Favorite suspect/s?

[barnflatwyngarde]

to distance himself from the fact that he was her killer?

Nope, I still don't get it.

Why is he distancing himself from being the murderer by saying he went over to inspect a tarpaulin, rather than going over to give assistance to woman lying unconscious in the street?

[Abby Normal]

Abby,

That is all possible of course, but there is absolutly nothing to say it is so.
Indeed the overwhelming evidence is that it did not

Both carmen say that Paul spoke during the exchange with Mizen.
Surely therefore actual evidence is needed to refute those reports/statements.

I pointed out earlier, that at no time does Mizen say Paul never spoke, he just does not mention him. Omission is not the same as saying he didn't talk.



Steve

HI El
but mizen said he only spoke to one man. they could have both approached mizen and as they got a few feet away, paul could have said-you got this? lech-yes-you go on.
or lech offers it first- you go on .

then lech continues his approach to Mizen and begins the conversation as paul leaves.

The distraction of hurrying and being late to work might have played a role in Paul not giving a rats ass whats going on as soon as they spotted a PC.


Now all that being said, the bottom line is that Mizen said under oath that lech told him he was wanted by a PC in Bucks row. so all this talk of Paul, being with, not being with, also speaking etc etc. is all really secondary to the point isnt it?

[Abby Normal]

Nope, I still don't get it.

Why is he distancing himself from being the murderer by saying he went over to inspect a tarpaulin, rather than going over to give assistance to woman lying unconscious in the street?

it adds to perceived innocence. I'm so innocent, "at first, I didn't know what it was! a tarp maybe?"

of course I'm responding to the assumption but forth that him saying he thought it was tarp somehow is a check mark for his innocence. Its not.
could just be a clever ruse.

[Sam Flynn]

Sorry Sam, I genuinely don't get your point.

Don't worry - it was just a joke A tarpaulin is a cover, so a tale about a tarpaulin can be described as a cover story.

[Busy Beaver]

At that time of the morning, no one is quite awake and Lech's eye sight probably ain't what it used to be. I am usually up and out with the dog at 5.45am to the park and one morning I saw what I thought was a dog lying at the side of the park not moving. On closer inspection it was a black bag of rubbish which someone had dumped. Am I the murderer of a dumped black bag???

[Elamarna]

HI El
but mizen said he only spoke to one man. they could have both approached mizen and as they got a few feet away, paul could have said-you got this? lech-yes-you go on.
or lech offers it first- you go on .

He talks of speaking to Cross, and hardly mentions Paul. At no stage does he say Paul did not speak.

Mizen is not asked if the second man said anything.

Paul says he made comments to Mizen. Lechmere says the same, there is NO independent evidence to support the idea that Paul did not speak.

then lech continues his approach to Mizen and begins the conversation as paul leaves.

Again possible, but its supposition, there is no evidence to support the idea, while there is evidence to say it did not occur

The distraction of hurrying and being late to work might have played a role in Paul not giving a rats ass whats going on as soon as they spotted a PC.


Now all that being said, the bottom line is that Mizen said under oath that lech told him he was wanted by a PC in Bucks row. so all this talk of Paul, being with, not being with, also speaking etc etc. is all really secondary to the point isnt it?

Not at all Abby, Lechmere was also under oath, so either there is a misunderstanding or one of Lechmere and Mizen is being untruthful.

The argument for Lechmere is simewhat circular in nature, he lies because he is the killer and because he is the killer he lies. There is really nothing else to support it.
The name issue complicates it, but he did not give a false name,as such. However we have all been over this so many times before have we not.

The case for Lechmere in this particular issue really is largely confirmation bias.

The argument for Mizen is far more complcated and is backed by several seperate sources. I am sorry that i cannot give details before publication, but it includes testimony of others apart from Lechmere. It does not rely on the words of the two Carmen.

If we were to use just the Carmen, we have Lechmere and Paul corrobarating each other ( althogh Paul was not asked the question when on oath), both disagreeing with Mizen, and no actual evidence, other than Mizen to challenge that position.


All the best

Steve

[Sam Flynn]

they could have both approached mizen and as they got a few feet away, paul could have said-you got this? lech-yes-you go on.
or lech offers it first- you go on .

then lech continues his approach to Mizen and begins the conversation as paul leaves.

The reports say that Cross was accompanied by another man when he spoke to Mizen. Not just before or after, but when he spoke to Mizen.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Don't worry - it was just a joke A tarpaulin is a cover, so a tale about a tarpaulin can be described as a cover story.

Doh!

Sorry Sam, the Lechmere/ Cross thread is one that I tend to watch from afar.

There is no doubt that Christer has done some interesting research on this aspect of the case, but it just seems to me that Occam's Razor keeps his thesis in the realms of just about possible, but unlikely.

