Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lechmere validity

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

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    Once again, I do not state that as a fact at all, I state it as something I believe is a likely thing. But of course, if it feels better to misrepresent what I say, go ahead. It´s not the first time and it will not be the last.

    Being able to see these not very subtle differences is something that tells a useful poster apart from one that will get things wrong - and brag about it.
    Hi Fisherman,

    You made an absolute statement ""WHAT??? I do not think that Paul spoke to Mizen at all!", there is nothing that in that statement that allows for it to be read as you saying it is only possible that Paul did not speak to Mizen, you put it in no uncertain terms that you do not believe he spoke to Mizen. You stated it as an absolute belief, therefore you stated it as if it were a fact as far as you are concerned. Yet, when I include such indications of probability, like the word "may" you accuse me of stating things as facts and launch into insults and other pejorative language.

    You state things as facts, and claim you're stating possibilities, others, like myself, phrase things as possibilities, and you cry that we're stating facts. It is impossible to have a discussion with you because of this. You indicate you believe to some extent that either Cross/Lechmere or Paul made some sort of side-trip between leaving Nichols and before arriving at PC Mizen because you said you could not rule them out - that means you believe these side trips might have occurred. I indicated I believe the data and testimonies we had allow us to rule those out as (to the extent we can rule out anything, meaning they are, in my view, so highly unlikely given what we know that we can be as sure as we can be that they did not occur - even now I'm not stating that as a fact, just that the likelihood ratio is so in favour of them not happening that we shouldn't be wasting time considering highly improbable events). Now, because of our different views on the probabilities of those side trips, I was interested in hearing your thoughts on these side-trips that you believe cannot be ruled out, as to which of the men you thought might have made one, where (as in what street you thought might be likely, how far did they go, why would they go, why would the other wait, etc). You've refused to answer any of those questions, despite I made it clear I wasn't expecting these to be backed up by any sort of evidence because we both know there isn't any, but I was curious as to your thinking since you couldn't rule them out. I can't conceive of answers to those questions because I have a strong belief they probably didn't occur, you apparently have more of a belief in them than I (I'm not even saying you seem to think them likely, but you clearly think they are not as unlikely as I do). I have found that it is by listening to others ideas, even about things I've got a current and opposite opinion on, that is when I might be exposed to ideas that I simply have not conceived of and I am capable of changing my views if the new idea is convincing, plausible, and doesn't violate the data and evidence we have. We can stretch the evidence a bit, but our explanations must, in the end, be constrained by it. If we simply ignore all the evidence, then anything is possible, it is the evidence that limits those possibilities, so one has to have a very good argument (also evidence based) to overturn or ignore the data we do have - and we have precious little.

    But I've given up any hope of you doing so because of this sort of thing. You state things as absolutes and claim you mean a probabilistic, you read a probabilistic and scream absolutes have been stated. This isn't a discussion, it isn't an exchange of ideas. I don't know what it is actually, but it's sort of amusing at times, but in the end, it's not very enlightening.

    - Jeff
    Last edited by JeffHamm; 05-16-2019, 09:43 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

      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
      hi el
      heres the LLoyds article interview with Paul.

      "On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said :- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head. "

      according to this Paul took the lead. hes the hero. he belittles the police. its full of boastfulness and untruths. it even has him separating from Lech and talking to Mizen on his own! and polly is long dead in this according to Paul. its obvious the subsequent news papers where they say something along the lines of "the other man said she was dead" were cribbed from this. all the other reports, inquest statements is the we stuff.

      I doubt Paul ever spoke to Mizen at all.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

        Again no, suggesting a theory is not being biased. There is no bias whatsoever in pointing to how Paul MAY have been out of earshot and how that means that the theory MAY be correct in this respect. It is the plain and simple truth that this may have been so. Claiming that pointing that out is biased is professing to not understanding the processes involved.
        There IS bias, however, when one espouses that all these made-up "mays" and "maybes", inventions, that make no logical sense to unbiased observers but lead you to a to profess a certainty of the "carman's: guilt of, what number did you give, 75%? 85%? This goes beyond "suggestion". You mentioned propaganda earlier. An appropriate term, I think.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

          hi el
          heres the LLoyds article interview with Paul.

