Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Favorite suspect/s?

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

  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    Hi El
    Thanks
    So Paul never says in effect the copper was wrong when he said lech told him he was wanted in bucks row by another PC?
    Just as Mizen never said Paul never spoke i could respond Abby.

    However a far better response is:
    A) the accounts of Lechmere and Paul, are similar but not exactly the same, Paul taking the lead in his account, they do corrobarate each other, and give no indication that any mention was made of another officier.
    B) given that the "Story" was not heard until the 3rd; mizens seniors clearly did not know of it on the 2nd, why oh why would you expect Paul to mention it if it never happened.
    Think about it Abby.

    I am honest here, cards on table or what ever other terms you wish to use.
    The evidence of which there is plenty leads me to the conclusion that Mizen's story is just that a story with no basis in fact with regards to the "other officier".


    Steve
    Last edited by Elamarna; 06-05-2018, 02:31 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
      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?
      The problem with Paul is that he's a bit of a "bridesmaid" witness - the second man on the scene whose attention was called by the first one to spot what turned out to be the victim, so perhaps we shouldn't expect him to have said much, nor to have received as much press coverage, as Cross.

      As a comparison, there were a number of witnesses on the scene almost immediately after the discovery of Stride's body, but Dymshitz is the one we hear about most.
      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

      Comment


      • When Abby said Paul was irrelevant he was in a way correct.
        The testimonies of Lechmere and Mizen and the statement of Paul are not the conclusive issues in the scam. To that extent they are all somewhat irrelevant.

        There are other sources which are far clearer in indicating that Mizen's account is untruthful.


        Steve

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
          Just as Mizen never said Paul never spoke i could respond Abby.

          However a far better response is:
          A) the accounts of Lechmere and Paul, are similar but not exactly the same, Paul taking the lead in his account, they do corrobarate each other, and give no indication that any mention was made of another officier.
          B) given that the "Story" was not heard until the 3rd; mizens seniors clearly did not know of it on the 2nd, why oh why would you expect Paul to mention it if it never happened.
          Think about it Abby.

          I am honest here, cards on table or what ever other terms you wish to use.
          The evidence of which there is plenty leads me to the conclusion that Mizen's story is just that a story with no basis in fact with regards to the "other officier".


          Steve
          Thanks el
          Considering Paul seemed hell bent on disparaging Mizen you would think at some point, if Mizens account about being told he was wanted in bucks row by another PC was such a howler, or down right porkie, that Paul would have called him out on it. Especially if he was right there when the conversation took place, hearing everything intently, including said howler porkie.

          But to me, since there is no evidence Paul did say anything about it, it’s mizens word against lech. And Paul is irrelevant anyway. Whether he’s right there with them or halfway down the street.

          Cop says one thing.
          Witness says another.

          Both swearing under oath.

          I’m not sure who to believe, I think it might have been a simple misunderstanding.

          But all things being equal, society/the law, is going to favor the cop.
          Last edited by Abby Normal; 06-05-2018, 02:51 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
            When Abby said Paul was irrelevant he was in a way correct.
            The testimonies of Lechmere and Mizen and the statement of Paul are not the conclusive issues in the scam. To that extent they are all somewhat irrelevant.

            There are other sources which are far clearer in indicating that Mizen's account is untruthful.


            Steve
            Thanks el!
            Look forward to seeing these other sources!! And your analysis.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
              Thanks el
              Considering Paul seemed hell bent on disparaging Mizen you would think at some point, if Mizens account about being told he was wanted in bucks row by another PC was such a howler, or down right porkie, that Paul would have called him out on it. Especially if he was right there when the conversation took place, hearing everything intently, including said howler porkie.

              Abby, Paul was never given the opportunity to call Mizen out. The question was never asked at his appearance at the inquest.

              But to me, since there is no evidence Paul did say anything about it, it’s mizens word against lech. And Paul is irrelevant anyway. Whether he’s right there with them or halfway down the street.

              Cop says one thing.
              Witness says another.

              Both swearing under oath.

              I’m not sure who to believe, I think it might have been a simple misunderstanding.

              But all things being equal, society/the law, is going to favor the cop.
              I am pretty sure that Mizen's version was not favoured, indeed the official evidence/sources ignore it .


