Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lechmere validity

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

  • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

    Agreed. Even if we go with the WORST possible scenario, that Lechmere deliberately misled PC Mizen, it doesn't have to be for nefarious purposes. Both carmen were running late, weren't they? They couldn't run the risk of losing their jobs.
    How likely is it that they will run the risk of lying to the police and - in all likelihood - being exposed for it? How could they bank on NOT being taken along to the site, in which case they faced serious accusations if there was no PC there?

    Have you considered the very possible opportunity that Lechmere told Paul that he would tell the first PC they saw that another PC had the errand in hand, so that they would not be detained, telling Paul that they only had to deny that jointly if asked in the future?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

      Correct, that is all we have, of course we do not know exactly what Paul said on the 17th, its not reported in any detail, that would have helped immensely.

      If we are going to say that Lechmere's statement should be viewed as cribbing from the Lloyds article, that is not exactly unbiased. That view says that Lechmere is not telling the truth no matter what; And indeed it is obviously not cribbing in my opinion, has it chances the roles protagonists in the events.


      If we simply start from a position of rejected Lechmere and accepting Mizen, then we are doing the events a disservice IMHO.
      All 3 of the statements should be looked at, initially, with an assumption of truth, and tested against what evidence there is.

      Mizen is backed only by Himself on what was said; but he is backed that he did continue at least, one last knock up.

      Paul is Backed by Lechmere and Lechmere by Paul.

      To me it is clear, unless it can be shown that BOTH Carmen BOTH lied,we should conclude, that at the very least, MIzen, misunderstood what he was told.



      Steve
      hi el
      I meant pauls statement in Lloyds that he spoke to Mizen and saying I think shes dead.-that's the part obviously cribbed by subsequent papers.


      anything else is the "we" stuff.

      I doubt Paul spoke to Mizen at all.

      IMHO the most likely explanation is that it was a misunderstanding, next Lech lied probably because he didn't want to be delayed getting to work (or possibly he was the killer) and least likely Mizen lied. Mizen had no reason to lie, he did nothing wrong-he finished knocking up the house he was on and headed over to check it out.

      to me, if anyone lied,and had a reason to do so-was lech. I mean this is a man who just left a woman lying in the street in obvious need of some kind of help-his character is suspect even in this series of events. and his dubious behavior by doing this is the same as is possible motive for lying to Mizen-wanting to get to work.

      Mizen would only get himself in more trouble by lying-and no one seemed to care anyway. He dosnt need to lie to save his ass-he did nothing wrong.

      think about it-if at the inquest Mizen had said the same as lech (no discrepancy)and responded along the lines- I was told that I was needed in Bucks row, a woman was down. so I finished knocking up and I headed over there. another policeman was there when I arrived.

      whats the problem? whos going to give him a hard time about it? theres absolutely nothing wrong with it-no one would have thought twice.

      he has absolutely no reason to lie.








      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

        See the bold above.
        Started to read, could't be bothered to finish. Sorry Fisherman, just taking on board your previous replies to me when you avoided answering my questions pertaining to side trips, and asking for clarifications. Conversations are two way streets.

        - Jeff

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

          Hi Patrick!

          I have been away for a day, that I spent fishing with old friends. Good friends. Trustworthy, kind, emphatic old friends. You may know the feeling?

          I now return to have my post to you called "bizarre" and to have it claimed that I "persecute" you...?! That is coming to an end, I promise.

          I did a lot of thinking yesterday, and I have arrived at a course of action.

          You have recently misrepresented what I have said, time and time again. You have put words in my mouth. It has seemingly all had the aim to make me look stupid or wrong - or, preferably, both.
          You persist in calling the Mizen scam "laughable - and you are entirely free to do so. These are public boards. It does, however, color my take on you.

          Worst, you have decided to claim that I have "made up" the Mizen scam.

          A little semantic lesson: Something that can be accused of having been made up is something that has been presented as a fact. A theory, ergo a suggestion, can never have been "made up" as such.
          Let me enlighten you further on the issue:
          If I say that Lechmere was the killer, then you can claim (but not prove) that I made it up.
          If I suggest that he was probably the killer, then you cannot claim that I have made something up.

