Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Favorite suspect/s?

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

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    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.
    Staggering!!

    How can you, with any honour, keep up these constant contortions and distortions. It beggars belief

    CL spoke to Mizen and Paul was with him. There is not one smidgeon of meaningful evidence to the contrary.

    End of.....
    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 06-07-2018, 03:40 AM.
    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
      That is of course wrong, since the papers were plastered with how Mizen said that "a man" or "one man" came up to him and spoke, so your argument goes very quickly down the drain.

      It also applies that it is a proven matter that the wordings you rely heavily on were used by somebody who was not in place in Bucks Row.

      So yes, the building "Paul MUST have been within earshot" tumbled down earlier this morning. And it´s not coming up again.
      I am not relying on Baxter, i am using all the sources of all involved,
      The problem is that the building you mention is built by Lechmere and Paul, and that is as secure as it ever was.

      For your tbeory to work the building must be name "Paul MUST be out of earshot" and such a building does not exist and has never existed.


      Steve

      Comment


      • Yes, take a break, Fish. You have been overdoing it, old chap, and you've started to imagine things - or rather, you've started to imagine even more things. Listen to some nice soothing music - I recommend Mozart - and when you feel better, come back refreshed.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
          Basically, Baxters question amounts to "There was another guy there too, a chum of Cross´, right?" and nothing more than so. That´s all Mizen confirms.

          It´s nighty-nighty for the "Paul must have heard what was said"-brigade. And that´s about time.
          No its not my friend.
          The Carmen say they approached Paul together and that both of them spoke. That means they are not apart and paul is within earshot.

          All this posting and you have not been able to show that such is untrue.
          The onus is on you to demonstrate that Paul was not within earshot, you have singularly failed to do so.

          Steve

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            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.
            This is becoming surreal.

            How many quotes are needed that say that another man was ‘present’ or ‘he was in the company of another man’ before you concede this transparently obvious point.

            Show us the statement where Mizen said ‘there was another man standing some distance away.’ Or ‘ the first man took me to one side while the other man remained a few yards away.’ Or ‘the first man whispered conspiratorially in my ear to prevent the other man from hearing.’ Or anything remotely similar or suggestive of this.

            You cannot because theres no evidence for it. Its just something that youve invented and desperately need to be true to bolster your theory.
            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
              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 don´t 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.
              I thought that it was the worm that wriggled and not the Fish
              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
                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?
                None remotely hint at the men being apart when Mizen was spoken to.
                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
                  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.
                  From a man who describes less than 24 hours as ‘a few days.’
                  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
                    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?
                    He arrived at his opinion after reading a version of events written by you! Wriggle all you want Fish. Every human being on the planet knows that you cannot give weight to an opinion that has only heard one version of events. Is this what happens in Sweden? The jury hears the prosecutions case then retires to consider its verdict? Come on
                    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
                      The one point I am establishing here is that there is not enough in it - by any means - to conclude that Paul must have been within earshot.

                      you cannot do that without demonstrating that the carmens accounts are untrue. Mizen is not the exclusive source for the exchange

                      I do not push the point that he must have been out of earshot - I push the point that it cannot be proven that he must have been within earshot.

                      I am not saying that my theory on Lechmere is proven by this - I am saying that it cannot be disproven by your efforts.

                      I am not the one overcharging the fact account here. The collection of misinterpretors you belong to takes care of that, by hanging the whole matter on a source that was not even there.

                      Totally untrue. Why do you continue to exclude the evidence of two of the three involved in the exchange.
                      The evindence that Paul was within earshot, does not come from Mizen, nor Baxter but from Lechmere and Paul.
                      Wby do you continue to misrepresent the arguments and the evidence?


                      You need to get yourself a large broome and sweep outside your own door before you start to pick on me for dabbling with the evidence, Steve. As it stands, you may even have to go inside that door and clear away all that glass you have been throwing stones at.

                      Paul could well have been out of earshot. Agreed?

                      No. Only by ignoreing the Carmen is that statement POSSIBLE. They say they BOTH spoke to Mizen

                      Mizen would hardly answer "no" to the coroners question. Agreed?

                      Again No, i find your reading of the question and answer to boarder on the unrealistici

                      The "Paul MUST have heard" building therefore crumbled and fell today. Agreed?
                      I refer you above. The building by Lechmere and Paul has not even been scratched.


                      Steve
                      Last edited by Elamarna; 06-07-2018, 04:19 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        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 don´t 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.
                        So all you’re asking for would be a statement from Mizen Of Dock Green saying’ two men approached me walking 2 feet apart from each other but moving in the same direction. One man spoke to me while the other remained 3 feet away in a north westerly direction. During the conversation he remained facing Cross and myself and appeared to be listening to what was said. My police training led me to deduce that these to men were together and of a common purpose. There was no one else present that could be connected to this incident and there were no facts apparent that would lead me to conclude that there presence together was pure coincidence. Cross made no attempt to conspiratorially pull me to one side and speak out of Paul’s earshot so i can only conclude, for what its worth, that no kind of scam was intended by either or both of the gentleman that were present on the morning in question.’

                        And in the absence of that kind of clarifying statement we are safe to conclude that there wasa scam.

                        Of course there was Fish
                        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
                          That is of course wrong, since the papers were plastered with how Mizen said that "a man" or "one man" came up to him and spoke, so your argument goes very quickly down the drain.

                          It also applies that it is a proven matter that the wordings you rely heavily on were used by somebody who was not in place in Bucks Row.

                          So yes, the building "Paul MUST have been within earshot" tumbled down earlier this morning. And it´s not coming up again.
                          Hes obviously saying that one man did the talking!
                          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
                            That could be your funniest post so far. "No one has denied".

                            Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

                            I´m off.
                            Yes Christer thatz very funny.

                            A mistake on my part, a few words got missed out.
                            after denied it should have read " if we only use Mizen"
                            Mizen is not the primary source for them both talking to bim

                            Steve

                            Comment


                            • . I do not push the point that he must have been out of earshot - I push the point that it cannot be proven that he must have been within earshot.
                              It also cannot be proven that Robert Paul didnt stand on his head and sing ‘roll out the barrel’ either

                              Please...
                              Regards

                              Herlock






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

                              Comment


                              • . Paul could well have been out of earshot. Agreed?
                                Like a million other things in this case its not impossible. Its not ‘impossible’ that Lewis Carroll’ was Jack The Ripper but the evidence is weighed heavily against it. Just as all the evidence here points to a natural and logical conclusion that CL and Paul walked along Buck’s Row together with the common purpose of finding a police officer. They achieved this purpose pretty quickly so they spoke to him. There is nothing to suggest that they were apart. Its only because you need this to be the case that you intentionally see mystery where theres no good reason to see it.
                                Regards

                                Herlock






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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X