Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Favorite suspect/s?

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

  • Originally posted by caz View Post
    And that is worrying, because you'd think if one or both carmen had been telling outright porkies, Mizen's account would have challenged theirs.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Not so, I´m afraid. The story the carman told was confirmed to Mizen as he saw Neil up in Bucks Row - there WAS a PC in place, just as had been stated.

    Following on, when Neil said that he was the finder of the body and that it was not true that two men had found it before him, Mizen had a reaffirmation of the carmans story.

    Everything added up AS LONG AS NEIL STUCK TO HIS STORY.

    Mizen must have been flummoxed, to say the least, by the developments that ensued. I think there is every chance that he will have asked himself where things did not add up, and that he may have weighed in the possibility that he himself could have in some way misheard or misunderstood the carmans words.

    What I think he did was to then go to the inquest and state as honestly as he could what he thought had transpired, and I think he did so without nourishing any suspicion against Lechmere, something that was overall reflected by the rest of the participators too. None of them will have realized the explosive power built into the disagreement between Mizen and Lechmere. I have heard it stated that this suggestion is stupid and that anybody would realize that power, but the fact of the matter is that it was overlooked by generations of ripperologists and armchair detectives, and so I think it must be accepted that it was simply overlooked by the inquest too.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by caz View Post
      Hi Steve,

      What I find quite amusing is that Fish needs both men to have lied about the fact that Paul did his own share of the talking while in PC Mizen's company, but PC Mizen isn't playing ball.

      What Fish needed was for PC Mizen to have exposed their lies by stating that not only did Paul not utter a sodding word to him, but he was not even in a good position to hear or confirm what Cross had told him, let alone judge how he - Mizen - should have reacted.

      The problem for Fish is that PC Mizen never said anything like this, but meekly went along with the basic fact that two men were there when he was told about the woman and he just said "All right" in response. If Cross was the first to speak, then it was Cross who informed Mizen of the situation, with Paul chiming in. But if Paul never chimed in and wasn't even within earshot, it's a great pity for Fish that Mizen never did make that clear.

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      It´s a pity for all of us that the issue was never clarified, Caz. It´s a problem we all share. Pauls assertion of having spoken to Mizen is only laid down unequvocally in the Lloyds article, and we know that does not give a true reflection of what happened. Furthermore, it may be that the reporter spiced things up, and that Paul didn´t actually say that he did the talking.

      Any which way, the issue is no more of a problem for me than for you.
      Last edited by Fisherman; 06-13-2018, 10:53 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by harry View Post
        Fisherman,who would want to troll you.All you appear to be is a mouthpiece for two indiviuals who so far have not come forward to confirm you are telling the truth about them.That's stating a fact,not trolling.

        What have you proven so far as guilt applies ?Nothing.Can you
        place Cross in the company of Nichols while she was alive?No you cannot.

        Can you prove factually,that Cross cut the throat of Nichols and caused the mutilatins to her body? No you cannot


        Can you prove,that on leaving home that morning,or later on his way to work,the intent to kill and mutilate was a driving force? No you cannot
        .

        Can you prove that in his possession that morning was a weapon that caused the injuries to Nichols?No you cannot.

        You have nothing in the way of proof.Nothing,and you claim to have prima facis evidence of guilt.How strange.
        Sorry, Harry, but you have disqualified yourself from discussing the case with me.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
          Hi Caz

          Yes indeed it is. Of course the aim of Mizen was to prevent certain public questions being asked about his performance (none of which had any effect on the actual murder) and this he achieved perfectly, to the extent it was not looked at seriously until Lechmere was proposed as a suspect.

          Of course i beleive that the combination of Neil's testimony on 1st and the Lloyds article 2nd are the reason for Mizen's story ( and i use that word intentionally) at the inquest on the 3rd.
          However i came to this conclusion from anaylisis of the various sources, i didn't come up with the idea and then go looking for the stuff to support it.