          At the end of the day, it is a question of common decency - or, to be more precise, its polar opposite. These are boards that have housed many a foul-mouthed poster, and one where people mock others with all kinds of justification, including none at all.

          To "make something up" is a synonym for "to lie". I have found no other example out here where a poster claims that a theory that somebody has presented is something that has been made up. Hard criticism has been directed at many theories, with all kinds of justification, including, once again, none at all. But that is to be expected and as it should be - within reasonable limits. Theories must be put to the test. No problem there.
          It is when posters claim, without justification, that the theories are made up and laughable that the line of decency is crossed, and with quite some margin too.

          If you put this invention of yours to the test, you will probably find yourself a number of disciples, and I dare say that the names of them would not be any surprise at all. That's how it goes, there are always those who find personal joy in things like these, and so one cannot count on everybody being up to scratch in matters of common decency.

          The majority of the posters out here would however - the way I see things - look very harshly on such antics. And not a single poster of the ones who conduct serious discussions out here would agree with you that the Mizen scam theory is something I have "made up" - it would be tantamount to compromising ones credibility beyond repair to make such accusations. Which is exactly how it should be - all sorts of vile and foul suggestions like this one need to be dealt with as the crap they are, simple as that. If you disagree, it matters not to me.

          There is an example in our past where I decided not to discuss with you, and leave your posts unanswered. That was because of how I found you resorted to baseless accusations and falsities. However, I alway think people deserve a second chance, and you had that, asserting that you would play nice.

          A third chance is something else. I very rarely award such things, and when I do, it is on account of how I think that the one given this chance has earned it. In your case, I can see no such thing, all I see is how you consciously choose to use a vocabulary meant to belittle and infect.

          That is the bottom line, and the equation thus becomes an easy one for me - its strike three for you, and I will not answer any of your posts in the future. I will read them, of course, so that I can see whether you choose to misrepresent me furthermore and falsely claim things on my behalf, in which case I will deal with that as best as I can.

          Our time as discussion partners is however over, and you are free to claim anything from how that reflects how I dare not debate with you to how I have misunderstood you capitally, should you wish to do so. Its a world full of opportunities, Patrick - but what we say and do is our legacy.

          Have a wonderful life.
          This is preferable, actually. Perhaps now I'll post my thoughts without insults or foot-stamping lamentations like this.

          I will say only that you seem to inhabit an alternate universe in which your every utterance is sacred and unassailable, yet you're free to ridicule and insult everyone, unabated. It's one where you're free to accuse others of telling lies, only to become indignant at the idea that you've "made something up", even when that's a simple, demonstrable thing. Ultimately, this is another "woe is me" post that's notable, I think, in that you seem to be the only one posting them. I'll reiterate, I find this type of thing quite bizarre. I'll end there because diverting into these types of discussions about how you're treated, how you think you should be treated, your outrage, your "I'm quitting you" flourishes... are inappropriate content for these boards, boring for those reading them, and, frankly, embarrassing to you as the one posting them.

          Comment


          • OMG! I can't believe I almost overlooked this gem:

            FISHERMAN: WHAT??? I do not think that Paul spoke to Mizen at all!

            So, the Lloyd's article, in which clearly you must believe Paul is doing nothing but telling porkies, you also, tooth and nail, insist that his word "exactly" is to be taken as gospel. I bow your chutzpah.

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

              How likely is it that they will run the risk of lying to the police and - in all likelihood - being exposed for it? How could they bank on NOT being taken along to the site, in which case they faced serious accusations if there was no PC there?

              Have you considered the very possible opportunity that Lechmere told Paul that he would tell the first PC they saw that another PC had the errand in hand, so that they would not be detained, telling Paul that they only had to deny that jointly if asked in the future?
              Ah! Another new facet to the Mizen Scam! NOW, we've made Paul a WILLING participant in "the scam" rather than just a dupe whose anti-police bias and big-upping tendencies are exploited to enable the man he'd just met to get away with murder.

              Now, he's made aware of the lie and agrees to support it "in the future" all because the stranger he met for four minutes on his way to work asked him to. I know we're not supposed to use offensive terms like "made up". But, seeing as there is absolutely nothing to suggest that anything like this occurred, and because yesterday we were all blissfully unaware of this idea that Paul was recruited to lie for a man it took him all of four minutes to decided was so cool he'd happily lie just because he said so... if this is not something Christer simply and very recently made-up (invented, fabricated, created from whole cloth, etc.)... then what is it?



