Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Favorite suspect/s?

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

  • There are also things like this one, from the Daily News:

    "Police constable Mizen said that about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, when a carman passing by in company with another man said..."

    Why did Baxter ask about Paul? He already would have been told of him, right?

    Bacause, of course, the passage "a carman passing in company with another man" is ALSO derived from the question Baxter asked Mizen.

    The wording of this article is based on that - and it has been frequently used to assure us all that the two were in close company!

    All we know is that Mizen answered the question "There was another man with Cross?", when asked that by the coroner.

    Comment


    • I know, Fish, but it says something about the Morning Advertiser's thoroughness, no?

      Comment


      • He was 'passing in company with,' Fish. The two men were together. And what the carman said, was said at the same time as he was 'passing.' Therefore Paul was present when Crossmere spoke.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
          I'm not referring to the Star specifically. More than one source includes the important clause that Paul accompanied Cross when, or as, the latter spoke with Mizen.
          Looked this up. Yes, more than one source has the information. Two do, as far as I can see, both evening newspapers:

          Echo: 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.

          Star: Cross, when he spoke to witness about the affair, was accompanied by another man. Both went down Hanbury-street.

          In the Echo version, we can see that Mizen WAS of the meaning that the two appeared to be co-workers.

          We can also see that the Echo has Paul going down Hanbury Street, while the Star have them both going down the street - but not necessarily together!

          So this is it, and we may very well have the same original source for the reports, since they both follow the same schedule.

          It is not exactly an overwhelming collection of sources, is it, Gareth?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Robert View Post
            He was 'passing in company with,' Fish. The two men were together. And what the carman said, was said at the same time as he was 'passing.' Therefore Paul was present when Crossmere spoke.
            You are missing the point. The papers were only able to write "passing in company with" since Baxter asked Mizen "There was another man in company with Cross?" Before that, Paul was not mentioned at all.

            Mizen did no offer that information. And therefore, it becomes information derived from a question asked by a person who was not there and answered in a very generalistic manner by Mizen with a yes.

            Once again, what would you have Mizen do? Say that there was no man in company with Cross?

            It must be an eerie feeling, to have your whole linguistic case slipping through your fingers like this.

            Comment


            • My question about how you were getting on with your "large flaps" was in response to your having a misguided pop at me for apparently setting a five yard limit on "accompanied". If you can decide that "large" means "really large", then I'm perfectly at liberty to suggest that "accompanied when Mizen spoke to Cross" likely meant that Paul was less than five yards away.
              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Robert View Post
                I know, Fish, but it says something about the Morning Advertiser's thoroughness, no?
                Yes, they were thankfully thorough enough to disclose that Baxter was the person going on about "in company with".

                But it is enough if ONE paper is thorough. After that, we can easily see how the others were not equally thorough on this all important matter.

                So thank you, Morning Advertiser, for clearing this up!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                  My question about how you were getting on with your "large flaps" was in response to your having a misguided pop at me for apparently setting a five yard limit on "accompanied". If you can decide that "large" means "really large", then I'm perfectly at liberty to suggest that "accompanied when Mizen spoke to Cross" likely meant that Paul was less than five yards away.
                  Representing the lower abdomen or the abomen means being really large when we are dealing with two flaps only.

                  But the point I was making is that you are picking and chosing when to rely on journalistw and when not to

                  And yes, you are at liberty to suggest anything, no matter how bonkers it is. And I am at liberty to reveal the truth behind it.

                  Comment


                  • I would not expect Mizen to say that there was no man in company with Crossmere, since there obviously was.

                    Now to Hanbury St : of course the two men didn't go down it together. How could they? You see, what actually happened was that Crossmere stood there chatting with Mizen, talking about the weather, and football, and the previous year's Jubilee, and by the time he remembered that he was in a great hurry to get to work on time, Paul had long gone.

                    Comment


                    • It´s always like this when a large building is torn down: lots of dust and noise.

                      Once the dust settles, silence takes over and the air clears.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Robert View Post
                        I would not expect Mizen to say that there was no man in company with Crossmere, since there obviously was.

                        Now to Hanbury St : of course the two men didn't go down it together. How could they? You see, what actually happened was that Crossmere stood there chatting with Mizen, talking about the weather, and football, and the previous year's Jubilee, and by the time he remembered that he was in a great hurry to get to work on time, Paul had long gone.
                        Correct, there can be no expecting Mizen to deny that there was a man in company with Cross. Regardless of whether he was one, tree, five or ten yards away.

                        The rest of your post is the usual Robertic twaddle. Not very true, not very fun and not very much in need of a response. Just more of your jester thing. Bitter, are we?
                        Last edited by Fisherman; 06-07-2018, 01:37 AM.

                        Comment


                        • And the Morning Advertiser has Mizen saying that he was approached at what time?

                          Comment


                          • Fisherman,
                            I would suggest if Scobie needed a defence,he come to the boards,heed what is being written, and then reply.Now who is the prosecution that built a case against Cross,that helped Scobie arrive at his decision? why yourself of course.

                            How very curriousl.You say both you and I know that there is no defence.You are completely wrong again.When have I ever given that impression?I am of the opinion there is no cause for suspicion of guilt in the actions of Cross.Are you again leading in the direction where I have to call you a liar.

                            Here is something else for you and Scobie to ponder.It too was taken from the web. "If the prosecution cannot present evidence supporting each element of a case,defendent must be aquitted"
                            So what are the elements you use in deciding Cross was the killer of Nichols?
                            How do they prove guilt? Standing in the road near her body? Not likely as you have already in a post stated that is not evidence of killing.So what else?

                            Comment


                            • Well, Fish, you are bitter, and if you choose to lump me in with the mystical 'we, together,' 'with,' 'in company with' and 'present' then I guess I must be bitter too, though I don't feel it.

                              Keep checking those dictionaries, Fish.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Robert View Post
                                And the Morning Advertiser has Mizen saying that he was approached at what time?
                                All papers have mistakes, Robert. It has a superficial bearing on matters on the whole, since we must realize that they can be wrong and thus we should not invest too much in them unless we have many practically corroborating sources.

                                However, in this case, all we have is a number of reports where we can see that all the talk about the two carmen being "in company" derives from the question Baxter asked Mizen.

                                The exact phrasing of Baxters question is impossible to establish.

                                It therefore applies that Mizen may have answered yes only to the question whether Lechmere was trekking alone or not.

                                That is all we can say. To try and take it further the way you try to, you must start to pick and choose between the reports, all the while opting for versions that support your take and accepting to use somebody who was never in Bucks Row as the primary source for that choice.

                                Good luck with that, Robert.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X