The Mizen scam

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"If you're wrong about my post, then the chances are you're Cross arguement is looking iffy."

So THAT`S how it works! Then what does it say about YOUR arguments that you mistook Phil H for Jonathon H? Does that have an impact on your overall credibility? Are you defending Lechmere against the allegations made, thinking it is Tumblety you defend?

I´m joking, Monty. Sure hope you are too!

"Lechmere and Christer will defend their man at whatever cost, even the price of rational thinking."

But who gets to define what is "rational" here? Is it irrational not to buy your assertion that Lechmere would have legged it if he was the killer? How does that work? Besides, it´s not the man we´re defending, it´s the theory. Others will defend the man at whatever cost - even the price of rational thinking.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Hello Monty,

Sorry old chjp, wrong assumption. I think MISTAKES and senior police incompetamce are key components in this.
Never mind. Its early. Im off to work. Have a good day.

Best wishes

Phil

Like you assumed that my 'faux pas' was about you?

Like I say, police erred, however to state they were incompetent shows a degree of ignorance and unfamiliarity with Victorian Police procedures and legalities.

You compare a modern (and still ongoing) case of which you have only part information and formed a conclusion.

The same stands for this case.

When you are in possesion of the full facts then draw a considered opinion bu hey, I'm old fashioned. The new way is to pass opinion off as fact, we all know better than the police then anyway.

I mean, its not as if McCormick, Stewart, Odell, Farson et al have done it.

New way indeed.

Monty

[Rubyretro]

Frau Retro
Cut through the waffle and you are agreeing with everything I said - as usual.

You little provocateur, you -we shall have to have a little chat about Toppy.

[Barnaby]

Edited/deleted a repetitive message. Not sure how to do that without typing something.

[Barnaby]

I think that all we have to do is to ask ourselves what the reactions of a modern police force would be, if they were faced with a parallel situation to the one the Met had with Lechmere.
All the best,
Fisherman

I'm more interested in the contemporary police's handling of Cross/Lechmere. As you have stated, we have a person of interest placed at the scene of the murder for an undetermined amount of time. Additonal murders then occur on this person's route to work. Finally, this person lied about his identity.

It doesn't take modern forensics to conclude that this guy is suspicious. So the contemporary police were either completely incompetent or he provided them with information that exonerated himself.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Monty,

My Cross argument doesent include him being guilty. Sad, but true.
strike 2

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Of course the Police made errors during the case, I don't think anyone has stated otherwise. I certainly haven't.

However there has been a mass amount of assumption (yep, bored pointing out too) on Police procedure and what is alleged has been executed by them.

Lechmere and Christer will defend their man at whatever cost, even the price of rational thinking. Phil will endorse any anti Police/establishment post as he feels conspiracy is the key.

And so it goes on endlessly.

Monty

Hello Monty,

Sorry old chjp, wrong assumption. I think MISTAKES and senior police incompetamce are key components in this.
Never mind. Its early. Im off to work. Have a good day.

Best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

Of course the Police made errors during the case, I don't think anyone has stated otherwise. I certainly haven't.

However there has been a mass amount of assumption (yep, bored pointing out too) on Police procedure and what is alleged has been executed by them.

Lechmere and Christer will defend their man at whatever cost, even the price of rational thinking. Phil will endorse any anti Police/establishment post as he feels conspiracy is the key.

And so it goes on endlessly.

Monty

[Monty]

Hello Lechmere,

Yes- I believe the term is a faux pas?

It's ok. Anyone can make a mistake.

Phil H took it ok- so shall I- and it is forgetten.

Best wishes

Phil

Aaaah,

I see what has happened.

Again, another error on my part. I'm guessing neither of you, Lechmere or Phil Carter, saw my original post.

Ok, let's make this clear, I confused Phil H with Jonathon H. My post wasn't degrogatory (as Phil H stated) and was infact a comment on how historians percieve the case evidence.

See, this is where your assumption effects your theorising.

If you're wrong about my post, then the chances are you're Cross arguement is looking iffy.

Monty

[Monty]

I wonder if Monty's inbox is filling up again, and whether he will get his Phils mixed up again also.

Oddly enough no.

It seems when you get an Mr Carter endorsement you officially hit 'crank' level and trigger the sympathy vote.

All hostilities cease.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

I believe that every poster on this thread has expressed their belief in the possibility that Cross could have been the killer of Nicholls,and some of us the more likely possibility that he was innocent.Those who believe in his guilt have the onus of producing information of an incriminating nature.I would welcome that,but I have yet to see it.No weapon,no bloodstains,no conne ction to the victim.No single piece of information that cannot have an innocent explanation.This is what faced the police at the time,and what is apparent now.A workman on his way to work,who w as unfortunate to stumble upon a body.This was his claim and there is nothing to rebut it.Sure there is the possibility that lies were told,but they are possibilities that have no substance unless they can be proven.All we have is the name Cross,but e ven there,
one would have to stretch credibility to see anything sinister.

Hello Harry,

Yup, fairs fair- this is a good post too- full of sound, sensible argument.
I dont think Cross did murder Nichols, and even less so the others, but try to keep an open mind.

A question I ask in return, with perhaps some justification, is this. Are we expected to apply the same sober, sensible, factual logic as above to every single situation and explain absolutely everything in terms of innocent explanation? Because doing that presumes nothing was abnormal or 'wrong' in anything that happened during a series of highly unusual crimes, the likes of which had never been seen before. No unexplained or unwarranted gesture or comment by anyone, as everything likely had an innocent explanation.
You write about stretching the bounds of credibility- the aforementioned attitude does exactly that too. That is why the same old same old doesnt get us anywhere, and new thoughts abound. Some dont want them and fight tooth and nail to prevent them. Some cant see why not and fight just as vigourously to introduce other methods of thought.
The louder one shouts, the louder the complaint back.
So- what do we do? Err on the side of factual cautiö in perpetuity or open our mimds to the not so safe?

For my own sake, I like to get people thinking of possibilities.
It wont happen EVERY time, but if it happens now and again then maybe the attitude may widen. Here and there.

Best wishes,

Phil

[harry]

I believe that every poster on this thread has expressed their belief in the possibility that Cross could have been the killer of Nicholls,and some of us the more likely possibility that he was innocent.Those who believe in his guilt have the onus of producing information of an incriminating nature.I would welcome that,but I have yet to see it.No weapon,no bloodstains,no conne ction to the victim.No single piece of information that cannot have an innocent explanation.This is what faced the police at the time,and what is apparent now.A workman on his way to work,who w as unfortunate to stumble upon a body.This was his claim and there is nothing to rebut it.Sure there is the possibility that lies were told,but they are possibilities that have no substance unless they can be proven.All we have is the name Cross,but e ven there,one would have to stretch credibility to see anything sinister.

[Mr Lucky]

Lechmere,

Hi, if you don't mind answering a different question for a change, how long would it take Mizen to move the police ambulance from Bethnal Green police station to the scene?

Thanks

[Phil Carter]

I wonder if Monty's inbox is filling up again, and whether he will get his Phils mixed up again also.

Hello Lechmere,

Yes- I believe the term is a faux pas?

It's ok. Anyone can make a mistake.

Phil H took it ok- so shall I- and it is forgetten.

Best wishes

Phil

[Lechmere]

I wonder if Monty's inbox is filling up again, and whether he will get his Phils mixed up again also.