              Comment


              • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                hi el
                I meant pauls statement in Lloyds that he spoke to Mizen and saying I think shes dead.-that's the part obviously cribbed by subsequent papers.



                anything else is the "we" stuff.

                I doubt Paul spoke to Mizen at all.
                Sorry Abby i don't agree, those newspaper reports are reports of Lechmere's inquest testimony. They are not inventions by the press.

                You are in effect saying that both Paul and lechmere are lying.

                What evidence do you base that on other than a feeling that Mizen told the truth?



                Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                IMHO the most likely explanation is that it was a misunderstanding, next Lech lied probably because he didn't want to be delayed getting to work (or possibly he was the killer) and least likely Mizen lied. Mizen had no reason to lie, he did nothing wrong-he finished knocking up the house he was on and headed over to check it out.

                to me, if anyone lied,and had a reason to do so-was lech. I mean this is a man who just left a woman lying in the street in obvious need of some kind of help-his character is suspect even in this series of events. and his dubious behavior by doing this is the same as is possible motive for lying to Mizen-wanting to get to work.

                Mizen would only get himself in more trouble by lying-and no one seemed to care anyway. He dosnt need to lie to save his ass-he did nothing wrong.

                think about it-if at the inquest Mizen had said the same as lech (no discrepancy)and responded along the lines- I was told that I was needed in Bucks row, a woman was down. so I finished knocking up and I headed over there. another policeman was there when I arrived.

                whats the problem? whos going to give him a hard time about it? theres absolutely nothing wrong with it-no one would have thought twice.

                he has absolutely no reason to lie.

                I believe Mizen had reason to lie, I believe that his superiors were aware that he lied. But given the lie was to protect both himself and the police in general, and it had NO material effect on the murder or inquest, it was decided to let the matter rest as a simple misunderstand.


                There is evidence that suggests such, but far to complicated to go into here, and it's a major section in the book.




                Steve









                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                  You spelt shameful correctly. I wasn't expecting that.

                  Can you tell me how it is NOT shameful to claim that it is "probable" that Mizen omitted to say that Paul spoke to him?

                  Maybe it is shameful when I suggest one solution to things but not when you suggest another, is that it?


                  The sarcasm, speaks volumes.

                  Its not shameful, because TWO of the Three protagonists say such happened, and yet you simply discount these comments because they do not fit.

                  What is shameful is to base a theory on semantics of a language, and to ignore the sources, as is done time after time.


                  Steve
                  Last edited by Elamarna; 05-15-2019, 04:19 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                    And let's not admit that if Lechmere read the Lloyds article, then he would know exactly what Paul had said in it and thus be able to lie from that perspective. Let's instead allow Lechmere as CORROBORATION for Pauls Lloyds article, in spite of how it is directly contradicted by a PC, and let's dub him a liar instead.

                    That is yr source evaluation technique, not mine.,

                    It is your stance, not mine.

                    You are welcome to both, since I would not touch them with a pair of pliers myself.
                    I see, here we accept the word of a PC over a member of the public, Not based on the evidence supplied by the sources, but because he is a PC? It surely can't be because it fits our Theory of Fitting Lechmere up. Of course, we REJECT the word of the very same PC, over the very same individual, when it lets us use the time issue to fit the theory.


                    "I would not touch them with a pair of pliers myself"?????

                    Never heard that before, you do make me laugh sometimes.


                    Steve

                    Last edited by Elamarna; 05-15-2019, 04:19 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                      Sorry Abby i don't agree, those newspaper reports are reports of Lechmere's inquest testimony. They are not inventions by the press.

                      You are in effect saying that both Paul and lechmere are lying.

                      What evidence do you base that on other than a feeling that Mizen told the truth?






                      I believe Mizen had reason to lie, I believe that his superiors were aware that he lied. But given the lie was to protect both himself and the police in general, and it had NO material effect on the murder or inquest, it was decided to let the matter rest as a simple misunderstand.


