Favorite suspect/s?

[Elamarna]

As usual, you’re absolutely correct, but as we’ve seen before, Fisherman’s posts show a complete lack of and disregard for methodology.

One reason why it’s perhaps best to just avoid Lechmere-threads: you’re arguing with someone who appears not to know or care what constitutes a valid argument.

Hard to avoid if you have spent nearly 2years researching Bucks Row, posts which are not honest have to be challenged and exposed.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Of course i will my dear fellow if it bothers you so much.


Steve

Thank you!

Now, on your statement that we have reports that say the two were together, we need to respect that no such source says that they were together throughout, nor is any distance mentioned.

On your statement that there are no sources to the contrary, you are forgetting the Morning Advertiser, where it says " I sent the other man for a policeman.

Plus, of course, since the sources are inadequate and very in their statements, nothing at all can be concluded with any certainty as to whether Pauls was within earshot or not.

[Elamarna]

Here we go again..

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.

Well of course you disagree, that however does not change the issue that your arguments are faulty, eschewing facts for beleif.

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.

Not my view, simply the sources which do not support your ideas.

One does not claim it cannot be wrong, only that there is no evidence to challenge the statements of Lechmere and Paul currently known to exist

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.

Disregard Lloyds? Ok then we disregard ALL of it, starting with Paul's exact 3.45 timing, a drastic approach but one I can work with, can you?
More sensible is to compare it to both the other two participents, and accept it carefully when one or both of the others support it, Lechmere saying Paul spoke to Mizen.
Mizen admitting he finished at least one knockup after the carmen left.

And of course we ignore Lechmere, because he lied.
And the nature of that lie is that he claimed he did not say "another Policeman" which is what we are debating is it not? A classic circular argument; of course the view is also coloured because of the faith in the theory that Lechmere was the killer, and thus he lied .

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.

The Morning Advertiser again, the edition on the 4th made factual mistakes, and here on the 18th it is again out of step; disagreeing with The Times, Pall Mall Gazette, Evening Standard, Daily News and Telegraph of the 18th and The Woodford Times of the 21st.
Indeed a close reading demonstates that this account in the Advertiser appears to be almost lifted from Lloyds of 2nd. Given it is so contrary to the other reports the real possability must be entertained that this was lazy reporting, just lifting from the earlier account.
And if we are going to disregard Lloyds as you seemed to suggest we should, we must also ignore this.
When that is taken into account, this does not corroborate Mizen.
One also has to ask, why when at least 1 of the other paper reports for 18th are given in the post, is the obviously "odd" report used?

One report, which differs from others does not make a case

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

Indeed it is. However imagination and untruths to fit a preconceived theory, do not reflect credit on any researcher

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.

It is you, who ignores fact due to the need to fit up Lechmere.

Let's repeat one more time, especially after the post attempted and failed to provide sources to challenge the carmen.

With Lloyds: both carmen say they approached Mizen togeather and spoke to him.

Without Lloyds: Both carmen approach Mizen and spoke to him (according to Lechmere).

Mizen says he spoke to one carmen, which is in keeping with Lechmere's account, Paul spoke, but Mizen may not have replied.
Under questioning Mizen is forced to admit Paul was present when he spoke to Lechmere.

And as Fish agreed, there is no source which says the carmen ever parted.

That Paul was out of earshot remains an unsupported and apparently unsupportable suggestion


Steve

[Fisherman]

Such unfortunately is untrue until such time that the accounts of the carmen can be proved to be at fault.


Steve

I don´t have to prove that the accounts of the carmen were at fault, Steve, since the statements of the carmen do not prove that they were within earshot of each other as Lechmere spoke to Mizen. The whole premise for your suggestion is baseless.

All I have to do is to point at how we cannot know.

[Fisherman]

Here we go again..


Well of course you disagree, that however does not change the issue that your arguments are faulty, eschewing facts for beleif.



Not my view, simply the sources which do not support your ideas.

One does not claim it cannot be wrong, only that there is no evidence to challenge the statements of Lechmere and Paul currently known to exist




Disregard Lloyds? Ok then we disregard ALL of it, starting with Paul's exact 3.45 timing, a drastic approach but one I can work with, can you?
More sensible is to compare it to both the other two participents, and accept it carefully when one or both of the others support it, Lechmere saying Paul spoke to Mizen.
Mizen admitting he finished at least one knockup after the carmen left.

And of course we ignore Lechmere, because he lied.
And the nature of that lie is that he claimed he did not say "another Policeman" which is what we are debating is it not? A classic circular argument; of course the view is also coloured because of the faith in the theory that Lechmere was the killer, and thus he lied .





