Favorite suspect/s?

[Elamarna]

You donīt 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?

What nonsense, the failures are factual. It was not 4.20 fact.
That they do not report the exchange correctly is significant, if the exchange is as here there is no scam full stop.

No Speculation at all. Just facts.


Steve

[Elamarna]

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

Once again if we don't agree it because we have not read and understood.

Steve

[Elamarna]

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.

It matters not, or does Lechmere speaking after Mizen somehow devalue his testimony.

Steve

[Elamarna]

"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.

Avoidance/denial

Steve

[Elamarna]

You are relying on Lechmeres testimony to be truthful.

I donīt do that.

And that is the serious failing, you reject all he says. That on its own says all that needs to be said.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

I feel like Captain Mainwaring listening to Jones's 'realms of fantasy' ideas.

Or Blackadder listening to one of Baldrick’s ‘cunning plans.’

[Sam Flynn]

until Lechmere testified, Baxters suggestions about the the two men being together was ALL there was to rely on.

That's not quite so, Fish. Baxter had asked Mizen "There was another man in company with Cross?", to which Mizen replied "Yes. I think he was also a carman." (Morning Advertiser, 4th September)

So Mizen himself confirmed that Paul was in Cross's company, and this was before Cross gave evidence.

[Elamarna]

Until such time as you can prove that neither carman lied, my theory is very much alive and well.

There are always two sides to a coin, Steve. Trying to free Lechmere by accepting what he said is allowing a suspect to corooborate his own story.

Letīs not do that. It is potentially extremely stupid.

Talk about Bias,
You need to prove that either lied, its your theory that relies on such.
The onus is on you to prove your theory, thats how research, real research works.

But of course i forgot, you cannot prove either lied with regards to the exchange between them and Mizen.

Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

I'm confused. Are we to regard as suspicious ALL evidence, if it's prompted by a question by a coroner, just because he wasn't there? Or, was the coroner privy to info unknown to us?

I suppose it's not impossible....has Baxter ever been proposed as a suspect?

[Robert]

"There are always two sides to a coin, Steve"

Except when it's your double-headed penny.

[Robert]

Hi Joshua

Coroners were briefed beforehand - e.g. Macdonald warning Maxwell to be careful, because her evidence contradicted the other evidence. This was right at the start of Maxwell's testimony.

[Joshua Rogan]

Nice try Robert, but it's obvious that Baxter had inside knowledge because he was Jack - anyone with such a flamboyant taste in trousers has evidently got severe psychological problems!

[Elamarna]

Saw this post first thing today, read it and decided that although it required a response, I would wait a while, to see what others had to say and to see what developed. Glad that line was taken.

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.

Once again a misleading Statement. What is being said is that there is NO EVIDENCE to support the idea they split up

Letīs revisit the facts once more and once and for all put that idea to rest.
We will begin with a favourite quotation of yours. Itīs 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!

This "favourite quote" is interesting given that the Star has only once before been mentioned in this thread.
Of course before the Star, the Echo 3rd September was used to give a partial quote, a highly selective and mislead account of the Echo Report. The question was asked how such happened, and is there a response at all, no we merely get the Star presented.
Actually the argument is not used to establish proximity, it merely offers no challenge to the statements of the two carmen.
If you truly wish to attempt to establish this point, rather than simply try and muddy the waters, Please provide a source to support, which shows that they were not close.
Yes Christer, language can be deceptive, however once again to prove that the accounts of the carmen are untrue, actual evidence is need. That is a source which catagorically refutes they are not togeather, not one that merely suggests that such may be possible.

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".

There is no intention by the Star to mislead as you infer, the reading is very clear for most, a question from Baxter, a reply from Mizen.
And of course one is required to read more than a single source to get a full picture, as you point out by then using the Morning Adveriser in an attempt to sow a sense of uncertainty.
Of course the Advertiser account has problems of its own. It does not give the account of the exchange as Mizen claims and it has the timing out by some 35 minutes. Its not a simple quarter to 4 becoming a quarter past, its a genuine mistake. Two such mistakes in the same report ask very serious questions about the overall accuracy of the report. The subsequent defence of this in later posts are little more than waffle and not at all convincing.
Returning to the Star, there is then an attempt to compare and contrast it to the Echo 3rd (still no response as to why only half a quote was previously supplied) Again the Echo is misread, it is impossible to tell if this is diliberate or just poor understanding.
Post 784 again implies the report reads that Paul walked down Hanbury Street, at least initially alone. However most appear to read it as the response to Baxter's question saying yes another man was present, the other man who (also) went down Hanbury Street(with Lechmere).

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 didnīt 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.

That however is contrary to the overwhelming weight of other sources that they approached together.
Mizen's apparent reluctance to mention Paul is indeed very clear. One could read Mizen's testimony as one desperate to ignore the, at that point, only report of the exchange by Paul on the Sunday.
The above statement that the "overall impression is that he was NOT with Lechmere" is not the impression that most, reading ALL the Press reports(just Mizen) would make. Such a suggestion is not supported by an objective reading of All(not just those of Mizen) the reports.
The increasing tendency to seize on single reports, that can be read in a way which is slightly unclear, and to place such reports above the overwhelming weight of the rest of the press, is deeply disturbing from an historical integrity point of view

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.

