Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Favorite suspect/s?

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

  • It's highly likely that a serial murderer would have a cooling off period after almost being discovered with the body of one of the victims, especially if he was spoken to by the Police. Instead of finding another victim just over a week later only a few hundred yards from his last, and i am assuming here using the same ruse Ie killing on his way to work. Surely that goes against Lechmere.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      Priceless! Leave you guys to it for a few days on your own, and you will inevitably start a fiesta, celebrating how you agree about things.

      Problem: It does not matter, since the scenario allows for more interpretations than the ones you favour.

      You all agree that when it is said that there was another man present as Lehmere spoke to Mizen. it MUST mean that the carmen were closer than Siamese twins, and Paul MUST have heard what was said.

      Problem 2: That is simply not correct. We do not know which "present" is referred to, and therefore, the wider versions must be accepted as possibilities: present in the street, present in the crossing.

      One of you - was it Gareth, Robert or somebody else? - decided that five yards is the absolute limit, which is rather a funny thing to say. Five yards and an inch? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Five yards? Yes, of course!

      If you cannot see how ridiculous that kind of reasoning is, I can do little for you.

      Problem 3: The concept Robert had problems to grasp - Lechmere may have persuaded Paul to agree with serving Mizen the scam, with Lechmere assuring him that it was in order to be able to get to work quicker.

      Meaning? Meaning that even if we were to accept the outright joke about a five yard limit for when we are present in relation to somebody else (or "with" somebody else), it does not clear away the scam anyway.

      So it´s much ado about nothing - as always.

      Other inclusions in this brainstorm of yours is Steves "Mizen did not say that Paul did not speak to him, so Paul may have done so".

      Why the PC in such a case would have said that "a man", identifying that man as Lechmere, came up to him and spoke, instead of saying "there were these TWO men who spoke to me", is a tad hard to understand.

      Even harder to understand is why you try to lesson me about what "present" means - although there is no definition of the word in terms of measurements - and then you have a VERY hard time understanding how "a man" differs from "two men".

      That makes you a bunch of hypocrites, I´m afraid.

      Then there is the post inferring that Lechmere could never, NEVER, have met Nichols in Whitechapel Road, and taken her to Bucks Row to kill her.

      As if that was true.

      As if we know who took who were.

      The quality of your arguments is apalling, as always.

      Lechmere could have spoken to Mizen with Paul out of earshot. You all don´t THINK that he did, but that is what it is - your thinking.

      I think otherwise.

      And it is only in your weird world I cannot possibly be right, whereas you MUST be. You need to stop patting each other on each others backs and start using your heads instead. Not to pat, but for thinking.

      Oh, and Harry, my snippet about Prima Facie cases was from a side about legal matters on the net. You know what? I think that had it right and you have it wrong.

      And just as with the rest of the great minds out here, you must also realize that regardless of that, Scobie STILL said that Lechmere would warrant a trial. Who else would? Hutchinson? Kosminski? Druitt? Bury?

      Now, back to the real world; I´ll look in on you esteemed thinkers some way further down the line. I could, though, have provided answers for what you are going to say right now - it is no secret, is it?

      Thanks to Abby for providing some much needed sense to the... ehh, the... hmmm, the.... well whatever you want to call it.

      Caz, Robert, Herlock, Gareth - take heart, you are not alone! You are WITH each other. Meaning no more than exactly five yards from each other at most ...
      Hey Fish
      another option-what if paul heard Lech say it(your wanted by a PC) and simply didnt give a rats arse at that point? being distracted about being late for work and all. or not liking coppers.

      another thought. since he seemed bent on disparaging Mizen, one would think he would have said something about Mizen lying bout it or being mistaken?
      do we know if paul ever heard mizen say thats what lech told him?
      Last edited by Abby Normal; 06-06-2018, 11:50 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Robert View Post
        So Paul was in on it too! No need for him to have been out of earshot, then.
        hi Robert
        exactly. as I mentioned what if he did hear him say it and simply didn't care at that point. perhaps being late for work. perhaps not liking coppers, as appears to be the case?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
          Priceless! Leave you guys to it for a few days on your own, and you will inevitably start a fiesta, celebrating how you agree about things.

          How can we be expected to believe your interpretation of ‘present’ when your last post was yesterday and you call this a ‘few days!’

          Problem: It does not matter, since the scenario allows for more interpretations than the ones you favour.

          And you can always manufacture one to incriminate CL.