          Steve
          Then again, you apparently also came to the conclusion that Kelly died twice and that it is proven that Paul was never out of earshot in Bucks Row.

          And you did that all on your own too, analysing the various sources.

          I must say I am looking forward to your book by now.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            It´s a pity for all of us that the issue was never clarified, Caz. It´s a problem we all share. Pauls assertion of having spoken to Mizen is only laid down unequvocally in the Lloyds article, and we know that does not give a true reflection of what happened. Furthermore, it may be that the reporter spiced things up, and that Paul didn´t actually say that he did the talking.

            Any which way, the issue is no more of a problem for me than for you.
            Unless the reporter spoke to the witness first hand, or was present when the witness said what he did, then the evidence is secondary and has to be treated with caution !

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              However, the way I see things, Baxter did not entertain any suspicion at all versus Lechmere, wherefore he had absolutely no reason to try and establish the exact distance inbetween the carmen and whether they were within earshot of each other or not. His question - however it was phrased (only Steve claims to know that well enough to be able to conclude factually from it) - was therefore more likely than not aimed to establish Pauls overall presence, and not the exact distance between the carmen.
              I more or less agree, Christer. I think that the information Baxter had, upon which he based his questions to Mizen, simply didn’t give Baxter any cause to think there was any significant distance between Lechmere and Paul throughout the whole encounter.

              We seemingly agree on that and so in my book, establishing (or trying to establish) the different likelihoods of a certain distance between the carmen at a certain time is a waste of good discussion power.
              That would be a waste indeed, Fish.
              "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
              Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

              Comment


              • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                I more or less agree, Christer. I think that the information Baxter had, upon which he based his questions to Mizen, simply didn’t give Baxter any cause to think there was any significant distance between Lechmere and Paul throughout the whole encounter.
                Or, indeed, any reason to think that he needed to establish that distance so as to rule in or out that Paul could have been out of earshot.

                A very fair and balanced post, Frank.
                Last edited by Fisherman; 06-14-2018, 12:33 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                  Unless the reporter spoke to the witness first hand, or was present when the witness said what he did, then the evidence is secondary and has to be treated with caution !

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  The Lloyds article must absolutely be treated with caution, yes.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    The Lloyds article must absolutely be treated with caution, yes.
                    All the press accounts of the inquest need to be treated with caution, too. Most, if not all, seem to derive from a news agency report, anyway, and if that was flawed then we need to be even more careful.
                    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                      All the press accounts of the inquest need to be treated with caution, too. Most, if not all, seem to derive from a news agency report, anyway, and if that was flawed then we need to be even more careful.
                      And still, Steve was able to prove that Paul was never out of earshot - using press accounts only. Astonishing! He used three basically similar accounts and said that since there were not as many accounts contradicting them, they became true. Abra-cadabra!

                      Can´t have that, can we?

                      ... but if we CAN, it applies that the press accounts from the find of the uterus bundle in the Jackson case contains three or more versions where it is said that the lower abdomen or the abdomen of a woman was found in the bundle. And the fewest accounts gainsay it, so I guess it must be true. À la Steve.

                      Ridiculous, ain´t it?

                      If it weren´t for the press accounts, ripperology would be a meagre discipline indeed. Weighing the material fairly and with an open mind is always a clever thing to do.
                      Last edited by Fisherman; 06-14-2018, 01:26 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        Weighing the material fairly and with an open mind is always a clever thing to do.
                        Quite.
                        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          I am saying that we can´t accept BOTH TOD:s for Kelly. And you know that, so there is no reason to sound surprised. She couldn´t have died twice, once at 2 AM and then again at 6 AM.
                          At least one of the doctors must be wrong. That goes without saying. And consequentially both can be wrong.


                          Clearly demonstrating that the TODs are unreliable. You confirm my point.
                          I am not using the TOD'S to question your statement that the murders occurred within the required hours, i am rejecting the TOD'S .



                          Pointing that out should not be necessary. In any serious debate, it would never be. Here? Different story.