The Morning Advertiser again, the edition on the 4th made factual mistakes, and here on the 18th it is again out of step; disagreeing with The Times, Pall Mall Gazette, Evening Standard, Daily News and Telegraph of the 18th and The Woodford Times of the 21st.
Indeed a close reading demonstates that this account in the Advertiser appears to be almost lifted from Lloyds of 2nd. Given it is so contrary to the other reports the real possability must be entertained that this was lazy reporting, just lifting from the earlier account.
And if we are going to disregard Lloyds as you seemed to suggest we should, we must also ignore this.
When that is taken into account, this does not corroborate Mizen.
One also has to ask, why when at least 1 of the other paper reports for 18th are given in the post, is the obviously "odd" report used?

One report, which differs from others does not make a case




Indeed it is. However imagination and untruths to fit a preconceived theory, do not reflect credit on any researcher





It is you, who ignores fact due to the need to fit up Lechmere.

Let's repeat one more time, especially after the post attempted and failed to provide sources to challenge the carmen.

With Lloyds: both carmen say they approached Mizen togeather and spoke to him.

Without Lloyds: Both carmen approach Mizen and spoke to him (according to Lechmere).

Mizen says he spoke to one carmen, which is in keeping with Lechmere's account, Paul spoke, but Mizen may not have replied.
Under questioning Mizen is forced to admit Paul was present when he spoke to Lechmere.

And as Fish agreed, there is no source which says the carmen ever parted.

That Paul was out of earshot remains an unsupported and apparently unsupportable suggestion


Steve

"One does not claim it cannot be wrong, only that there is no evidence to challenge the statements of Lechmere and Paul currently known to exist."

I disagree with your suggestion that there is no evidence (there is, but you don´t like it, quite simply), but since you now admit that it may be wrong to say that the carmen MUST have been within earshot of each other as Lechmere spoke to Mizen, then there is nothing much more to say.

[Elamarna]

Thank you!

Now, on your statement that we have reports that say the two were together, we need to respect that no such source says that they were together throughout, nor is any distance mentioned.

once again ingonoring the carmen say they spoke to Mizen, puting Paul within earshot! There is no source to the contrary

On your statement that there are no sources to the contrary, you are forgetting the Morning Advertiser, where it says " I sent the other man for a policeman.

That source bears no resemblance to the others of the same day at the inquest, it appears to be a direct lift from the Lloyds account of the 2nd, when Paul is bigging himself up. And as such is not a true reflection of the inquest.

Plus, of course, since the sources are inadequate and very in their statements, nothing at all can be concluded with any certainty as to whether Pauls was within earshot or not.

That is an argument to disgregard all the sources and to just say and propose any wild idea we want. Such is unworthy of the term research.


Steve

[Fisherman]

As usual, you’re absolutely correct, but as we’ve seen before, Fisherman’s posts show a complete lack of and disregard for methodology.

One reason why it’s perhaps best to just avoid Lechmere-threads: you’re arguing with someone who appears not to know or care what constitutes a valid argument.

Strangely, that someone has put you out of business debate-wise a number of times.

Who would have thought that?

You must be an even MORE worthless debater than I am, consquentially.

Or maybe you are just the kind of poster who has nothing to argue, but wants to get back at posters who have made you look kind of silly?

Plus, of course, the kind of poster who professes to avoid Lechmere threads, but who cannot help himself when they pop up.

[Sam Flynn]

Look, Fish, when two people find a body and head off together to find a policeman, they naturally tend to speak to the policeman together. That's what people do, and there's no reason to suppose that Paul and Cross did differently.

Apart from that we can see, from the few press accounts that we have, that Paul was in Cross's company when they met with Mizen, and that BOTH men told Mizen what THEY saw. When they did so, they didn't pop back and forth like Mrs Sun and Mr Rain in a bloody weather-clock now, did they?

It's painfully obvious to everyone here that you are so desperate to cling onto your idea of a "Mizen scam" that you are reading far more into this than the evidence, and common sense, permits.

[Fisherman]

That is an argument to disgregard all the sources and to just say and propose any wild idea we want. Such is unworthy of the term research.


Steve

To propose that the carmen were not within earshot of each other is anything but a "wild idea". To say I disregard all the sources is wrong.

To try and tarnish another poster by spreading false information is distasteful.

[Elamarna]

I don´t have to prove that the accounts of the carmen were at fault, Steve, since the statements of the carmen do not prove that they were within earshot of each other as Lechmere spoke to Mizen. The whole premise for your suggestion is baseless.

All I have to do is to point at how we cannot know.

Afraid thats not how real research works.

Lechmere gives an account which has both him and Paul speaking to Mizen, if Paul is not within earshot that would not be possible.
Paul's Lloyds account also has Paul speaking.