          You all agree that when it is said that there was another man present as Lehmere spoke to Mizen. it MUST mean that the carmen were closer than Siamese twins, and Paul MUST have heard what was said.

          Problem 2: That is simply not correct. We do not know which "present" is referred to, and therefore, the wider versions must be accepted as possibilities: present in the street, present in the crossing.

          One of you - was it Gareth, Robert or somebody else? - decided that five yards is the absolute limit, which is rather a funny thing to say. Five yards and an inch? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Five yards? Yes, of course!

          If you cannot see how ridiculous that kind of reasoning is, I can do little for you.

          ‘Present’ during a conversation under any interpretation means ‘there’ not ‘across the road’ not ‘halfway down Hanbury Street either.’ The only logical interpretation is that he was with CL. No we cant say that he was 2 yards away or 3 yards away or 5, but we can use the phrase ‘he was with him’ or ‘he was presen.’ Mizen is clear that Paul was with CL, he doesnt say “oh and there was a bloke loitering in the distance.” Please stop this embarrassing wriggling Fish. Everyone can see this. Its very unseemly. It is obvious what ‘present’ means unless you are utterly desperate and will go to any lengths to prove otherwise.

          Problem 3: The concept Robert had problems to grasp - Lechmere may have persuaded Paul to agree with serving Mizen the scam, with Lechmere assuring him that it was in order to be able to get to work quicker.

          So even if ‘scam’ existed to any extent it would have been agreed between Paul and CL jointly and for a completely innocent reason.


          Meaning? Meaning that even if we were to accept the outright joke about a five yard limit for when we are present in relation to somebody else (or "with" somebody else), it does not clear away the scam anyway.

          So it´s much ado about nothing - as always.

          Nope. You are misrepresenting as usual. No one said that there is a cast-iron definition of ‘present’ with regard to a set distance. What we are doing is interpreting the word in context and in the way that it is normally used in the English language!

          Other inclusions in this brainstorm of yours is Steves "Mizen did not say that Paul did not speak to him, so Paul may have done so".

          Sounds reasonable to anyone who is reasonable.

          Why the PC in such a case would have said that "a man", identifying that man as Lechmere, came up to him and spoke, instead of saying "there were these TWO men who spoke to me", is a tad hard to understand.

          Nope. CL probably did most of the speaking, Paul might have said only a couple of words. Mizen might have forgotten this or taken little notice.

          Even harder to understand is why you try to lesson me about what "present" means - although there is no definition of the word in terms of measurements - and then you have a VERY hard time understanding how "a man" differs from "two men".

          That makes you a bunch of hypocrites, I´m afraid.

          Nope. It makes you a deliberate mis-interpreter. 5 yards was a throw away figure. No one has put a definite distance to the word ‘present,’ because we speak English and know that there isnt one. All we know is that when 2npeople arrive at a Constable together, they approach said constable to speak to them, its a more than reasonable assumption to say that they were both within reasonably close proximity.

          Then there is the post inferring that Lechmere could never, NEVER, have met Nichols in Whitechapel Road, and taken her to Bucks Row to kill her.

          As if that was true.

          As if we know who took who were.

          The quality of your arguments is apalling, as always.

          Nope. We havent said impossible. Again deliberate misinterpretation. We have suggested that it would have been unlikely for a killer to have met his victim and then taken her to a spot that he (and probably only one other person) passes 6 days a week at pretty much exactly the same time. If you cannot grasp or accept tjis point you are to far down the Lechmere rabbit-hole for us to hold out any ho.


          Lechmere could have spoken to Mizen with Paul out of earshot. You all don´t THINK that he did, but that is what it is - your thinking.

          I think otherwise.

          The evidence points to the fact that they were together. You chose to think the opposite for very obvious reasons.

          And it is only in your weird world I cannot possibly be right, whereas you MUST be. You need to stop patting each other on each others backs and start using your heads instead. Not to pat, but for thinking.

          And you need to take off the Lechmere goggles. We can all see where the bias lies and why it lies where it does.

          Oh, and Harry, my snippet about Prima Facie cases was from a side about legal matters on the net. You know what? I think that had it right and you have it wrong.

          And just as with the rest of the great minds out here, you must also realize that regardless of that, Scobie STILL said that Lechmere would warrant a trial. Who else would? Hutchinson? Kosminski? Druitt? Bury?

          Two of whom were mentioned as suspects by senior police officers of the day (one of whom was a local with serious mental health issues.) And Bury was a violent, prostitute-using, locally-based knife murderer (yeah but he didnt find a body though....damn!)


