Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Favorite suspect/s?

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

  • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
    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.


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


    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.


    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).


    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



    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.



    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



    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.



    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.





    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.



    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.



    Only in the minds of those who need it to.



    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.



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



    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



    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
    Excellent post Steve
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes

    Comment


    • The trouble is, Abby, that the police would have wanted Mizen to be telling the truth even more than Fish does. OK, so Crossmere seemed decent and respectable. Couldn't the same be said of Mizen? What kind of police force would take a stranger's word over a brother officer's? Mizen had taken a pounding in Paul's interview and his reputation and by extension the police's was at stake. At the inquest it was one man's word against another's, but I believe the police would have studied Crossmere carefully to see if there was anything shady about him that might vindicate Mizen. If they did, they obviously found nothing.

      Nor was this a fleeting matter for the police - soon after, Swanson was put in overall charge and he would have read all the reports to see if anyone lower down had missed something. Was Swanson an 'idiot' like the rest?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Robert View Post
        The trouble is, Abby, that the police would have wanted Mizen to be telling the truth even more than Fish does. OK, so Crossmere seemed decent and respectable. Couldn't the same be said of Mizen? What kind of police force would take a stranger's word over a brother officer's? Mizen had taken a pounding in Paul's interview and his reputation and by extension the police's was at stake. At the inquest it was one man's word against another's, but I believe the police would have studied Crossmere carefully to see if there was anything shady about him that might vindicate Mizen. If they did, they obviously found nothing.

        Nor was this a fleeting matter for the police - soon after, Swanson was put in overall charge and he would have read all the reports to see if anyone lower down had missed something. Was Swanson an 'idiot' like the rest?
        actually the discrepancy appeared to have been totally (oddly in my view) overlooked/blown off and apparently never followed up on. I don't think the police were idiots at all, probably just chalked up to a misunderstanding, which in all likelihood it was.
        "Is all that we see or seem
        but a dream within a dream?"

        -Edgar Allan Poe


        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

        -Frederick G. Abberline

        Comment


        • Well, there's not a great deal of difference between, say, 'policeman wanted in Buck's Row' and 'policeman wants you in Buck's Row.'

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Robert View Post
            Well, there's not a great deal of difference between, say, 'policeman wanted in Buck's Row' and 'policeman wants you in Buck's Row.'
            Which makes me wonder why a scamming Lechmere would have openly contradicted a policeman in court, when he could have just put it down to such a mishearing.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
              Which makes me wonder why a scamming Lechmere would have openly contradicted a policeman in court, when he could have just put it down to such a mishearing.
              Regardless of the reason, why would a scheming Lechmere have lied, whether to Mizen or to Baxter in any case? What had he to gain from doing so?

              It was almost certainly a simple misunderstanding.
              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                Which makes me wonder why a scamming Lechmere would have openly contradicted a policeman in court, when he could have just put it down to such a mishearing.
                Joshua and Robert,

                I think it is clear that the police "officially" wrote it off as a misunderstand.
                No rules of the Police Code had been broken, which ever take you have of the events surrounding the exchange between the Carmen and Mizen.
                There were no reprimands and no further investigation that we are aware of, the records having long since vanished.
                Following the appearances of Mizen and Lechmere, Robert Paul is intensively question by the police, acvord to him, there is apparently no official record of this.
                He appears at the inquest, gives his account up to the point where he and Lechmere meet Mizen and it stops. Nothing is asked. It appears that a conclusion has been reached on what happened before Paul appears at the inquest. A conclusion which suits all involved.

                Steve

                Comment


                • Gareth, isn't it the idea that if he simply reported that he had found a body, Mizen would have taken down his particulars, searched him, examined his hands and clothing etc?

                  Comment


                  • Hi Steve

                    Mizen did transfer to the Reserve in 1889 but as I understand it, this wasn't a demotion.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                      Regardless of the reason, why would a scheming Lechmere have lied, whether to Mizen or to Baxter in any case? What had he to gain from doing so?

                      It was almost certainly a simple misunderstanding.
                      I have to agree with you and Abby that this is most likely. Whether or not Mizen set off thinking he was being summoned by a policeman, the moment he reached the end of White's Row he was indeed summoned by Neil flashing his lantern, which would have planted/reinforced the impression.

