Favorite suspect/s?

[Fisherman]

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.

ALL the quotes you refer to rest on Mizen answering yes on Baxtwrs question. Surely you have realized that? Mizen never said a single word about the two men being together as they spoke to him.

I don´t have to show you when Mizen said that there was another man standing some way off. All I have to do is to prove that there may have been, that Paul may have been out of earshot, that the wordings and testimony allows for it. And it does.

Whether you find that surreal, I don´t know. But you really must be able to understand a text before you comment on it.

[Fisherman]

I thought that it was the worm that wriggled and not the Fish

It was Robert. He is neither.

[Fisherman]

None remotely hint at the men being apart when Mizen was spoken to.

And once again, it refers back to Baxters question - and we do not know how it was worded.

[Fisherman]

From a man who describes less than 24 hours as ‘a few days.’

You need to explain that, Herlock.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

Where did Baxter get that idea from, and why would he have made it up? Coroners didn't turn up "cold", but had access to paperwork, depositions and witness statements. Furthermore, not everything that was said was reported in the papers. The idea that Cross and Paul spoke with Mizen together originated in Baxter's imagination is untenable, if that's what you're suggesting.

The two men examined the body together, they set off to tell a policeman together, and it's almost certain that they spoke with him together. That much should be apparent, even without Baxter's exchange with Mizen as reported in the press.

[Fisherman]

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

No, he didn´t. I never wrote a word that Scobie read.

He looked at the prosecution side of the case, and i had nothing to do with the compilation. The closest I have come to the text he read is to say that it is a measly and cowardly thing to predispose that it was full of faults anddesinformation.

I can think of only a few men who wouold resort to such things.

Now, try and get things correct, please! If you don´t know, just ask. Don´t think things up, it will end in disaster.

[Fisherman]

I refer you above. The building by Lechmere and Paul has not even been scratched.


Steve

"Building by Lechmere and Paul"? I have no idea what you are talking about. The suggestion that Paul MUST have heard what Lechmere said, however, lies in tatters.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

More fantasy.

You have shown that something wasnt impossible and you call that mission accomplished? There are many things that arent impossible Fish. What has that achieved? There is a mountain of evidence to show that there is absolutely reason to beieve in a scam. You have suggested the scam therefore it is you that need to prove it but you cant.

[Fisherman]

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

No, in the absense of clear information on the point we are safe to assume that there MAY HAVE BEEN A SCAM.

Try and learn how these things work instead of shaming yourelf intellectually. I know full well that the scam cannot be proven - but I also know that it cannot be disproven, least of all by a bunch of people falsely conjuring up the idea that Paul MUST have heard what Lechmere said and claiming it as a fact.

It is not, and it will never be.

[Fisherman]

Hes obviously saying that one man did the talking!

He is saying that "a man" came up to him and talked, yes. Not two men. If you can give me a credible reason why a PC who is approached by TWO men will say at the ensuing inquest that "a man" talked to him, I´d be inteested to see it.

If I say that you are hopelessly behind on the subject, I don´t mean that you and somebody else is. Or do I? Wait a minute here...

[Herlock Sholmes]

"Building by Lechmere and Paul"? I have no idea what you are talking about. The suggestion that Paul MUST have heard what Lechmere said, however, lies in tatters.

And the evidence that CL deliberately took Mizen to one side and that Paul meekly accepted this action is completely non-existant. It is wish-thinking to bolster an ailing theory....pure and simple. CL remains on the outer-fringes where most are quite happy for him to remain.....unless youve already nailed your colours to the mast of course.

[Fisherman]

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

I thought that you were saying that nobody has denied that Paul could have been out of earshot, Steve.

That too is quite funny, right?

[Fisherman]

It also cannot be proven that Robert Paul didnt stand on his head and sing ‘roll out the barrel’ either

Please...

What does that have to do with it? Has it been suggested? Is it relevant? How hard can it be to conduct a serious debate? Catch up, man!

[Fisherman]

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.

The only important sentence is the first one. That is correct, it is not impossible. Not is it unlikely, if we look at who said what. Mizen clearly has only Lechmere in the picture, and the gabbing about "in company with" is signed by a man who was not there.

That effectively sinks the Paul must have heard ship.

He MAY have heard (I don´t try to deny the bloody obvious), but it may just as well be that he did not hear.

Than you, Herlock. A gold star in your book!

[Fisherman]

"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."

More jestering. Never on subject, always the clown.