Wonderful argument, pure semantic argument, devoid of facts. Supposition and nothing else.
There is nothing in that section which challenges the statements of the Carmen. Mizen is portrayed as the only one of the three whose testimony counts.
The argument that somehow we are confused by Baxters question and see it has coming from Mizen is utterly rediculious.

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.

An extension of the Mizen never said Paul was present argument, but one which ultimately presents its own issues.
We are back again to Mizen's reluctance to mention Paul. Given that the Lloyds story had been published the day before, and was very POSSIBLY the reason for Mizen's account ( yes still supposition until I publish, but such seems to be in full flow in the thread, so what's good for the Goose)and that Mizen identified Cross at the inquest as clearly not the man named in the article, it is indeed odd that Mizen does not make any reference to Paul's account.
Baxter, has he often does makes a witness talk of events they do not wish to disclose

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?"

Double standards, Post 748 made the disparinging comment:
" Other inclusions in this brainstorm of yours is Steves "Mizen did not say that Paul did not speak to him, so Paul may have done so"."
However it seems such can now be used.
Trying to suggest that people are using Baxter, rather than Mizen will not really work, it is clear that without the question the answer is meaningless.
The question was not was there another man in company with Cross, rather the question was when Cross spoke to you was there another man there, it's different.

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 thats odd Christer. A quick check of 12 randon reports shows the question directly asked in only 2 reports : the Morning Advertiser, (the accuracy of this report I have already questioned) which agrees with the above statement that "spoke" was not used.

The 2nd report is in the Echo, which you are well aware of. This clearly disagrees with the above statement, it does however agree with the statement you rejected that "spoke" was used. The Echo says:

"By the Coroner - There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness."

Therefore we have one for and once against your view, that is far from conclusive.
However 3 other reports while not giving the question say another man was present when Lechmere SPOKE to Mizen, these are the Star, Telegraph and the Walthamstow and Leyton Guardian 8th.

It would appear on the balance of probabilities that Baxter did indeed ask "There was another man in company with Cross AS HE SPOKE TO YOU?"

Although we cannot be definitive about such.

Of course, again,neither version challenges the statements of the carmen.

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.

Simply the truth, if Paul was present when Lechmere spoke, say yes, if however he had moved say so, and be clear. However he did not.
The carmen's version of events remains unchallenged.

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?"

It was pointed out above, that the Echo gives a different account, and that the Morning Advertiser report contains serveral serious errors and it's accuracy on this particular report must be highly questionable.

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.

Only in the minds of those who need it to.

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.

Not at all, these attempts in this post to misrepresent the truth are staggering as Herlock as already said. The position is built on many things, the question and answer between Baxter and Mizen, numerious press reports and testimonies. It is also arrived at without the need to twist the sources.

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.

Therefore it follows that all of this has not been able to challenge in anyway at all the statements of the Carmen.

But is HAS now been established that there are no viable grounds for claiming that they must have been close to each other.

Sorry Christer, no such thing has been established, the accounts of the Carmen, that both spoke to Mizen remain unchallenged. Any claim to the contrary is untrue and would be foolish by anyone

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.

What a self justifying, factually inaccurate post we have.
It is really hard to think of a single good point.
The post portrays an underlying need to divert from the overwhelming weight of the sources.


Steve

[Abby Normal]

all this back and forth about where Paul was is irrelevant.
He neither confirms nor denies the discrepancy about "your wanted in bucks row by a Policeman".

Also, he may have been standing right there, heard lech say it, and not cared. and considering how he disparaged Mizen in the press he may have found it amusing. There was apparently no love between Paul and the police.


I also think all this back and forth about paul is obsfuscating the main issue:

Mizen, a PC in good standing, with no reason to lie testified under oath that Lech told him that he was wanted in bucks row by another policeman.

Probably a misunderstanding in my view, but he said it, its written in stone and he may have heard correctly-which means Lech said it and lied.

its a red flag. OK potential red flag.

[Elamarna]

all this back and forth about where Paul was is irrelevant.
He neither confirms nor denies the discrepancy about "your wanted in bucks row by a Policeman".

agtreed

Also, he may have been standing right there, heard lech say it, and not cared. and considering how he disparaged Mizen in the press he may have found it amusing. There was apparently no love between Paul and the police.
again very possibly true

I also think all this back and forth about paul is obsfuscating the main issue:

Mizen, a PC in good standing, with no reason to lie testified under oath that Lech told him that he was wanted in bucks row by another policeman.

Probably a misunderstanding in my view, but he said it, its written in stone and he may have heard correctly-which means Lech said it and lied.

its a red flag. OK potential red flag.

Clear thinking if Mizen told the truth Abby.


Steve