                      There is evidence that suggests such, but far to complicated to go into here, and it's a major section in the book.




                      Steve








                      thanks El
                      Im confused. I thought the Lloyds article we were talking about is the Paul (not lech) interview?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                        I see, here we accept the word of a PC over a member of the public, Not based on the evidence supplied by the sources, but because he is a PC? It surely can't be because it fits our Theory of Fitting Lechmere up. Of course, we REJECT the word of the very same PC, over the very same individual, when it lets us use the time issue to fit the theory.


                        "I would not touch them with a pair of pliers myself"?????

                        Never heard that before, you do make me laugh sometimes.


                        Steve
                        Hi, Steve.

                        You touched on, I think, a salient point here: the fact that are told to believe one source when it's serves this theory, only to then discard that same source as untrustworthy when it doesn't.

                        Of course, Christer asserts that Paul is absolutely trustworthy when he says in Lloyd's, "It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row". However, Paul is untrustworthy when he says, also in Lloyd's that, "He (Mizen) continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead." Here we are instructed to believe Mizen who states at the inquest that he was told only that "a woman was lying" in Buck's Row. We must believe Mizen here, of course, because this version of events helps one to imagine this "Mizen Scam" that's been assembled out of sources who's reliability depends entirely upon how their words support the idea of "the scam" and, as you said, "fitting up Lechmere": believe them when they do, assert they're lying when they do not.

                        Christer himself has called Paul's Lloyd's statement a case of "big upping" and not to be trusted. He's asserted that Paul's critical comments about Mizen and his view that Nichols had been laying on the pavement for some time were simply his "anti-police" bias... and shouldn't be trusted. He's now suggested that Paul was told of this "scam" and agreed to support it if questioned. Thus, again, when it comes to if Mizen was told he was wanted by a PC in Buck's Row... Paul is not to be trusted. But, he IS to be believed when he says he passed up Buck's Row at quarter to four. Why? Because he said, "exactly". I think it's remarkable that Christer has based his "timings", represented in his walk with Griffiths in the documentary, on one word, "exactly", from a man who he then tells us is not be believed on virtually anything else.

                        Aspects such as this are why I use words like "made up" and "laughable". Christer has bemoaned that other theories aren't called such things and that doing so to his represents an insult to decency. But, I can honestly say that I am unaware of any comparable theory in all of "Ripperology". If I did, I would apply those same labels. One where we're asked to believe this source here, but not there. And another there but not here. I am only being honest when I say that, in my view, the theory, the scam... they have only grown more absurd as they've necessarily evolved to overcome the inconsistencies and issues presented them. Keep in mind, I'm NOT saying that Lechmere being a "suspect" or a "candidate" is laughable. I'm simply saying that these events, dupes, and scams that have been created to elevate him to "prime suspect" or "likely killer", something other than another very long shot among a long list of long shots... Well. I find them unbelievable. And rather silly.
                        Last edited by Patrick S; 05-15-2019, 05:26 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                          thanks El
                          Im confused. I thought the Lloyds article we were talking about is the Paul (not lech) interview?
                          Yes it is Abby

                          Maybe we are confusing each other.

                          The later reports are either the inquest reports of Lech, which say Paul spoke; or the later still reports of Paul, which are not detailed and do not tell us what was said. Words used I mean.

                          I see no reason to think the press cribbed these from Lloyds.


                          Steve

                          Comment


                          • Patrick, I agree entirely, and it's not that Lechmere is unviable or laughable as a suspect, his NOT.

                            It's the converted constructs, produced to Bolster the theory which are often deeply flawed in reason and interpretation.


                            Steve



                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Patrick S View Post

                              Hi, Steve.

                              You touched on, I think, a salient point here: the fact that are told to believe one source when it's serves this theory, only to then discard that same source as untrustworthy when it doesn't.

                              Of course, Christer asserts that Paul is absolutely trustworthy when he says in Lloyd's, "It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row". However, Paul is untrustworthy when he says, also in Lloyd's that, "He (Mizen) continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead." Here we are instructed to believe Mizen who states at the inquest that he was told only that "a woman was lying" in Buck's Row. We must believe Mizen here, of course, because this version of events helps one to imagine this "Mizen Scam" that's been assembled out of sources who's reliability depends entirely upon how their words support the idea of "the scam" and, as you said, "fitting up Lechmere": believe them when they do, assert they're lying when they do not.