                      Comment


                      • I too can happily live with the misunderstand scenero if my own take fails to convince others.
                        It explains all the problems away neatly, no one lies and it is the most obvious solution.
                        The one i started out supporting.

                        Steve

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Robert View Post
                          Gareth, isn't it the idea that if he simply reported that he had found a body, Mizen would have taken down his particulars, searched him, examined his hands and clothing etc?
                          A scenario which CL could have avoided entirely if he had simply walked or run away as soon as he heard Paul’s footsteps approaching in the dark distance. Footsteps that, for all that he knew, might even have been a police officers. So, according to Fish, CL goes from risk-taking thrillseeker to cautious, conniving self-preserver in the space of 5 minutes or so.
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                            I have to agree with you and Abby that this is most likely. Whether or not Mizen set off thinking he was being summoned by a policeman, the moment he reached the end of White's Row he was indeed summoned by Neil flashing his lantern, which would have planted/reinforced the impression.
                            bingo
                            "Is all that we see or seem
                            but a dream within a dream?"

                            -Edgar Allan Poe


                            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                            -Frederick G. Abberline

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                              A scenario which CL could have avoided entirely if he had simply walked or run away as soon as he heard Paul’s footsteps approaching in the dark distance. Footsteps that, for all that he knew, might even have been a police officers. So, according to Fish, CL goes from risk-taking thrillseeker to cautious, conniving self-preserver in the space of 5 minutes or so.
                              Hi Herlock

                              I too was totally against the "stay and bluff" scenario and was very critical to fish and poster lech when they first presented it. The obvious thing to do is high tail it out of there at the first sound/sight of someone approaching--and I still believe this is usually what a killer in these circs would do.

                              but! Ive become more sympathetic as I had something similar to me happen.
                              Rounding the corner into a back alley parking lot late one night to go to my car I saw a man down and another man standing over him. The standing man said quick go get some help, i think this guys been beat up. So I quickly turned from where I was went back into the street, flagged down a cop and returned. standing man was long gone and the downed man was just trying to get up and told us the standing man knocked him out and stole his wallet and watch.

                              now of course the perp didnt stick around, nor go with me to the cop, and high tailed it out of there first chance he got. But bluffing it out isnt as nuts as I first thought.
                              "Is all that we see or seem
                              but a dream within a dream?"

                              -Edgar Allan Poe


                              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                              -Frederick G. Abberline

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                                Hi Herlock

                                I too was totally against the "stay and bluff" scenario and was very critical to fish and poster lech when they first presented it. The obvious thing to do is high tail it out of there at the first sound/sight of someone approaching--and I still believe this is usually what a killer in these circs would do.

                                but! Ive become more sympathetic as I had something similar to me happen.
                                Rounding the corner into a back alley parking lot late one night to go to my car I saw a man down and another man standing over him. The standing man said quick go get some help, i think this guys been beat up. So I quickly turned from where I was went back into the street, flagged down a cop and returned. standing man was long gone and the downed man was just trying to get up and told us the standing man knocked him out and stole his wallet and watch.

                                now of course the perp didnt stick around, nor go with me to the cop, and high tailed it out of there first chance he got. But bluffing it out isnt as nuts as I first thought.
                                Hi Abby,

                                Its a good example and i certainly take your point. There are two differences though which you already know but ill just mention them for the post. First the standing man didnt call you over. It may not have changed things but you might have seen that he had blood on him or damaged knuckles which would have put you immediately on your guard. CL called Paul over. If hed just murdered Polly then there would have been more than a reasonable chance that hed have had at least some blood on him which Paul might have spotted. If not straight away then on the way to looking for a constable when they passed a street lamp. What if Paul had been a constable? Running would then have been seen as an admission of guilt. A constable might have taken it upon himself to search him finding the knife. And secondly the consequences for your mugger being caught would have been far less than for a man convicted of brutally murdering a prostitute.

                                Little in the case is impossible as you know. I just think that taken as a whole its unlikely that hed have hung around if guilty. Again we cant be certain but theres a reasonable chance that this was his first murder so id have thought that hed have been more cautious that later on in the series as his confidence grew. By calling Paul over he knew that hed be setting in motion a train of events that would eventually involve him being questioned by the police (possibly even back at the station.) After all, as he called Paul over, he surely couldnt have already had a Scam in mind or have been confident that he could have managed to speak to a constable without Paul hearing his lies.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X