The Mizen scam

[Monty]

Yeah, sure....

....Give me some facts then Christer.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Actually, Monty, I donīt think it makes much of a useful criticism to huff and puff and tell us all how much you would like to counter it. Iīd be much impressed - and pleased! - if you took the time to actually add something of relevance, but you seem reluctant to take that step.

You write about "facts" as if there were no such things about, but I fail to see that anybody has claimed anything but that there MAY have been alternative explanations about for all of the things we find make Lechmere interesting as a suspect. But facts CAN be listed!

Lechmere said he left home at 3.20 or 3.30, and if this was true, he should have been a long way up Hanbury Street at 3.45. Even at 3.40, he should have passed that stable door long before he was found there. And that is working from the assumption that 3.30 was the time he left, not 3.20. This is not conjecture, it is facts.

The clothing was pulled down on Nicholsībody, something that was not the case with Tabram, Chapman, Eddowes. Thus the wounds to the abdomen were hidden from sight, perhaps fully but at least to a significant extent. This is not conjecture, it must be regarded as a fact.

Lechmere claimed to be late for work, but did not choose the quicker Old Montague Street, instead opting for Hanbury Street. This anomaly is not conjecture, it is a fact.

Lechmere gave the name Cross to the police. Fact. He otherwise always called himself Lechmere when dealing with authorities, as far as we can tell - and we have around 60 examples to show for it. Fact.

Mizen testified that Lechmere had claimed that another policeman awaited him in Buckīs Row. Fact. He also claimed that Lechmere had worded this in a passive mode, not giving away that Lechmere himself had found Nichols. Fact.

Lechmere himself said that he and Paul had felt Nichols hands and face for warmth, but that he had rejected to help prop her up. Fact.

Maybe it is very wise to do what you do - dub the theory a dead duck. Maybe it IS a dead duck. But I fail to see that anybody has offered anything at all that goes to even hint at that.

You speak bout "facts" using quotation marks, and confidently lead on that it all needs to be shot down. So letīs see what it is you have to offer, Monty! Surely, a man with such high demands on substantiation must have a lot of tangible evidence to substantiate your own take on things?

Moreover, I have always held you very high in regard when it comes to knowledge of the case and fair assessments, so I suppose you must have something to offer here, other than what others have already put on display.

I for one canīt wait to see it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Truly amazed how some are trying to keep this dead duck of a theory afloat by distracting.

Smoke and mirrors, nothing of substance.

I'd love to counter the 'facts' supporting Cross as Nichols killer. Just that I'm struggling to find those facts. All I see is suggestion.

Ah, but that's the case with all suspects Monty.

True, so when in Rome huh?


Monty

[Fisherman]

By the way, if Paul was NOT late for work, then one would have thought that he would have said at the inquest that he THOUGHT that he was late, only to realize on his arrival at Corbettīs court that he had been mistaken on that score. But this never happens - he is very clear on the fact that he WAS late for work, meaning that he was under that impression as it happened AND afterwards - pointing to a confirmation of his certainty of this as he arrived at work

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"Frank you're a gentleman....are you listening to this Christer?"

I am. And if we are speaking gentlemanly behaviour, Iīd say that the better thing to do on your behalf than to question me on that point, would be to concede that you may have been wrong about Paul leaving home at exactly 3.45, as I took the time and trouble to show you in my post. But each to his own, I suppose. And jestering can be fun at times too.

The best,
Fisherman