Tweet
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
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
Comment