[Abby Normal]

He talks of speaking to Cross, and hardly mentions Paul. At no stage does he say Paul did not speak.

Mizen is not asked if the second man said anything.

Paul says he made comments to Mizen. Lechmere says the same, there is NO independent evidence to support the idea that Paul did not speak.


Again possible, but its supposition, there is no evidence to support the idea, while there is evidence to say it did not occur




Not at all Abby, Lechmere was also under oath, so either there is a misunderstanding or one of Lechmere and Mizen is being untruthful.

The argument for Lechmere is simewhat circular in nature, he lies because he is the killer and because he is the killer he lies. There is really nothing else to support it.
The name issue complicates it, but he did not give a false name,as such. However we have all been over this so many times before have we not.

The case for Lechmere in this particular issue really is largely confirmation bias.

The argument for Mizen is far more complcated and is backed by several seperate sources. I am sorry that i cannot give details before publication, but it includes testimony of others apart from Lechmere. It does not rely on the words of the two Carmen.

If we were to use just the Carmen, we have Lechmere and Paul corrobarating each other ( althogh Paul was not asked the question when on oath), both disagreeing with Mizen, and no actual evidence, other than Mizen to challenge that position.


All the best

Steve

Hi El
my main point I was trying to get across at the end is that Paul really dosnt matter in this regard.

as in-paul never backs up eithers side of the story. Paul dosnt corroborate what was said between the two.

its between Mizen and Lech.

mizen said lech told him he was wanted by a policeman in bucks row.
Lech denies he said this.

this is the important part.

paul is really irrelevant.

[Elamarna]

Hi El
my main point I was trying to get across at the end is that Paul really dosnt matter in this regard.

as in-paul never backs up eithers side of the story. Paul dosnt corroborate what was said between the two.

its between Mizen and Lech.

mizen said lech told him he was wanted by a policeman in bucks row.
Lech denies he said this.

this is the important part.

paul is really irrelevant.

To say Paul does not back either side is simple incorrect he certainly does corrobarate Lechmere in his Lloyds statement, and while that must be treated with caution, it cannot just be ignored Abby.

Steve

[Abby Normal]

To say Paul does not back either side is simple incorrect he certainly does corrobarate Lechmere in his Lloyds statement, and while that must be treated with caution, it cannot just be ignored Abby.

Steve

does Paul ever specifically refute Mizen and back Lech up on the "your wanted in Bucks row by a policeman" discrepancy?

as in-does paul ever say anywhere at any time that Lech didn't say that?

[Elamarna]

does Paul ever specifically refute Mizen and back Lech up on the "your wanted in Bucks row by a policeman" discrepancy?

as in-does paul ever say anywhere at any time that Lech didn't say that?

Abby

In Paul's account, where he takes centre stage and Lechmere becomes the bit player, its role reversal and one of the reasons why we need to be cautious when looking at Paul's account. The conversation is that a woman is lying in Bucks Row, and Mizen does not respond. There is no mention of another police officer, indeed Paul complains mizen continues knocking up, which Mizen himself confirms by saying after the conversation he finished/completed the last knock up he was on.

It is this article on 2nd along with the testimoney of Neil on the 3rd plus 1 other item which i contend are the genesis of Mizen's subsequent account on the 3rd.
The inquest reports as Sam as pointed out several times make it clear Mizen is asked if Lechmere is alone when they talk and he says no, the otherman who went down Hanbury street was also there.

The evidence such as it is, makes it abudently clear that the men are togeather, there is absolutely NO source which even suggests otherwise.


Steve


.

[Elamarna]

From the sources, denying amoungst other things that two men had found the body before Neil, it seems abudently clear that on Sunday 2nd the senior Police officers had no idea of the account Mizen would give on the 3rd.


Steve

[Abby Normal]

Abby

In Paul's account, where he takes centre stage and Lechmere becomes the bit player, its role reversal and one of the reasons why we need to be cautious when looking at Paul's account. The conversation is that a woman is lying in Bucks Row, and Mizen does not respond. There is no mention of another police officer, indeed Paul complains mizen continues knocking up, which Mizen himself confirms by saying after the conversation he finished/completed the last knock up he was on.

It is this article on 2nd along with the testimoney of Neil on the 3rd plus 1 other item which i contend are the genesis of Mizen's subsequent account on the 3rd.
The inquest reports as Sam as pointed out several times make it clear Mizen is asked if Lechmere is alone when they talk and he says no, the otherman who went down Hanbury street was also there.

The evidence such as it is, makes it abudently clear that the men are togeather, there is absolutely NO source which even suggests otherwise.


Steve


.

Hi El
Thanks
So Paul never says in effect the copper was wrong when he (Mizen) said lech told him he was wanted in bucks row by another PC?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Old Mizen wasnt exactly Dixon Of Dock Green was he