Favorite suspect/s?

[Fisherman]

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.

If he had mentioned it, there would never have been any Lechmere theory. It is one more of all the matters where Lechmere COULD have been cleared of any suspicion - but isn´t.

It belongs totally to the overall picture.

[Fisherman]

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.
Steve

This clinches the whole problem with your debating technique, Steve.

I have never claimed that I have proven that Paul was possibly out of earshot.

I have said that it cannot be ruled out that he was.

Contrary to that, YOU have claimed that he could NOT possibly have been, that he MUST have been within earshot.

And what do you do? YOU accuse ME for having gone too far!

It is beyond dumb. But I thank you for demonstrating it so very clearly.

[Fisherman]

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.

It seems you have found your level of debating too, Herlock.

It is important to keep track of what is possible and what is not. But you try to ridicule me for acknowledging it.

Guess who is ridiculed in the end?

Thank you, Herlock.

[Fisherman]

The issue of course is that we are told the argument is that Mizen never says they are togeather, so maybe they are apart. That is a false argument.
Steve

But when it is stated that since Mizen never says they were apart at any time, they simply cannot have been so?

Then that is a true argument?

In the universe where I grew up, when a choice of two options is not decided by the sources, both options remain open.

But maybe that is a false argument too?

I think that the boards could do without such shenanigans, Steve.

[Fisherman]

So your original argument, that your man deliberately carried on killing in places where he had legitimate reasons to go, after going out of his way in Buck's Row to play his only "on my way to x" card, can now be flushed down the outside privy of 29 Hanbury Street?

What was he going to say in that situation? "I was caught short there and had a legitimate reason to go"?

Or can we now dispense with the guilty argument based on geography as well as the one based on his choice of name?

Ooh I forgot, it's the weekend and I should be cleaning the bog, knitting or baking.

Love,

Caz
X

If you cannot admit having called my misogynous on no grounds at all, I will not debate with you.

Being a misogynist is to hate women. That is a VERY far cry from recommending somebody who cannot stomach discussing a person as a possible murder suspect to do something more placid. Like knitting, baking or reading.

In which universe does that mean that I hate women?

Once you have provided that question with a working answer, I may reconsider.

[Fisherman]

You’ve got to be kidding.

Or malicious. Or just plain dumb, Abby. Let´s not forget that there are many options here.

[Fisherman]

The issue of course is that we are told the argument is that Mizen never says they are togeather, so maybe they are apart. That is a false argument.

The Real argument is that Mizen Never even suggests the pair are apart.

Without such the accounts of the two Carmen, Paul and Lechmere, that both spoke to Mizen remain intact, and thus the speculated possability is an impossibility.

Why is that so hard to acknowledge?


Steve

It is always interesting when somebody posts, in large capital letters Why is that so hard to acknowledge?

It is another way of saying that "I cannot be wrong on this, so you may just as well admit that. Why don´t you satisfy me on the point?"

Well, the reason is of course that I disagree with Steve.

But isn´t that illegitimate? Steve tells us that his point is proven and that he cannot be wrong, so who am I to disagree with somebody who has a proven point and thus cannot be wrong?

Because, of course, Steves point is not a proven one. And he may well be wrong on it.

Let´s supply Steve - once more - with the full perspective of things here.

Steve says that Lechmere and Paul both say that they spoke to Mizen, and therefore they corroborate each other and Steve must therefore be justified to say that I must be wrong - Paul cannot have been out of earshot when - as I claim - Lechmere lied to Mizen.

The checking point is whether this is a certain thing, that both carmen said that they spoke to Mizen.

A source that must be looked at with the greatest of scepticism is the Lloyds article. We know that it is wrong on different areas, and the possibility that the reporter may have put words in Pauls mouth to spice the story up cannot be rejected.

What remains is therefore the inquest material.

In it, we have the events mirrored like this, for example, from the DT: "The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman".

Of course, that does not tell us that both men approached Mizen, let alone spoke to him.

Closest to give the impression that both men walked up to and talked to Mizen may be the Times, where it says: "Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen."

The problem here is that it never says that they BOTH told him what they had seen. When we group two or more people together, then not all of that group need to have participated in what is said that "we" did. I have exemplified this before and Robert has tried to make fun of it - to no avail.
If a group of twenty people meet a person who needs help to be lifted over a fence, and if four people in the group takes care of that, then any of the group can later say "We met a person and helped that person over a fence", regardless if the one telling the story actually was one of the four doing the work.
The same thing applies to Lechmere and Paul - Paul is entitled to say "we told Mizen what we had seen" without having spoken himself. The "we" he speaks of, an entity of two carmen, certainly DID inform Mizen regardless if he spoke himself.

