Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Favorite suspect/s?

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

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    why didn´t Paul hear Lechmere walking in front of him in an even more confined space?
    Did Paul say somewhere that he hadn't heard anyone walking in front of him?

    Genuine question.
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      On the contrary. It was my precise point that all papers have faults.
      Yes, yes, yes - we all know that. The point is that the specific newspaper you've quoted omits the fact that Paul was with Cross when they found Mizen, a fact which is confirmed elsewhere, and not just by Cross's testimony.

      A generic observation that "all papers have faults" is irrelevant to the issue here, namely that the newspaper you quoted is deficient in its reporting of what happened between Paul, Cross and Mizen. This is the very subject on which you're using this deficient press account to support your argument!

      Can't you see the problem with this?
      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        I´m sure the rest of the posts out here are just as brilliant as the ones I have responded to (I really am), but I really cannot be bothered.

        For those who can read, I have proven that Paul can have been out of earshot as Lechmere spoke to Mizen. That´s what I set out to do, that is what I did, and no funny jokes from Robert can change that.

        Goodnight.
        Fish, do you have some different understanding of the word proof?

        You appear to equate ‘proven’ with ‘not impossible.’

        I can assure you Fish that they arent the same thing
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes



        "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

        ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
          Did Paul say somewhere that he hadn't heard anyone walking in front of him?

          Genuine question.
          Genuine answer: Not in those words. He said that as he came up to Browns, he saw a man standing in the street there. If he had heard and seen him before, he didn´t say so. Lechmere very clearly says that he only noticed Paul as the latter was 30-40 yards off.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
            Fish, do you have some different understanding of the word proof?

            You appear to equate ‘proven’ with ‘not impossible.’

            I can assure you Fish that they arent the same thing
            You CAN? Wow, that´s very helpful.

            But I am unimpressed by any effort to say that it is "almost certain" that the carmen were in earshot of each other. Paul could have been one, three, five, ten, fifteen yards away from Lechmere. Or a fair few other distances.

            If you can prove that he was not, you have a reason to go on about it. If you can´t, well, there you are.

            And I can assure YOU that you cannot.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
              Yes, yes, yes - we all know that. The point is that the specific newspaper you've quoted omits the fact that Paul was with Cross when they found Mizen, a fact which is confirmed elsewhere, and not just by Cross's testimony.

              A generic observation that "all papers have faults" is irrelevant to the issue here, namely that the newspaper you quoted is deficient in its reporting of what happened between Paul, Cross and Mizen. This is the very subject on which you're using this deficient press account to support your argument!

              Can't you see the problem with this?
              I am not omitting myself that Paul was in company with Lechmere as they found Mizen.

              What I am saying is that such a thing does not mean that they were in earshot of each other as Lechmere spoke to Mizen.

              Trying to interpret things in that way will n ot work, and for very good reasons.

              Whether you end up admitting it by saying "Okay, so there is a miniscule chance that they were not on earshot of each other" or by saying "You are correct, of course Paul could have been out of earshot" is of no real importance. A problem only arises when people do like Steve and claim that Paul cannot have been ut of earshot, because that is a false statement.

              Try and imagine what I have suggested: The two men turn the corner from Bucks Row, and they see Mizen standing thirty, forty yards away (not sure of the distance, but it is not a very important matter for this experiment).
              They then walk towards Mizen, who sees them coming closer in company. Then Mizen sees one of the men saying something to the other, and then the two split up intermittently, Paul walking straight ahead, and Lechmere veering off towards Mizen. As Lechmere comes close, he makes a short halt, and says "Officer, there´s a woman lying flat on her back down in Bucks Row. Another PC sent us here, me and my pal".
              Mizen says "Alright", and the two part. Lechmere increases his walking speed and catches up with Paul, and Mizen finishes his knocking up business before setting off for Bucks Row.

              Now, imagine at the inquest that Baxter, afther having heard Mizen speak of Lechmere only, asks the PC either:

              "There was another man in company with Cross?"

              or, for that matter

              "There was another man present as you spoke with Cross?"

              or

              "There was another man in the street as you spoke with Cross?"

              or

              "There were two carmen, were there not, as this happened?"

              or something along those lines.

              Would you expect Mizen to deny it by saying no?

              Or would you expect him to say "Well, strictly speaking, the other man some little way away"?

              Bottom line: We do NOT know what was said. We know that Baxter suggested another man´s presence, but we do not know in which wording. And we can see very clearly that Mizen would be in his right to answer "yes" even if Paul was not close enough to Mizen and Lechmere to be able to make out what was said.

