Favorite suspect/s?

[Fisherman]

He said, conveniently ignoring the reports which said that BOTH men spoke with Mizen.

And why do I say it? I say it because it was claimed that there was absolutely no evidence pointing to Paul having been out of earshot.

There IS such evidence, regardless of how it is in conflict with what Lechmere himself claimed.

How about sticking to the subject in matters like these, instead of carrying goalposts around all over the playing field?

[Fisherman]

So I put words in your mouth, Fish? Tell you what : I'll stop putting words in your mouth if you'll stop putting words in Crossmere's mouth.

Nope. No deal. If I want to suggest what Lechmere MAY have said, I am perfectly free to do so.

But you are not free to misrepresent me, I´m afraid. So stop doing it. It is a perfectly simple request that anybody interested in a serious debate should be able to follow.

[Fisherman]

Maybe Mizen wanted to pay Paul back for his newspaper interview by relegating him to a bit part player.

More jestering.

[Sam Flynn]

And why do I say it? I say it because it was claimed that there was absolutely no evidence pointing to Paul having been out of earshot.

There isn't. And, furthermore, your statement that the article you decided to quote "points away from TWO men having come up to him and spoken" is ignoring those reports which said that Paul himself also spoke to Mizen. That being the case, what do you suggest? That they took turns in stepping up and speaking to Mizen individually?

Like I said, they examined the body together, they set off to find a policeman together, they found a policeman together, they headed down Hanbury Street together and the overwhelming probability is that, before leaving Mizen, they spoke to him together.

[caz]

I can't see how someone confronted with the bald facts could say that the case against Cross was a strong one - on the contrary, to make any kind of case at all one needs an additional layer of interpretation. Without this, we simply have a man who had adopted his stepfather's name, who saw what he thought was a woman lying on the pavement, called Paul's attention to it, examined it with Paul, and went with him to find a policeman.

That's no case at all, never mind a strong one, so one has to wonder what the "prosecution" dossier actually contained.

Agreed, Gareth. All the unknowns have to be imagined in a way that casts Cross in the worst possible light, in order to make the case against him, which is a completely pointless exercise because one could make a case against anybody on that basis if they have no known alibis.

In a trial situation Cross would have to be acquitted on what is known, and given the benefit of the doubt on what is not, because those unknowns can also all be imagined in alternative ways which would remove suspicion from him, eg the real possibility that he called himself Charlie Cross when he began work as a carman, and was still known by that name when he found a ripper victim on his way to work and when he was absent from work to attend the inquest. His very witness status was bound up with where he was going that morning and in what capacity, so if the police wanted to check his given reason for being in Buck's Row at that time, they would have asked at Pickfords about a Charles Cross.

If Fisherman's argument is that Lechmere was careful to kill only on one of his legitimate routes to work, so he had a legitimate reason for being there if he had to explain himself, wouldn't that in itself show that he was anticipating this very possibility right from the start? It would therefore have been insane of him to give the police a surname that wouldn't register with his employers, if confirmation was sought that he was on a legitimate route to work at the time he should have been. In fact it makes no sense at all. If the whole idea was to have a readily checkable innocent explanation for his whereabouts for each murder, how did he think it would work if he provided a different surname from the one he was known by at his place of work??

Love,

Caz
X

[Joshua Rogan]

There IS such evidence, regardless of how it is in conflict with what Lechmere himself claimed.

The impression that Mizen's statement points to just one man being present only lasts until he admits that there was another man with Cross.

[caz]

the fact remains, Lech lived at point A, worked at point B and route took him near the murders sites at roughly the same time.

sure thousands of other men lived and worked in the vicinity. how many were near a murder location near the time? a handful. how many were seen near the body of murder victim? one.

So Abby, do you agree that if this person took the precaution to kill on his legitimate route to work, in case he was obliged to explain why he was seen near a victim there at that time, he'd have been quite mad, when telling the police he had been on his way to work, to identify himself by a name which his employers wouldn't know or have on their books?

Isn't it high time the whole name change nonsense was finally put out of its misery? He had to be known as Cross at his place of work, or the whole point of killing on one of his routes to work to avoid suspicion goes up in smoke.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

There isn't. And, furthermore, your statement that the article you decided to quote "points away from TWO men having come up to him and spoken" is ignoring those reports which said that Paul himself also spoke to Mizen. That being the case, what do you suggest? That they took turns in stepping up and speaking to Mizen individually?

Like I said, they examined the body together, they set off to find a policeman together, they found a policeman together, they headed down Hanbury Street together and the overwhelming probability is that, before leaving Mizen, they spoke to him together.

I´m sorry, but we cannot weigh evidence the way you do - if it points away from me being right, it´s okay, if not, it must be disregarded.

Of bloody course the quote I point to rules out all other parties but Mizen - but the issue was whether there is evidence pointing to Paul not being in place with Lechmere as the latter spoke to Mizen. And there is! When Mizen says that " a man" spoke to him, when Mizen does not even mention Paul, that is evidence of how Paul was quite possibly - and even likely, going by this evidence ONLY never in the game.

