paul told their co-workers? "Ere, you'll never guess this, but nothing 'appened on my way into work"?
        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
          I read the first line and skipped the rest. You get that totally wrong. Lechmere had opportunity to kill as far as a jury would be concerned
          It is another matter that he may not even have been in contact with the body. His being placed where he was and not being able to provide a corroborated alibi means that he is going to be regarded as having had opportunity.

          And that is exactly as it should be, otherwise any killer could say "Didn´t go near her" and demand to be believed.

          That is absolute poppycock, Caz.
          I quite agree. That post of yours was absolute poppycock.

          Lechmere was the first man to be seen near Nichols after she had been murdered. He was not seen with her while she was alive and still had the potential to be murdered.

          See the difference?

          No, thought not.

          The man seen canoodling with Eddowes near Mitre Square had a proven opportunity to murder her because she was seen alive and in his company at that point. Doesn't mean he went on to kill her, but he had the opportunity. He either took it, or someone else did very shortly afterwards.

          Lechmere could only have had a proven opportunity if Nichols had been seen alive with him at any point, and there is no evidence whatsoever in his case that she was. If she had been seen alive with him shortly before being pronounced dead, then yes of course, he'd not only have had the opportunity, but would almost certainly have been her killer. That's why it is meaningless to talk about 'opportunity' in these circumstances.

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            Me, I will withdraw intermittently - or permanently - from the debate on this thread. It is not a very useful one at this stage. Actually, it could be that it was Caz´s underwear that was the final straw.

            Anyways...
            I always knew my knickers would come in useful one day...
            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              Which is the exact distance inbetween people disclosed by the phrase "in company of"? Please expand on that, since it seems there is a lot to learn.
              "In the company of" doesn't mean "standing five yards away", let's put it that way. And Paul was in Cross's company when he spoke with Mizen - not just before he spoke, not just after he spoke, but when he spoke.

              There is no indication at all that Cross stepped forward, or took Mizen to one side to confide in him, and there's zero justification for believing as much.
              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by caz View Post
                I always knew my knickers would come in useful one day...
                You were ever the optimist, Caz.
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  I was referring to how you compared my argument with a pile of ****, and how Herlock got all teary-eyed and felt extremely insulted on your behalf when I turned the exact same phrase on you. I simply demanded that he would b fair enough to crucify you as he crucified me.

                  He would have none of it. I am to blame, solely, and you are to congratulate to have escaped crucifixion. Whether you choose to celebrate that in your undies, butt naked or in a more festive clothing is your own choice entirely.
                  Ever the victim.

                  I didnt ‘crucify’ you Fish. I took exeption to what i saw as yet another insult in a long line that ive received from you. Why is it that you are allowed to insult and belittle other posters and yet when they respond you climb onto your high horse and start acting like a saint.

                  Perhaps you should start a Lechmere thread just for people that agree with everything you say. You may enjoy it more.
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes



                  "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                  ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    Have you forgotten all the old threads...? He may have wanted to keep his real name from those who knew his paths and could start suspecting him.
                    Then perhaps he might have been advised not to have given his real address away
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes



                    "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                    ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      Which is the exact distance inbetween people disclosed by the phrase "in company of"? Please expand on that, since it seems there is a lot to learn.
                      No Fish, its very obvious and very simple. It means ‘with’ as opposed to ‘10 yards away.’ It means that they were close enough to say that they were ‘together’ rather than ‘in existance in the same town.’

                      If you are ‘in the company of’ someone you are ‘with’ them as opposed to ‘apart from’ them. I cant believe that you are trying to obfuscate on this point Fish.

                      They were ‘in each other’s company,’ ‘together,’ therefore they were standing next to each other.
                      Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 06-05-2018, 08:52 AM.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes



                      "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                      ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by caz View Post
                        I quite agree. That post of yours was absolute poppycock.

                        Lechmere was the first man to be seen near Nichols after she had been murdered. He was not seen with her while she was alive and still had the potential to be murdered.

                        See the difference?

                        No, thought not.

                        The man seen canoodling with Eddowes near Mitre Square had a proven opportunity to murder her because she was seen alive and in his company at that point. Doesn't mean he went on to kill her, but he had the opportunity. He either took it, or someone else did very shortly afterwards.

                        Lechmere could only have had a proven opportunity if Nichols had been seen alive with him at any point, and there is no evidence whatsoever in his case that she was. If she had been seen alive with him shortly before being pronounced dead, then yes of course, he'd not only have had the opportunity, but would almost certainly have been her killer. That's why it is meaningless to talk about 'opportunity' in these circumstances.

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X
                        Excellent post Caz.

                        Completely wasted on Fish though but....hey, you knew that
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes



                        "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                        ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                          You were ever the optimist, Caz.
                          Come on Gareth....Fish is never thong.....err, i mean wrong
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes



                          "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                          ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                            Criminals-can-lie. They-WILL-do-so-on-many-an-occasion.

                            The idea that his speaking about a tarpaulin would be ironclad proof - or even a slight indication - of innocence is bonkers.
                            It's consistent with innocence, Fish. Do keep up.

                            You haven't even shown that Cross was a criminal yet, let alone that he lied about thinking Nichols was a tarpaulin at first.

                            All this confirmation bias is the crap I was talking about. There is nothing but confirmation bias to be seen in your posts, Fish. Your argument seems to be that where his behaviour is consistent with innocence, he must have been putting on an act and lying for all he was worth to save his miserable criminal skin.

                            That's never going to make a case against him; it's simple wish fulfilment.

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X
                            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                            Comment


                            • I always knew Fish's theory was pants.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                                It is both a fact and a source.

                                The fact: Mizen did not say that both men spoke to him.

                                The source: The Echo article saying "the other man, who went down Hanbury Street".
                                My dear Christer.

                                That Mizen does not mention Paul speaking, is not in itself proof that he did not.
                                It is not even proof that Mizen is denying Paul spoke to him at all.
                                If Mizen had said that Paul had not spoken to him that would be a fact. He did not!
                                On the other hand, both Carmen say that Paul did speak, those are positive statements and in no way are they refuted by the non mention in Mizen's testimony.

                                The Echo is but a single source, and as such needs to be treated carefully, that however does not mean that it should be disregarded, but we have to concede it is not corroborated by a second source.

                                It could however be illuminating to look at the full text of that particular quote:


                                By the Coroner - There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness. The other man, who went down Hanbury-street, appeared to be working with Cross.


                                That can, and I respectfully suggest should be read as:
                                The Coroner (Baxter) asks Mizen if another person was present when Cross spoke to him.
                                Mizen replies yes, the other man who went down Hanbury Street with Cross, they appeared to be colleagues.

                                The Fact appears not to be a fact, but an assumption based on an omission.

                                The Source is certinly open to different interpretations, and is far from conclusive. However Gareth is correct to point out that the question from Baxter was in relation to who was present when Cross spoke to Mizen.


                                It therefore appears that the idea that they seperated is not supported by the sources.



                                Steve
                                Last edited by Elamarna; 06-05-2018, 09:16 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X