              This is no longer an issue. It never was, to be honest.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                Genuine answer: Not in those words. He said that as he came up to Browns, he saw a man standing in the street there. If he had heard and seen him before, he didn´t say so. Lechmere very clearly says that he only noticed Paul as the latter was 30-40 yards off.
                Seeing someone is one thing. Not reporting having heard footsteps is another. It does not mean that there weren't footsteps, only that he either didn't notice them (would a man hurrying to work notice such a thing anyway?), or he did but didn't report the fact. And why should he have done so? The relevant thing was that he SAW a man standing in the road, and the fact that he may have heard footsteps in the minutes leading up to that sighting was unimportant to his narrative.
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  That could be the funniest post out here ever. For all the wrong reasons!

                  No, you are not "rught" - it cannot be proven that Paul was or must have been within earshot. Nowhere is that stated and none of the evidence gives us reason to accept it as a fact. Very far from it.

                  So I am rught and you are wring.
                  When we are reduced to typos its a sign of desperation.

                  And again back to front, there is absolutely nothing in Mizen's account which challenges the accounts of Lechmere or Paul, those two you ignore.
                  In real research one needs to prove factually that other evidence is faulty, its not an act of faith or beleif.

                  So again I am Right and you are very, very wrong.

                  Steve

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    I´m sure the rest of the posts out here are just as brilliant as the ones I have responded to (I really am), but I really cannot be bothered.

                    For those who can read, I have proven that Paul can have been out of earshot as Lechmere spoke to Mizen. That´s what I set out to do, that is what I did, and no funny jokes from Robert can change that.

                    Goodnight.
                    Christer,

                    You have not proven that Paul was possibly apart and out of earshot,
                    That this claim is made in post after post when it is blatantly untrue is utterly rediculious.
                    Are we going down the old journalistic approach of repeating a known false account because we hope some may finally get tired of arguing or is it simple that repeating is the only option other than admitting we are wrong.

                    Once again:

                    The carmen say they approach Mizen togeather.

                    They both say they speak to Mizen, it follows that Paul is in earshot.

                    Mizen says he has a conversation with one man, but under question is forced to admit that Paul was present when he spoke to Lechmere.

                    There is nothing contained in the account of Mizen which says they are apart.

                    Without any such testimony or even a basic press statement, it is actually impossible to make a factual case which challenges the accounts of the two carmen.

                    Provide some evidence, that can challenge the carmen, go on.


                    Steve

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      I am not omitting myself that Paul was in company with Lechmere as they found Mizen.

                      What I am saying is that such a thing does not mean that they were in earshot of each other as Lechmere spoke to Mizen.

                      Trying to interpret things in that way will n ot work, and for very good reasons.

                      Whether you end up admitting it by saying "Okay, so there is a miniscule chance that they were not on earshot of each other" or by saying "You are correct, of course Paul could have been out of earshot" is of no real importance. A problem only arises when people do like Steve and claim that Paul cannot have been ut of earshot, because that is a false statement.
                      Not what i have claimed at all.

                      My argument is simple.

                      Mizen makes no claim, or at anypoint states that Paul is out of earshot. Your position is not based on ANY FACTS AT ALL. It is pure speculation, based on Need.

                      So how could it be a "false statement", no such statement is ever made.
                      Of course if you mean your statement is the one i am saying is false then yes 100%.
                      It's an opinion unsupported by any facts.

                      For Paul to have possibly been out of earshot, there is a requirement for the accounts of Paul and Lechmere to be specifically challenge by factual sources.
                      That challenge must be at least partially successful to advance your speculation.

                      Carry on misrepresenting me, i care not. Rebuttal is incrediable easy.


                      Steve
                      Last edited by Elamarna; 06-09-2018, 01:27 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                        Try and imagine what I have suggested: The two men turn the corner from Bucks Row, and they see Mizen standing thirty, forty yards away (not sure of the distance, but it is not a very important matter for this experiment).
                        They then walk towards Mizen, who sees them coming closer in company. Then Mizen sees one of the men saying something to the other, and then the two split up intermittently, Paul walking straight ahead, and Lechmere veering off towards Mizen. As Lechmere comes close, he makes a short halt, and says "Officer, there´s a woman lying flat on her back down in Bucks Row. Another PC sent us here, me and my pal".
                        Mizen says "Alright", and the two part. Lechmere increases his walking speed and catches up with Paul, and Mizen finishes his knocking up business before setting off for Bucks Row.

                        Now, imagine at the inquest that Baxter, afther having heard Mizen speak of Lechmere only, asks the PC either:

                        "There was another man in company with Cross?"

                        or, for that matter

                        "There was another man present as you spoke with Cross?"

                        or

                        "There was another man in the street as you spoke with Cross?"

                        or

                        "There were two carmen, were there not, as this happened?"

                        or something along those lines.