                              Christer himself has called Paul's Lloyd's statement a case of "big upping" and not to be trusted. He's asserted that Paul's critical comments about Mizen and his view that Nichols had been laying on the pavement for some time were simply his "anti-police" bias... and shouldn't be trusted. He's now suggested that Paul was told of this "scam" and agreed to support it if questioned. Thus, again, when it comes to if Mizen was told he was wanted by a PC in Buck's Row... Paul is not to be trusted. But, he IS to be believed when he says he passed up Buck's Row at quarter to four. Why? Because he said, "exactly". I think it's remarkable that Christer has based his "timings", represented in his walk with Griffiths in the documentary, on one word, "exactly", from a man who he then tells us is not be believed on virtually anything else.

                              Aspects such as this are why I use words like "made up" and "laughable". Christer has bemoaned that other theories aren't called such things and that doing so to his represents an insult to decency. But, I can honestly say that I am unaware of any comparable theory in all of "Ripperology". If I did, I would apply those same labels. One where we're asked to believe this source here, but not there. And another there but not here. I am only being honest when I say that, in my view, the theory, the scam... they have only grown more absurd as they've necessarily evolved to overcome the inconsistencies and issues presented them. Keep in mind, I'm NOT saying that Lechmere being a "suspect" or a "candidate" is laughable. I'm simply saying that these events, dupes, and scams that have been created to elevate him to "prime suspect" or "likely killer", something other than another very long shot among a long list of long shots... Well. I find them unbelievable. And rather silly.

                              Hi Patrick S,

                              In fact, Fisherman now says that Paul didn't even speak to PC Mizen at all! See the bottom of the quoted section of post 159, where he's inserted his response into the quoted text just under my name and says "WHAT??? I do not think that Paul spoke to Mizen at all!" So that makes not only what Paul claims to have said to PC Mizen a lie, but even his claim to have said anything at all to PC Mizen is a lie by Paul. Good thing he's honest and precise with his time though, eh?

                              - Jeff

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post


                                Hi Patrick S,

                                In fact, Fisherman now says that Paul didn't even speak to PC Mizen at all! See the bottom of the quoted section of post 159, where he's inserted his response into the quoted text just under my name and says "WHAT??? I do not think that Paul spoke to Mizen at all!" So that makes not only what Paul claims to have said to PC Mizen a lie, but even his claim to have said anything at all to PC Mizen is a lie by Paul. Good thing he's honest and precise with his time though, eh?

                                - Jeff
                                Jeff,

                                that is the logical progression of Christer's theory, if Paul is not within earshot, how can he say anything to Mizen?


                                Of course what it demonstrates is the predetermination and bias present in the theory.

                                Paul needs to not hear what happens in the exchange between Mizen and Lechmere, otherwise the "Scam" needs, to evolve from just Lechmere, and to include Paul's active participation, and such has indeed been suggested as a possibility, has it not?

                                Equally, the corroboration between Paul and Lechmere, regarding Paul speaking to Mizen needs to be dismissed, either by going down the route above of complicity in the "Scam", or simply saying that Lechmere cannot corroborate, because he lies. He lies because he is the killer, and he is the killer because he lies, the ultimate circular argument.


                                The Timing issue has already mentioned, shows a tendency to pick from Lloyds, that which fits the Lechmere theory; and before I am accused of doing the same, I will state again that I only accept that statement, where it is corroborated by one or both of the other participants.

                                What we see employed here is the exact opposite, accept when there is no corroboration; dismiss when there is

                                When one finds an inconsistency, such as over the exchange, one needs to reach a probable conclusion based on actual evidence, not on what we would like the evidence to be.

                                And here I will highlight my work on the "Scam". I began by accepting all 3 accounts as being probably truthful in the main, and then came to the conclusion that the event never really occurred and was simply a misunderstanding. However, while researching another related point, I so the possibility that there was an alternative, which began as a simple mistake and indeed evolved into a "Scam" the Real Mizen Scam.

                                Further research and analysis then lead me to the conclusion reached in the work.


                                Steve





                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X