So that means that it is perfectly legitimate to speculate that Paul was out of earshot and that Mizen only was spoken to by Lechmere.

And it is not as if there are not sources that point totally away from Paul having approached or spoken to Mizen. The Morning Advertiser quotes Paul as saying "I sent the other man for a policeman", and if that relates to what happened in Bakers Row, then it is in perfect accordance with what Mizen said, that Lechmere was the person that came up to him and spoke.
So here, we seemingly have Mizen and Paul corroborating each other - with the difference that I will not do what Steve does and say that it proves my point.

It doesn´t. The point remains uncertain, undecided.

But not in Steves world. There, he rules supreme, and I cannot be correct.

It is all a question of how the evidence is looked at and how discerning we are as researchers.

I really don´t think much more needs to be added - although I am sure that Steve will do it anyway, seconded by Gareth, Caz, Robert and Herlock. Nothing new will be presented, though, that changes what I say, unless I am very much mistaken. And so, I will not be very likely to point things out once more. If they listen, they listen - but they normally don´t, and there is little reason to repeat the facts to people who refuse to take stock from it.

[Sam Flynn]

If he had mentioned it...

Why would he? The important fact Paul had to report was that he saw a man standing in the road, not that he'd heard footsteps in the moments leading up to that sighting - if he'd noticed any such thing in his haste to get to work.

Move on. We can't read anything into this.

[Fisherman]

Why would he? The important fact Paul had to report was that he saw a man standing in the road, not that he'd heard footsteps in the moments leading up to that sighting - if he'd noticed any such thing in his haste to get to work.

Move on. We can't read anything into this.

I am not saying that he would, Gareth. I am saying it is a pity he did not if you want to clear Lechmere, since it is an opportunity lost.

Otherwise, you are correct: As Robert Paul arrived at Browns, there was a man standing alone in the street, not far from the still bleeding body of Polly Nichols. And just as you say, that is an important fact.

[Sam Flynn]

"What remains is therefore the inquest material"


Which we don't have, except via a few reports in the press, many of which are truncated and sometimes erroneous.

[Fisherman]

"What remains is therefore the inquest material"


Which we don't have, except via a few reports in the press, many of which are truncated and sometimes erroneous.

It is nevertheless the inquest material we have, Gareth. And I agree, it is sometimes truncated and erroneous, which was the exact point I was making when saying that we cannot base a verdict of how Paul MUST have been within earshot of Lechmere and Mizen on carefully chosen parts of it, disregarding other parts that point away from the idea.

[Sam Flynn]

As Robert Paul arrived at Browns, there was a man standing alone in the street, not far from the still bleeding body of Polly Nichols. And just as you say, that is an important fact.

I didn't say as much. The important fact is that, at the point Paul saw Cross, it was yet to be established that there was a bleeding body at all.

[Fisherman]

I didn't say as much. The important fact is that, at the point Paul saw Cross, it was yet to be established that there was a bleeding body at all.

Oh, there was, Gareth. And it IS an important fact that Lechmere was standing alone not far from it as Paul arrived.

What you say is indicative of neither man being aware that there was a bleeding body, but I´m afraid that cannot be proven in Lechmere´s case. He may well have been perfectly aware of it.
If it helps, I agree that Paul would have been unaware of it. One out of two ain´t bad.

[Sam Flynn]

Closest to give the impression that both men walked up to and talked to Mizen may be the Times, where it says: "Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen."

The problem here is that it never says that they BOTH told him what they had seen.

Do you know how "they" works in English? It isn't necessary to use it before every verb in the same sentence. Thus "... walked on together until they met a policeman and told him what they had seen" and "... walked on together until they met a policeman and (they) told him what they had seen" means the same. The "they" in brackets is entirely optional, but it is fully implicit within the rules of English.

It's quite clear that they walked together, met a policeman together and, together, told him what they had seen. Paul himself confirms that he spoke with Mizen, and there's no reason at all to conclude that either man retreated into the background out of earshot while the other one spoke.

[Elamarna]

No Steve, if you say that Paul MUST have been withing earshot - and you did just that - then you are not right.

And Mizens saying that "a man" came up to him and talked is not in line with the suggestion that TWO men did, no matter who you twist and turn.

My dear Fish, totally faulty reasoning.

Mizen says he engaged with one man, true but at no point does he say Paul is not present or close by, within earshop. Such is certain inline with the statements of the two carmen, and very inline with the testimony of Lechmere.

There is no twisting of misreprentation on my part.

So again You are very, very wrong. And i am right.


Steve