          Scobie said that he would warrant a trial because hed read the case for the prosecution only. The ‘Holmgren/Stow’ version. The real question is : would he have arrived at the same verdict if hed have read a case in defence of Lechmere? But no, we are expected to accept the verdict of a man who had seen only one side of the debate. And also a man who i assume spent no time researching the case, Victorian society, Victorian policing etc. A one-side view is next to worthless.


          Now, back to the real world; I´ll look in on you esteemed thinkers some way further down the line. I could, though, have provided answers for what you are going to say right now - it is no secret, is it?

          You mean in another few days.....tomorrow.

          Thanks to Abby for providing some much needed sense to the... ehh, the... hmmm, the.... well whatever you want to call it.

          Its no surprise that you only respect someone that agrees with you. No news there folks

          Caz, Robert, Herlock, Gareth - take heart, you are not alone! You are WITH each other. Meaning no more than exactly five yards from each other at most ...

          No we are not alone. We are in the overwhelmingly vast majority who dont think that CL was the ripper. All of us ignorant, biased people (who dont have our reputations tied to theories) will continue to debate with logic and reason and not a schoolboy over-confidence) I think that we can live with that.
          Its like debating evolution with a Young-Earth Creationist.
          Regards

          Herlock






          "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
            What precise information, written or verbal, did Scobie have to work with?
            Exactly
            Regards

            Herlock






            "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              Priceless! Leave you guys to it for a few days on your own, and you will inevitably start a fiesta, celebrating how you agree about things.

              Problem: It does not matter, since the scenario allows for more interpretations than the ones you favour.

              You all agree that when it is said that there was another man present as Lehmere spoke to Mizen. it MUST mean that the carmen were closer than Siamese twins, and Paul MUST have heard what was said.

              Problem 2: That is simply not correct. We do not know which "present" is referred to, and therefore, the wider versions must be accepted as possibilities: present in the street, present in the crossing.

              Actually its very clear, Baxter asked who was present when Mizen spoke to Lechmere.
              Mizen answered, refering to the other carman who walked down Hanbury Street with Lechmere.


              One of you - was it Gareth, Robert or somebody else? - decided that five yards is the absolute limit, which is rather a funny thing to say. Five yards and an inch? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Five yards? Yes, of course!

              If you cannot see how ridiculous that kind of reasoning is, I can do little for you.

              Problem 3: The concept Robert had problems to grasp - Lechmere may have persuaded Paul to agree with serving Mizen the scam, with Lechmere assuring him that it was in order to be able to get to work quicker.

              Meaning? Meaning that even if we were to accept the outright joke about a five yard limit for when we are present in relation to somebody else (or "with" somebody else), it does not clear away the scam anyway.

              So it´s much ado about nothing - as always.

              Other inclusions in this brainstorm of yours is Steves "Mizen did not say that Paul did not speak to him, so Paul may have done so".

              Why the PC in such a case would have said that "a man", identifying that man as Lechmere, came up to him and spoke, instead of saying "there were these TWO men who spoke to me", is a tad hard to understand.

              Even harder to understand is why you try to lesson me about what "present" means - although there is no definition of the word in terms of measurements - and then you have a VERY hard time understanding how "a man" differs from "two men".

              That makes you a bunch of hypocrites, I´m afraid.

              I think not Christer, you are talking about many posts from several different posters, almost as if its one entirety agaist your theory.
              In a previous thread those who disagreed with one viewpoint were ignorant or bias, now it's all who disagree wiith the UNSUPPORTED theory that the two carmen moved apart are hypocrites. You really must come up with something original.


              Then there is the post inferring that Lechmere could never, NEVER, have met Nichols in Whitechapel Road, and taken her to Bucks Row to kill her.

              As if that was true.

              As if we know who took who were.

              The quality of your arguments is apalling, as always.

              Lechmere could have spoken to Mizen with Paul out of earshot. You all don´t THINK that he did, but that is what it is - your thinking.

              Could have? Yes. However this no a crime story, its real life, historical research. There is no source to suggest that Lechmere spoke out of Paul's hearing, it is pures imagination.
              The sources are very clear that they did not part. You want to interpret the wording to suit your idea, fine. You are incorrect in that interpretation


              I think otherwise.

              And it is only in your weird world I cannot possibly be right, whereas you MUST be. You need to stop patting each other on each others backs and start using your heads instead. Not to pat, but for thinking.

              That is to ignore the fact, that the views expressed are about a lack of real tangible sources, to support the ideas put forward, they are not personal.