                        Would you expect Mizen to deny it by saying no?

                        Or would you expect him to say "Well, strictly speaking, the other man some little way away"?

                        Bottom line: We do NOT know what was said. We know that Baxter suggested another man´s presence, but we do not know in which wording. And we can see very clearly that Mizen would be in his right to answer "yes" even if Paul was not close enough to Mizen and Lechmere to be able to make out what was said.

                        This is no longer an issue. It never was, to be honest.
                        Again there is nothing in the way of actual source based evidence to in anyway even suggest the possability that Paul went on alone.
                        Such of course would be fine, if we only had Mizen, But, such of course is not the case.

                        We have the accounts of Paul and Lechmere, which do not support the already unsupported possability above. Therefore the possability ceases to exist.

                        An event is Only possible if there are no facts to dispute it or if those facts can be plausibly dispute.

                        That is not the case here. There has been no attempt to dispute the specific comments of the carmen with regards to the exchange, basically because such specific evidence does not exist.

                        We have a case built on beleif, the beleif that Lechmere was tge killer, the beleif that because he was the killer he lied. and nothing more.

                        Steve

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          You CAN? Wow, that´s very helpful.

                          But I am unimpressed by any effort to say that it is "almost certain" that the carmen were in earshot of each other. Paul could have been one, three, five, ten, fifteen yards away from Lechmere. Or a fair few other distances.

                          If you can prove that he was not, you have a reason to go on about it. If you can´t, well, there you are.

                          And I can assure YOU that you cannot.
                          I also cannot prove that Paul wasnt wearing women’s underwear that morning but i think that were on pretty safe grounds in assuming that he wasnt.

                          We have the fact that they left Buck’s Row together and found Mizen simoultaneously.
                          We have Mizen saying that Paul was with CL.
                          We have statements that Paul even spoke to Mizen.
                          We have no positive statements to the contrary, like ‘Paul was standing twenty feet away.’
                          We have no reason to believe that Paul was hard of hearing.
                          We have no reason to believe that Paul was the ‘retiring type’ who preferred to stay in the background (especially after reading his Lloyd’s statement.)
                          We cannot assume that Mizen was honest just because he was a police office.
                          We cannot assume that he couldnt make an error be ause he was a police officer (do we all remember Plimmer’s wine glass )

                          And so it is perfectly reasonable to assume that they were together and that all three men could hear each other. To assume otherwise is to misuse the phrase ‘well its not impossible.’ To assume otherwise is to exhibit wish-thinking.

                          And to top it all, even if (and it is an if) CL and Paul did lie to Mizen then we have a very plausible and innocent reason for them doing so.)

                          This point should now be conceded by the Lechmereites. But it wont be. I dont think that it would if someone found a photograph of CL and Paul talking to Mizen.
                          Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 06-09-2018, 02:07 AM.
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes



                          "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                          ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                            Christer,

                            You have not proven that Paul was possibly apart and out of earshot,
                            That this claim is made in post after post when it is blatantly untrue is utterly rediculious.
                            Are we going down the old journalistic approach of repeating a known false account because we hope some may finally get tired of arguing or is it simple that repeating is the only option other than admitting we are wrong.

                            Once again:

                            The carmen say they approach Mizen togeather.

                            They both say they speak to Mizen, it follows that Paul is in earshot.

                            Mizen says he has a conversation with one man, but under question is forced to admit that Paul was present when he spoke to Lechmere.

                            There is nothing contained in the account of Mizen which says they are apart.

                            Without any such testimony or even a basic press statement, it is actually impossible to make a factual case which challenges the accounts of the two carmen.

                            Provide some evidence, that can challenge the carmen, go on.


                            Steve
                            You might have a long wait there Steve.

                            Come on though.......isnt the fact that it was completely and absolutely impossible enough for you?
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes



                            "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                            ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                              Again there is nothing in the way of actual source based evidence to in anyway even suggest the possability that Paul went on alone.
                              Such of course would be fine, if we only had Mizen, But, such of course is not the case.

                              We have the accounts of Paul and Lechmere, which do not support the already unsupported possability above. Therefore the possability ceases to exist.

                              An event is Only possible if there are no facts to dispute it or if those facts can be plausibly dispute.

                              That is not the case here. There has been no attempt to dispute the specific comments of the carmen with regards to the exchange, basically because such specific evidence does not exist.

                              We have a case built on beleif, the beleif that Lechmere was tge killer, the beleif that because he was the killer he lied. and nothing more.

                              Steve
                              Your tenacity is Very admirable. Well done

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                                Your tenacity is Very admirable. Well done
                                Thank you.

                                Someone has point out the the continual and reoeated failure to stick to the facts in post.

                                Steve

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X