Favorite suspect/s?

[Robert]

"I am also satisfied that the man who spoke to me did not do so in a foreign language intended to be unintelligible to the man who was standing apart, nor did he speak Swenglish, a highly confusing hybrid language which only the brightest minds can master."

[Sam Flynn]

Apparently a Press Agency report carried, with slight variations, by the Daily News, Daily Telegraph, ELO and IPN:

[Cross] and [Paul] left the deceased, and in Baker's row they saw [Mizen] whom they told that a woman was lying in Buck's row. The witness added, "She looks to me either dead or drunk," and the other man remarked, "I think she's dead." The policeman answered, "All right." The other man left witness soon afterwards.

Note that both men were imparting information to Mizen, evidently as part of the same brief exchange. This is borne out by the Times which, whilst apparently based on the same Press Agency report, gives us very specific, and very useful, information about what "soon afterwards" really meant:

...The constable replied "All right." The other man left witness at the corner of Hanbury-street and turned into Corbett's court. (The Times)

Now they met Mizen at Baker's Row, so unless Cross's eyesight allowed him to see a great distance and around corners, he couldn't possibly have seen Paul enter Corbett's Court without being there to see it happen. So, far from Paul going off on his own after, or during, the meeting with Mizen, Cross evidently walked the length of Hanbury Street with him. The "corner of Hanbury Street" referred to is evidently the one at the western end, because that's where Corbett's Court was, not (as might be assumed) the corner of Hanbury St/Baker's Row where the encounter with Mizen took place.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Christer,
My dear fellow, just because you caim something has moved on, it does not mean it has.

You started by saying the carmen seperated, and dispite all you have posted you have not been able to establish that such happened.

All you have done is to reconfirm that such was possible, which no one has denied.

The position has not changed at all.
LECHMERE says they spoke to Mizen togeather, Mizen implies different, but only implies.
Baxter asks a question which Mizen replies to in the affermative.

NOTHING has changed, that the carmen seperated has not been established, indeed the suggestion that they stood apart is not supported by any source at all.

Several hours repeating I have established iit, when no such thing is established clearly demonstrates the inability to actually do so


Steve

Do you ever feel like your flogging a dead horse here Steve?

The problem is, as we can all see, is that this isnt a debate between two differing interpretations based on the facts. Its a debate between one side viewing and interpreting the evidence with logic and reason against someone that has a theory which requires the other side to be wrong.

[Elamarna]

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.


Wondered when the "12 Angry Men" argument would surface again. The negative used as positive evidence. Of course ignoring the. Carmen completely

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

Until such time as you can prove the carmen both lied, your theory is dismissed by them.
Your statement is incorrect.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

"I am also satisfied that the man who spoke to me did not do so in a foreign language intended to be unintelligible to the man who was standing apart, nor did he speak Swenglish, a highly confusing hybrid language which only the brightest minds can master."

[Robert]

I wonder if Fish plays bridge? In that game, when you're up against it you have to work out how the cards would need to be distributed for you to succeed, and play for that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I wonder if Fish plays bridge? In that game, when you're up against it you have to work out how the cards would need to be distributed for you to succeed, and play for that.

You might have a point there Robert. It reminds me of conspiracy theorist thinking. Caution should always be advised when you have to work so hard to try and make a point. The simplest interpretation is usually the correct one. Ive said before that if you have the time, inclination and perseverance you could build some kind of ‘case’ against most people who werearound at the time and ‘peripherally’ involved.

You ‘discover’ that John Davis had a friend who was violent toward women. You think ‘maybe they were in cahoots ‘ Then you find out that Davis had an unle that lived 3 streets away from Buck’s Row or that he used to work in a butchers shop when he was fourteen . Before you know it your writing a book saying that Davis was the ripper! Easy-peasy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why couldnt Paul have killed Polly and then doubled-back and waited for someone to discover his handiwork? We now that serial killers like to insinuate themselves into the investigation. What do we know about Paul

[Robert]

A sort of 'six degrees of separation' thing - or as Fish would have it, six degrees of togetherness.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Exactly. This is why i dont put much weight on the location of CL’s mothers house. I bet you could do it with someone like Kosminski. Relatives living locally, a synagogue near to Mitre Square. The problem with searching for things is getting carried away when we find things!

Fish tried to make it appear that i was dismissing geography enirely but i wasnt. We cant dismiss CL on geography. But we cant dismiss Kosminski or Druitt or Bury or Hutchinson on those grounds either. Or wuite a few others. We needmuch more than that though.

[Fisherman]

I have, and the argument does not distract from the failure of the Morning Advertiser.
You are relying on this account, however its accuracy is questionable in this report

Steve

You don´t know that there IS a failure in the Morning Advertiser, Steve. You are speculating there may be.

Can you see the difference? And why it is not warranted to speak of it as a fact?

[Fisherman]

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.....

Read again. Try to understand. And never insult those who have read and understood.

[Fisherman]

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

All I need is "Paul MAY have been out of earshot, and there is no evidence to tell us he cannot have been".

I have that already.

As for not relying on Baxter, that is all good and well, but until Lechmere testified, Baxters suggestions about the the two men being together was ALL there was to rely on.

[Fisherman]

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.

No, Robert. I think it is better if you retire from the boards on the whole. You have lost what little gifts of comprehension you once had.

[Fisherman]

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

Paul didn´t say that he spoke to Mizen at the inquest. It was in his newspaper article only, and we all know that is faulty in many respects.

There is absolutely no onus on me to show that Paul was not within earshot, I only have to prove he may well not have been, and I already have done so.

You try your old disparaging soup "My DEAR friend, you have not accomplished a iot", but since I differ, I really don´t care a lot. Before today, the importance of how Baxter was the source behind the wording has not been examined, and it has not been discussed what options Mizen had to answer no on Baxters question.

That in itself has made the topic much clearer, and if you fail to see that, it´s not my fault.

Now, stop saying that I am trying to prove that Paul was out of earshot. I never did, since I know I can´t. But I CAN prove that he MAY HAVE BEEN, and I have done so.

Mission accomplished.