              Oh, and Harry, my snippet about Prima Facie cases was from a side about legal matters on the net. You know what? I think that had it right and you have it wrong.

              And just as with the rest of the great minds out here, you must also realize that regardless of that, Scobie STILL said that Lechmere would warrant a trial. Who else would? Hutchinson? Kosminski? Druitt? Bury?

              Now, back to the real world; I´ll look in on you esteemed thinkers some way further down the line. I could, though, have provided answers for what you are going to say right now - it is no secret, is it?

              Thanks to Abby for providing some much needed sense to the... ehh, the... hmmm, the.... well whatever you want to call it.

              Caz, Robert, Herlock, Gareth - take heart, you are not alone! You are WITH each other. Meaning no more than exactly five yards from each other at most ...
              Truly Priceless post, not a single source to back the idea the carmen split up.
              Are there sources which disagree with that take? Yes but of course we are interpreting incorrectly( not yout way).

              And of course when you quote a source, as you did with the Echo 3rd September, you only provide a partial quote, which gives an inaccurate view of the actual report in the Echo.
              Can i ask why that was?


              Steve
              Last edited by Elamarna; 06-06-2018, 12:12 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                One of you - was it Gareth, Robert or somebody else? - decided that five yards is the absolute limit, which is rather a funny thing to say.
                I said no such thing. What I said was to the effect that "I wouldn't say that it was five yards, let's put it that way". And I wouldn't, but that's not to say that I was putting an upper limit on anything.

                How are your "large flaps" these days, by the way?
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  Priceless! Leave you guys to it for a few days on your own, and you will inevitably start a fiesta, celebrating how you agree about things.

                  Problem: It does not matter, since the scenario allows for more interpretations than the ones you favour.

                  You all agree that when it is said that there was another man present as Lehmere spoke to Mizen. it MUST mean that the carmen were closer than Siamese twins, and Paul MUST have heard what was said.

                  Problem 2: That is simply not correct. We do not know which "present" is referred to, and therefore, the wider versions must be accepted as possibilities: present in the street, present in the crossing.

                  One of you - was it Gareth, Robert or somebody else? - decided that five yards is the absolute limit, which is rather a funny thing to say. Five yards and an inch? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Five yards? Yes, of course!

                  If you cannot see how ridiculous that kind of reasoning is, I can do little for you.

                  Problem 3: The concept Robert had problems to grasp - Lechmere may have persuaded Paul to agree with serving Mizen the scam, with Lechmere assuring him that it was in order to be able to get to work quicker.

                  Meaning? Meaning that even if we were to accept the outright joke about a five yard limit for when we are present in relation to somebody else (or "with" somebody else), it does not clear away the scam anyway.

                  So it´s much ado about nothing - as always.

                  Other inclusions in this brainstorm of yours is Steves "Mizen did not say that Paul did not speak to him, so Paul may have done so".

                  Why the PC in such a case would have said that "a man", identifying that man as Lechmere, came up to him and spoke, instead of saying "there were these TWO men who spoke to me", is a tad hard to understand.

                  Even harder to understand is why you try to lesson me about what "present" means - although there is no definition of the word in terms of measurements - and then you have a VERY hard time understanding how "a man" differs from "two men".

                  That makes you a bunch of hypocrites, I´m afraid.

                  Then there is the post inferring that Lechmere could never, NEVER, have met Nichols in Whitechapel Road, and taken her to Bucks Row to kill her.

                  As if that was true.

                  As if we know who took who were.

                  The quality of your arguments is apalling, as always.

                  Lechmere could have spoken to Mizen with Paul out of earshot. You all don´t THINK that he did, but that is what it is - your thinking.

                  I think otherwise.

                  And it is only in your weird world I cannot possibly be right, whereas you MUST be. You need to stop patting each other on each others backs and start using your heads instead. Not to pat, but for thinking.

                  Oh, and Harry, my snippet about Prima Facie cases was from a side about legal matters on the net. You know what? I think that had it right and you have it wrong.

                  And just as with the rest of the great minds out here, you must also realize that regardless of that, Scobie STILL said that Lechmere would warrant a trial. Who else would? Hutchinson? Kosminski? Druitt? Bury?

                  Now, back to the real world; I´ll look in on you esteemed thinkers some way further down the line. I could, though, have provided answers for what you are going to say right now - it is no secret, is it?

                  Thanks to Abby for providing some much needed sense to the... ehh, the... hmmm, the.... well whatever you want to call it.

