Favorite suspect/s?

[Fisherman]

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.

I donīt have to. I have already taken your argument apart, and the errand has come to an end. It cannot in any shape or form be decided that Paul was within earshot of Lechmere as the latter spoke to Mizen.

Which, incidentally, is what I have suggested all along.

It actually offers me a possibility to quote Hans Rosling from that clip I posted earlier:

I am right and you are wrong and there can be no discussion about that.

Mind you, that does not mean that Paul WAS out of earshot, but it does mean that it cannot be excluded that he was.

[Fisherman]

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?

Yes, Scobie would face a defence if he took the case to trial.

No, there is no defence as it is - meaning that we cannot prove that Lechmere was innocent of any of the Ripper murders.

Back then, there may well have been evidence to clear the carman, and if there was, then he was not the Ripper.

The gist of the matter lies elsewhere, though: Scobie saw a useful and practically working case good enough to warrant a trial.

Once more, which other suspect warrants a trial? And on what evidence?

[FrankO]

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.

You forgot the Times, Christer: "When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street.”

The best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

You forgot the Times, Christer: "When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street.”

The best,
Frank

Thanks, Frank, missed that one - but it is the same wording more or less exactly.

How do you feel about Mizens options? Was he likely to answer "no" to Baxters question? Regardless if they were one, three, five or ten yards apart?

And how do you feel about what I am saying about the Morning Advertiser? Surely, it leaves the door wide open for Paul having been out of earshot?

[Robert]

Now to the double Mizen scam : if Paul was party to the scam, why would he stand a good distance away while Crossmere lied to Mizen? Was it perhaps to make sure that he couldn't be accused of being implicated in the scam? If so, then it's odd that in his Press interview Paul goes out of his way to place himself at the centre of things.

[GUT]

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?

Harry the elements of the offence that need to be proven would be (murder)


Willfully, not negligently, accidentally etc

He killed someone, not maimed them, not injured them etc

Willfully, not negligently, accidentally etc

Without lawful excuse, ie not self defence, act of war, execution etc


Now that’s simplified to the extreme but gives you the idea.

[Fisherman]

Now to the double Mizen scam : if Paul was party to the scam, why would he stand a good distance away while Crossmere lied to Mizen? Was it perhaps to make sure that he couldn't be accused of being implicated in the scam? If so, then it's odd that in his Press interview Paul goes out of his way to place himself at the centre of things.

We know that Paul gives a faulty picture of his own part in that interview, Robert. It is one thing to brag to a reporter - or have the reporter brag on your behalf - and another one to lie to an inquest.

[Fisherman]

What we would need to be able to keep the course suggested by Gareth, Robert, Herlock et al, would be either a direct quotation from Mizen acknowledging that the two men stood by each others sides as they spoke to him (and effectively, Mizen seems to suggest the exact opposite by only acknowledging that ONE man came up to him and talked), or his answer "yes" given to a wording on behalf of Baxter that encompassed asking whether the carmen stood closely by each others sides during the conversation with the PC.

As it stands, we have neither. We donīt even know how Baxter worded himself. And even if Baxter HAD asked "Constable Mizen, as carman Cross spoke to PC Mizen, was there somebody else present at the site, somebody who was in company with Cross?", Mizen would have been entirely justified to say "yes" even if Paul was ten yards away.

He was of the meaning that the carmen were co-workers trekking to job, and in that respect, they WERE in company, but not grounded on the specific distance inbetween them but instead based simply on being co-workers en route to work.

[Sam Flynn]

And how do you feel about what I am saying about the Morning Advertiser? Surely, it leaves the door wide open for Paul having been out of earshot?

Why on earth should he have been? The two men had discovered and examined the woman, and went TOGETHER to find a policeman, after all.

[Fisherman]

Why on earth should he have been? The two men went TOGETHER to find a policeman, after all.

Not glued to each other, Gareth. And nowhere along the road do we have any information about how close or distant the two men were.

I hope you are not going to once again argue "as they left Bucks Row together, there is no way Lechmere could have spoken to Mizen without Paul hearing what was said".

As has been shown very clearly this morning, that does not apply at all.

As I said, no matter what you suggest, you are welcome to that suggestion, including that they were closer than Chang and Eng were.

However, you must also respect that it may well be that Paul was out of earshot when Lechmere spoke to Mizen. There is nothing in the evidence that precludes such a thing, plus we know that Mizen very clearly said that it was one man, not two, who approached him and talked to him, identifying that man at the inquest as being Lechmere.

Based on the facts, there can be no further denying that. That particular battle is now over.

The question about why Paul would have been out of earshot is something I suggest can have the answer "Because Lechmere had decided to lie his way past Mizen and did not want Paul to hear the lie since that would mean that Paul could corroborate Mizen on the point if push ever came to shove."

And as we know, it did.

[Robert]

Not glued to each other, Gareth. And nowhere along the road do we have any information about how close or distant the two men were.

Daily Telegraph (Paul testimony) :

The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman.

[Elamarna]

I am not the one wriggling. You are, now that it has been established that you rely on a person who was not even in Bucks Row.

Wriggle, wriggle, little worm.

No people are relying on both the questions by Baxter and the replies by Mizen.
Oh almost forgot they are also not excluding the Tesimony of Lechmere or trating is as unreliable.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Not glued to each other, Gareth. And nowhere along the road do we have any information about how close or distant the two men were.

Daily Telegraph (Paul testimony) :

The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman.

Yes, and where in this text does it say how close or distant they were? Where does it say that they both walked up to Mizen? Where does it say they both talked to him? Where is the distance to Paul given, as Lehmere spoke to Mizen? Where does it say that "saw" means spoke to? They saw a PC, meaning they visually noticed him, is as far as I can see just as viable an interpretation.

Come on, Robert - you are revisiting old ground now. The issue has moved on.

[Elamarna]

Morning Advertiser :


Police constable George Maizen (sic), 55 H, said - On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row).

What happened to the policeman in Buck's Row, Fish?

More importantly for the accuracy of the report is the time given.


Steve

[Fisherman]

No people are relying on both the questions by Baxter and the replies by Mizen.
Oh almost forgot they are also not excluding the Tesimony of Lechmere or trating is as unreliable.


Steve

The only reply is a "Yes. I think he was also a carman." as far as this particular errand goes.

And then, all sorts of interpretations are made from that.

It is using Baxter as the primary source, somehow trying to transfer his question (however THAT was worded!) into Mizens view. As evidence, it is useless if you want to prove that Paul was within earshot as Lechmere talked to Mizen.