                          When you claim the TOD can establish a murder within the required hours of course it needs to be pointed out

                          You move on to say that if I don´t accept Kellys TOD, I cannot accept Chapmans TOD either.
                          But you know, I really can.

                          Not only was there no contesting TOD:s in Chapmans case, it also applies that the time elapsed was much shorter, and so the task of establishing a TOD becomes easier.

                          Moreover, in Chapmans case, Phillips gave a span, not a decided time. He said that she had been dead at least two hors and probably more.


                          Phillips based his TOD on RM, extremely unreliable now, more so in 1888 with the lack of medical knowledge they had.
                          If we cannot accept one TOD as reliable for these reasons, we cannot accept another for the same reasons.

                          However i accept that you will accept anything which can be used in an attempt to bolster your theory, no matter what failings it has.


                          In the rational world, that means that there is no real chance for Long and Cadosh to be correct - if they were on the money, I feel quite convinced that Chpman would not have been just about totally cold. And that applies regardless of the uncertainty involved in the establishing of TOD back then.

                          No in the Rational world, a disputed timing, which requires us to ignore a witness sitting next to where the body was, if Phillips is correct, needs that statement of Richardson to be challenged and explained away factually.
                          It is very telling that you refer to Long and Cadosh but ignore Richardson.

                          Again taking subjective statements like "totally cold" as meaningful.
                          No actual temperatures taken, the assement made by touch!
                          No assesment made of the effect the wounds would have on body temperature

                          To suggest that "total cold" has any forensic value demonstrates a lack of actual knowledge or a willingness to not care.


                          So, you see, I am once again effectively disallowing you to impose upon me how I must reason, and opt for the logical route instead.


                          If only you would opt for the logical route, rather than the faulty one you do.

                          That leaves you with having to accept two deaths for Kelly, since you accept Chapmans TOD, and since you say that if we accept one thing in one case we must do so in the next too.

                          Really, Steve? Kelly died two times?


                          What are you talking about? i do not accept Chapman's TOD, nor the TOD 's given for Kelly. I have argued the exact opposite.
                          Post 1297 said clearly i did not accept any of of the TOD's.

                          The post is utter nonsense



                          I leave the remark about my insults uncommented on for obvious reasons.

                          This must be one of the very worst posts i have seen on casebook in a long time, all over the place, ignoring the OP that we cannot place Lechmere in the area of the murders at the time of the murders other than for Nichols.
                          Is the whole post simply constructed to avoid that issue?

                          Comment


                          • I win on a disqualification do I Fisherman.Good,then since you have thrown the towel in,perhaps someone else of the persuasion that Cross killed Nichols will answer the post you duckted out on.
                            There are not many of them I understand,but any one of them is welcome to front up,and please,should anyone do so,do not start with, he was standing in the road near her body so is connected to her murder.He was connected to finding her body,nothing else.She had already been murdered.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                              Then again, you apparently also came to the conclusion that Kelly died twice and that it is proven that Paul was never out of earshot in Bucks Row.


                              A blatantly false statement, I fail to see how you arrive at this conclusion, when in post 1297 it's very clear stated that I did not accept any of the TODs.
                              Such blatant untruths, for the purpose of misleading, simply reflects terribly on you


                              And you did that all on your own too, analysing the various sources.

                              I must say I am looking forward to your book by now.
                              Is that the true purpose of these comments? To attempt to belittle something you have not seen? Obviously the levels of concern must be high.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                                And still, Steve was able to prove that Paul was never out of earshot - using press accounts only. Astonishing! He used three basically similar accounts and said that since there were not as many accounts contradicting them, they became true. Abra-cadabra!
                                Again back to front, the truth is that you have not proved that Paul was out of earshot or that there was any oppotunity (possibility)for such to occurr.
                                I had to prove nothing. The onus was on you to prove such a possability could have happened, you have singularly failed to do such

                                Its becoming very clear now ever increasing attempts to belittle,

                                And not very good attempts at that.


                                Steve

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X