                  Caz, Robert, Herlock, Gareth - take heart, you are not alone! You are WITH each other. Meaning no more than exactly five yards from each other at most ...
                  Could there be any more arrogance and superciliousness crammed into one post?
                  Last edited by Sam Flynn; 06-06-2018, 12:24 PM.
                  Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                  "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                  Comment


                  • Hi Abby

                    Well, you'd have to say that Paul not only disliked the police but he also disliked women and also disliked money. Since Paul was apparently never questioned under oath about the 'wanted by a policeman' business, he need not have feared a perjury charge if he later tried to help the police solve the crimes and thereby help himself to the rewards that were subsequently on offer. And he'd just say, if pushed, that it was Crossmere who made the policeman remark - which is what Mizen seems to have believed anyway.

                    Comment


                    • "Could there be any more arrogance and superciliousness crammed into one post?"

                      I don't know, Gareth - it would be a monumental task to read through all Fish's previous posts to check.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Robert View Post
                        Hi Abby

                        Well, you'd have to say that Paul not only disliked the police but he also disliked women and also disliked money. Since Paul was apparently never questioned under oath about the 'wanted by a policeman' business, he need not have feared a perjury charge if he later tried to help the police solve the crimes and thereby help himself to the rewards that were subsequently on offer. And he'd just say, if pushed, that it was Crossmere who made the policeman remark - which is what Mizen seems to have believed anyway.
                        Hi Robert
                        helping the police for reward money?lol. that ship had sailed my friend.
                        disliked women? I dont know, but he showed no love for Polly.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                          Could there be any more arrogance and superciliousness crammed into one post?
                          Now that would be a seriously difficult piece of research. How long has the Forum been in existence?

                          When such traits are constantly on display it tends to point to an increasing level of desperation. I'm not aware of anyone who has said that CL categorically couldn't have killed Polly. Still we get this reaction though. For expressing doubts that most ripperologists agree with. Apparently there are a lot of biased, ignorant hypocrites out there but only one unbiased paragon of virtue.
                          Regards

                          Herlock






                          "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                          Comment


                          • Fisherman,
                            I haven't got anything wrong. A prima facia Case is presented at a pretrial hearing to determine whether a case merits going to trial.That is also from the internet.Under the British justice system,usually a Magistraes hearing.

                            Before that of course is a police investigation to gather evidence,and in the case of Nicols such an investigation was conducted,and guess what?No evidence was discovered that merited any person facing a Prima Facia hearing.

                            What does Scobie say to that?

                            Comment


                            • The only arrogance around here is to state that the Mizen scam cannot have been perpetrated since we can know that Paul was close enough to hear what Lechmere said.

                              That is arrogance and thoughtlessness packed into a very unattractive bundle of crap.

                              Let´s revisit the facts once more and once and for all put that idea to rest.

                              We will begin with a favourite quotation of yours. It´s from the Star of the 3:rd:

                              "Cross, when he spoke to witness about the affair, was accompanied by another man."

                              This is one of the quotations that supposedly establishes that the carmen were in close proximity to each other while Lechmere spoke to Mizen.

                              To begin with, and as I have always said, the phrase "being accompanied by" somebody does not mean that we can establish a distance inbetween the two parties. However, we can all see that it SEEMS that the two were in close proximity, given the wording. But appearances can deceive!

                              Now, one of the main problems with this phrase is that it is printed together with Jonas Mizens testimony, giving the impression that Mizen himself said "as I spoke to carman Cross, he was accompanied by another man".

                              However, Mizen never said any such thing at all. What he did was instead to answer in the affirmative when the presence of another man was alluded to by coroner Baxter. We can see this by turning to the Morning Advertiser, where Baxter asks Mizen: "There was another man in company with Cross?", and Mizen answers "Yes, I think he was also a carman".

                              So, here we must take stock of the all important matter that Mizen did originally not even mention Paul in his testimony about what had transpired. In Mizens testimony, before Baxter asks him about Paul, he only mentions ONE carman - Lechmere.

                              So we can see here that Mizen tells a story in which Paul is not present. He is not necessary to explain how Mizen was told about the woman in Bucks Row. The conclusion can only be that Mizen thought Pauls role in the events was so minor one that it didn´t need to be mentioned. The impression is one where only one man approaches Mizen ("a" man passing came up to me and said....) and where only one man speaks to him. Going on Mizens statement only, Paul could have been anywhere, and the overall impression is that he was NOT with Lechmere.