Therefore you do indeed need prove the carmens accounts are faulty, thats how historicalbor for that matter any research works

It becomes increasing obvious that refuting their accounts, other than to simply say they lied is impossible, it is also clear that you are very aware of this.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Look, Fish, when two people find a body and head off together to find a policeman, they naturally tend to speak to the policeman together. That's what people do, and there's no reason to suppose that Paul and Cross did differently.

Apart from that we can see, from the few press accounts that we have, that Paul was in Cross's company when they met with Mizen, and that BOTH men told Mizen what THEY saw. When they did so, they didn't pop back and forth like Mrs Sun and Mr Rain in a bloody weather-clock now, did they?

It's painfully obvious to everyone here that you are so desperate to cling onto your idea of a "Mizen scam" that you are reading far more into this than the evidence, and common sense, permits.

Yes, Gareth, when two people find a body and head off together to find a policeman, they tend to speak to that policeman together!

Abslutely! That is so insightful it makes my eyes fill up with tears. And we AGREE about it, even!!

The problem arises when you say that "there is no reason to think Paul and Lechmere did it differently".

Then it becomes a self-confirming matter, and you put the cart before the horse.

If you turn it around, we could say that when a policeman is approached by two men and spoken to by them, that policeman tends to say "two men spoke to me" afterwards, not "a man spoke to me".

Can you see how that works? It is an example of the exact same kind of logic you used in YOUR example.

Can you see how there is a glaring discrepancy here?

You say that it is evident that both men spoke to Mizen, but it is not. Nowhere does it say this. If it did, you would have a case, but what happens when it does not? Correct, you have no case at all.
As I keep saying - speaking to deaf or wilfully closed ears - when somebody asks about the England football team "Have they scored?", the question does not imply that the one who asks wants to know if every man of the squad has scored - he wants to know if the entity as a whole has.

The only ones reading too much into the evidence are the ones who fail to see that the two carmen may have been apart to some degree as Lechmere spoke to Mizen.

Who says that "A" man spoke to him, not "TWO" men.

Sure you guys can gather up and bully me, but you cannot bully the facts.

Live with it.

[Fisherman]

Afraid thats not how real research works.

Lechmere gives an account which has both him and Paul speaking to Mizen, if Paul is not within earshot that would not be possible.
Paul's Lloyds account also has Paul speaking.

Therefore you do indeed need prove the carmens accounts are faulty, thats how historicalbor for that matter any research works

It becomes increasing obvious that refuting their accounts, other than to simply say they lied is impossible, it is also clear that you are very aware of this.


Steve

Oh, it´s the "real researcher" again! Relying on a paper article we all agree is not correct.

So that´s how real research works? Astonishing!

[Elamarna]

"One does not claim it cannot be wrong, only that there is no evidence to challenge the statements of Lechmere and Paul currently known to exist."

I disagree with your suggestion that there is no evidence (there is, but you don´t like it, quite simply), but since you now admit that it may be wrong to say that the carmen MUST have been within earshot of each other as Lechmere spoke to Mizen, then there is nothing much more to say.

Trying to twist and manipulate yet again.
My comment which you post was in response to this

"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?"

You insinuate i am saying something i am not.
Read what is written, rather than what you want to be written.

That is noone would ever rule out any possability if there was evidence to support such a possability, BUT there is No Evidence so there is No possability

If you produced evidence, which we both know you CANNOT do to challenge the carmen, we would have a possability, But in the absece of such the position is unchanged .

There is no possability at all given the evidence that Paul was out of earshot..

The post is deciectful and has no shame.

[Elamarna]

Oh, it´s the "real researcher" again! Relying on a paper article we all agree is not correct.

So that´s how real research works? Astonishing!

Yes it is.

The sources are all we have, if you prefer fiction go ahead.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, Gareth, to make it clear that they BOTH told him what they had seen, it would take the wording "they BOTH told him what they´d seen".

Once the word "both" is left out, we have no confirmation of your suggestion. And even if we had had that word present, we would still be faced with what you yourself speak of as truncated and faulty paper reports from the inquest, different papers reporting differently.

If you don´t like it, learn to live with it.

A ludicrously desperate post.

If i went shopping with Gareth and we told you that we had been to various shops would you only believe that we’d entered the shops together if we phrased the statement like this: “Gareth and i went shopping together today. We both went into the butcher’s shop then we both went into the supermarket then we both went into the sporting goods shop then we both went into the bookshop.” Or would we be able to say with confidence: Gareth and i went shopping together today. We went in the butchers, the supermarket, the sports shop and the bookshop?”

The problem for me Fish is that your English is obviously very good. So its hard to believe that you cant grasp Gareths point and so im afraid that only leaves us with one alternative.