It is another matter that there is OTHER evidence pointing to Paul being in place, but that does not change how there IS evidence to the contrary.

Plus there is no "overwhelming probability" that Paul was in place. There is a chance he was, but that´s as far as it goes. We cannot conjure up certainties from no decisive evidence at all.

[Fisherman]

The impression that Mizen's statement points to just one man being present only lasts until he admits that there was another man with Cross.

Present? Yes.

[Fisherman]

Agreed, Gareth. All the unknowns have to be imagined in a way that casts Cross in the worst possible light, in order to make the case against him, which is a completely pointless exercise because one could make a case against anybody on that basis if they have no known alibis.

In a trial situation Cross would have to be acquitted on what is known, and given the benefit of the doubt on what is not, because those unknowns can also all be imagined in alternative ways which would remove suspicion from him, eg the real possibility that he called himself Charlie Cross when he began work as a carman, and was still known by that name when he found a ripper victim on his way to work and when he was absent from work to attend the inquest. His very witness status was bound up with where he was going that morning and in what capacity, so if the police wanted to check his given reason for being in Buck's Row at that time, they would have asked at Pickfords about a Charles Cross.

If Fisherman's argument is that Lechmere was careful to kill only on one of his legitimate routes to work, so he had a legitimate reason for being there if he had to explain himself, wouldn't that in itself show that he was anticipating this very possibility right from the start? It would therefore have been insane of him to give the police a surname that wouldn't register with his employers, if confirmation was sought that he was on a legitimate route to work at the time he should have been. In fact it makes no sense at all. If the whole idea was to have a readily checkable innocent explanation for his whereabouts for each murder, how did he think it would work if he provided a different surname from the one he was known by at his place of work??

Love,

Caz
X

Yes, Caz, whenever we have an unsolved case, imagination is of the essence to take a look at who could have done it.
And when imagination is used to look at whether a person fits the role as a suspect, then yes, he or she will be cast in "the worst possible light", namely that of a killer.

So what are you suggesting? That we do not research possible suspects, since they will be cast in such a terrible role if we do?

Maybe you should try another, less sinister hobby. Knitting? Baking? Running, but only very slowly?

[Fisherman]

So Abby, do you agree that if this person took the precaution to kill on his legitimate route to work, in case he was obliged to explain why he was seen near a victim there at that time, he'd have been quite mad, when telling the police he had been on his way to work, to identify himself by a name which his employers wouldn't know or have on their books?

Isn't it high time the whole name change nonsense was finally put out of its misery? He had to be known as Cross at his place of work, or the whole point of killing on one of his routes to work to avoid suspicion goes up in smoke.

Love,

Caz
X

Only if we predispose that his name was checked at his working place.

And if that check revealed that he was called Lechmere there, then the police would not be faced with more of an anomaly than if they checked his correspondence with the authorities. He always called himself Lechmere there.

So, in essence, using the name Cross would always carry a risk - you only have to look at how it was a red flag for Andy Griffiths in the docu.

I´m sure you would like to put the name thing, the scam, the convered up clothing, the not hearing Paul, the late arrival in Bucks Row, the blood running as Mizen arrived and the geography of Lechmeres work trek out of their respective miseries, all of it.

If we do that one thing at the time, then we will have a totally cleared Lechmere afterwards, and we do not have to accuse such a nice man of such heinous crimes and tarnish his good name. (Sob, sob... )

[Elamarna]

You see no retreat at all. The only retreat on this thread is a much needed one - that from the idea that Paul MUST have been within earshot of Lechmere.

There are no retreats at all from my side.

You keep repeating this nonsense. And it is such.
I will say again.
There is nothing in the acvount of Mizen which challenges the account of the Carmen, that they were together and both spoke to Mizen.
Therefore it is not possible that Paul was out of earshot.

Steve

[Robert]

That's you told, Caz!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

[Sam Flynn]

I´m sorry, but we cannot weigh evidence the way you do - if it points away from me being right, it´s okay, if not, it must be disregarded.

This isn't "my way" of weighing evidence. The evidence is there, for all to see. You've just latched on to that report about "a man" speaking to Mizen because it suits your method of weighing the evidence. Apart from there being other accounts that Paul also spoke with Mizen, I might point out two things:

1. "a man" speaking to Mizen does not rule out another having done so;

2. The "a man" referred to might actually have been Paul!

[Elamarna]

And why do I say it? I say it because it was claimed that there was absolutely no evidence pointing to Paul having been out of earshot.

There IS such evidence, regardless of how it is in conflict with what Lechmere himself claimed.

How about sticking to the subject in matters like these, instead of carrying goalposts around all over the playing field?

Repeat again because you are just not listen.
There is no evidence from Mizen which says the men were apart. It is really that simple. Please pay attention.

Steve