              Steve

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                The problem with Paul is that he's a bit of a "bridesmaid" witness - the second man on the scene whose attention was called by the first one to spot what turned out to be the victim, so perhaps we shouldn't expect him to have said much, nor to have received as much press coverage, as Cross.

                As a comparison, there were a number of witnesses on the scene almost immediately after the discovery of Stride's body, but Dymshitz is the one we hear about most.
                Im way behind on current Ripper research so ive been meaning to ask you this Gareth. Your spelling ‘Dymshitz.’ Is that an alternate spelling or a joke. Im hesitant here because ive seen his name spelt with ‘shitz or schitz’ at the end before. Ive always used Diemschutz. If you tell me its a joke i wont be too embarrassed.....much
                Regards

                Herlock




                “ Herlock is the cleverest man that I’ve ever met.” - Stephen Hawking.
                “ I wish that I could have achieved half as much as Herlock.”- Neil Armstrong.
                “ What a voice Herlock has.” - Luciano Pavarotti.
                “ I wish that I could dump Harry for Herlock.” - Meghan Markle.
                “ I know that it’s not good to be jealous but I just can’t help it.” - John Holmes.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                  I am pretty sure that Mizen's version was not favoured, indeed the official evidence/sources ignore it .


                  Steve
                  Ok thanks el.

                  Sorry if I’m repeating but when’s your new reveal? And what form is it in? Book, article, etc?

                  Comment


                  • For what it's worth, Paul didn't give his evidence until a full two weeks after Mizen and Cross.

                    Comment


                    • Fisherman
                      Getting a little mixed up in your thinking it seems.Prima Facia is the condition reached in a lower court in a hearing conducted by a Magistrate.It is to assess whether the evidence of guilt is sufficient to warrantt a trial.If the magistrate believes there is,the accused is sent for trial in a higher court where the evidence of guilt has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

                      To reach such a decision the magistrate must consider both guilt and innocence,and generally such hearings must show an excess of guilt,which reminds me of an earlier addmission of yours.It was that the evidence of Cross,
                      element by element,can be shown to be equally of innocence or guilt.

                      There is nothing in what I have written that favours the criminal,the many cases remanded for trial proves that,but the system prevents many from being subjected to a trial built on the kind of evidence you present.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                        Im way behind on current Ripper research so ive been meaning to ask you this Gareth. Your spelling ‘Dymshitz.’ Is that an alternate spelling or a joke. Im hesitant here because ive seen his name spelt with ‘shitz or schitz’ at the end before. Ive always used Diemschutz. If you tell me its a joke i wont be too embarrassed.....much
                        It's as good a transliteration of a name of Russian origin, as any. The original, written in Cyrillic as ДЫМШЫЦ, could be rendered as "Diemschutz" if one were to assume a German orthography, but that would - mistakenly, IMHO - give the impression that Dymshitz was a German. I discovered a while ago that most immigrants with that name came from Belarus - the Pinsk region, in particular.

                        Truth is, there is no "correct" way to render ДЫМШЫЦ in English, but there's certainly no "ie" or "schu" in it. I personally settled on Dymshitz because it looks better than "Dimshits" or "Dimshitz", which are other possible renderings of the name.
                        Last edited by Sam Flynn; 06-05-2018, 11:44 PM.
                        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                        Comment


                        • "Dimshits" in particular is prejudicial. conjuring up dark doings.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                            For what it's worth, Paul didn't give his evidence until a full two weeks after Mizen and Cross.
                            Even more of a "bridesmaid" witness, then.
                            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Robert View Post
                              "Dimshits" in particular is prejudicial. conjuring up dark doings.
                              Dark doo-doo, even. Nice one, Rob!
                              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                              Comment


                              • The impression I get is that Crossmere and Paul approached Mizen when he was distracted by the knocking-up and, with both being in a hurry, they spoke to him very briefly - just a couple of sentences - which he may have misheard. They walked on and perhaps Paul glanced over his shoulder and saw Mizen finishing the knocking-up that he'd started. Paul then assumed that he was going to do more and had a rant about it in his Press interview (perhaps the rant was also inspired by an already established anti-police sentiment on his part).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X