                              It is not until we turn to Baxter (who was not in the street and never saw the distances inbetween the men) that the idea that Paul was very close to Lechmere is born.

                              So what happens when we compare the Star quotation to that in the Morning Advertiser? Well, here is the Star again:

                              "Cross, when he spoke to witness about the affair, was accompanied by another man."

                              We can now see that if the Morning Advertiser is on the money, the part "when he spoke to witnes about the affair" goes away. Swoosh! Vanished!

                              What is left is the basis we can see in the Morning advertiser: "Cross ------- was accompanied by another man".

                              Nothing more than so. And do we know that Cross was accompanied by another man? Yes, we do, he and Paul left the body together and they both arrived at the Bakers Row/Hanbury Street junction, although we cannot say what exact distance there was between them.

                              Furthermore, Lechmere in all probability informed Mizen that he AND THE OTHER MAN had found a woman in Bucks Row, thereby affirming that the two were "in company" with each other. So Mizens understanding was that the two carmen trekked together, and THAT is where the wordings "with each other", "in company" and so on apply: Mizen was informed that they trekked together on their way to work. Not together as in "within listening distance at all times", but together as in "walking to work together, no distance given". Normally, when we walk together to work, we do so close enough to be able to chat with each other, but if one of us should step into a doorway to relieve himself or veer over to look in a shop window, that does not mean that we are no longer together. It means, though, that we are no longer within earshot.

                              Now, this is the most important thing about this whole matter: It was Baxter, NOT Mizen, who asked about the other man. The REAL witness, Mizen, was NOT the one who offered the information in this context, it was the coroner - who was never even in place, but who knew that two men had passed Mizen.

                              There can never be any real relevance in quoting somebody who was not there when we try to establish the distance inbetween two men. We must ask the primary sources, those who were there. And Lechmere does not say "Paul was close to me as I spoke to Mizen", Paul does not say "I was close to Lechmere as he spoke to Mizen" - and Mizen does not say "Paul was close to Lechmere as he spoke to me".

                              Instead, Mizen answers in the affirmative when Baxter asks "There was another man in company with Cross?"

                              Mind you, Baxter did NOT ask "There was another man in company with Cross AS HE SPOKE TO YOU?"

                              He only asked if there was more than one man there, and if that other man was seemingly in company with Lechmere.

                              Now, if Paul was some way away from Lechmere, and out of earshot, as I suggest may have been the case, what was Mizen supposed to answer?

                              Are we to predispose that he should have answered "No, there was no other man there!", because the two were not close eough to each other to warrant saying that the two men, who Mizen had learnt,or at least predisposed, were trekking together, were in company with each other?

                              Of course, he could have said "they were not in close eough company to be able to hear what the other man said at this stage" - but why would he? He was not asked about that! He was asked, basically, if Lechmere was the only carman there, and he answered that this was not so - there were TWO carmen, apparently in company with each other.

                              So what we do is to ditch the Star version - what is said in it is clearly built on Baxters question to Mizen, and the Morning Advertiser establishes that Mizen was only asked about whether Lechmere was alone or not during his trek: "There was another man in company with Cross?"

                              All the hullaballoo about how Mizen would have offered the information that Paul was in company with Lechmere as the latter spoke to him suddenly evaporates when we look at the real picture.

                              The whole idea that the two would have been in close company is therefore built solely on a question asked by somebody who was not even present in Bucks Row.

                              Does all of this mean that the two cannot have been in very close proximity to each other as Lechmere spoke to Mizen? Not really, although that is the inference offered by Mizen - who was there.
                              It simply cannot be established just how close they were.

                              But is HAS now been established that there are no viable grounds for claiming that they must have been close to each other.

                              All in all, I think matters like these are extremely crucial to the Lechmere case - what seems to be A at first glance, instead becomes B when we look deeper. And that is - the way I look at things - very comforting, because it tells us that much as these things have been mulled over for 130 years by heaps of people, the truth may well be hidden within the material just the same. Once we dismantle prejudiced, faulty and baseless assumptions that have been allowed to prevail as "truths" over the years, we may - if we are lucky - move one step closer to finding our man.
                              Last edited by Fisherman; 06-06-2018, 11:44 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fisherman
                                What is left is the basis we can see in the Morning advertiser: "Cross ------- was accompanied by another man".

                                Nothing more than so
                                No, that's what's left when you omit an important piece of evidence. The full account states that Paul accompanied Cross when Mizen spoke to him.
                                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X