          "On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said :- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head. "

          according to this Paul took the lead. hes the hero. he belittles the police. its full of boastfulness and untruths. it even has him separating from Lech and talking to Mizen on his own! and polly is long dead in this according to Paul. its obvious the subsequent news papers where they say something along the lines of "the other man said she was dead" were cribbed from this. all the other reports, inquest statements is the we stuff.

          I doubt Paul ever spoke to Mizen at all.
          Hi, Abby. In your view, is Paul to believed when it comes to his "exact" time of "a quarter to four" for his "pass(ing) up Buck's Row"? I'm not quite prepared to say that Paul's statement is full of untruths and may stop short of saying he "belittles" the police (as opposed to being critical of their actions the night of Nichols' murder). However, I'm open to the possibility that his statement is boastful and inaccurate. But, If we concede that it was "full of untruths", how should we view, then, his "exact" timing for passing up Buck's Row?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

            hi el
            heres the LLoyds article interview with Paul.

            "On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said :- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head. "

            according to this Paul took the lead. hes the hero. he belittles the police. its full of boastfulness and untruths. it even has him separating from Lech and talking to Mizen on his own! and polly is long dead in this according to Paul. its obvious the subsequent news papers where they say something along the lines of "the other man said she was dead" were cribbed from this. all the other reports, inquest statements is the we stuff.

            I doubt Paul ever spoke to Mizen at all.
            Sorry I fundamentally disagree Abby.

            Yes the account needs to be treated with a great deal of caution, which is why I say only accept that which can be corroborated. Either that or REJECT it in TOTAL, so NO man standing in the road, NO 4 minutes to reach Mizen and certainly NO 3.45 exactly.

            The reports which say the "other man" are from Lechmere at the inquest on the 3rd, it is he saying "other man".
            So you are saying that you do not believe Lechmere, that he is inventing it. What evidence is it that leads you to this conclusion can I ask? Other than Lechmere is a liar, I mean?

            If Paul really did say something similar to that Lechmere presents, what else would you expect Lechmere to say.? It appears that you do not wish to accept Paul may have spoken.

            Or are you suggesting that the press are inventing those comments?

            Are you seriously suggesting that the reporters at the inquest are not reporting what is said at the inquest ?

            If so, then we might as well just throw all the inquest reports out of the window.

            I am confused what you mean by cribbing, who is cribbing The Press or Lechmere?

            I am genuinely flummoxed as to why you chose to disbelieve both of the Carmen, I can see no evidence which leads one to that conclusion.

            Really sorry that we disagree on this, but such is life



            Steve

            .

            Last edited by Elamarna; 05-16-2019, 02:13 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Patrick S View Post

              Hi, Abby. In your view, is Paul to believed when it comes to his "exact" time of "a quarter to four" for his "pass(ing) up Buck's Row"? I'm not quite prepared to say that Paul's statement is full of untruths and may stop short of saying he "belittles" the police (as opposed to being critical of their actions the night of Nichols' murder). However, I'm open to the possibility that his statement is boastful and inaccurate. But, If we concede that it was "full of untruths", how should we view, then, his "exact" timing for passing up Buck's Row?
              hi Patrick
              I knew this was coming LOL. and Mizen is lying (or mistaken) yet gets his timings right?

              but ill try to answer-Im not necessarily saying Paul is lying or mistaken in this article-it could be BS from the reporter or paper. Im just stating that this Lloyds report seems to be highly innacurate and has paul stating that he thinks shes dead (and not only that-long dead) and that the subsequent papers take this and add to their reports-all seemingly implying that Paull spoke directly to mizen (ie.-"the other man said I think shes dead"). everything else has Paul saying we.

              and yes-even if the Lloyds article is accurate with what Paul said to them (which is questionable in its own right)and he lied out his face to them, he can still be accurate with his timing on entering Bucks Row-its two separate things-done at two different times-for two different reasons-told to two different audiences. he could be lying about one and telling the truth about the other. and anyway-Ones innocuous-the time he entered bucks row(who cares?)-and the other is not-his "im the man" interview with Lloyds. and I find no other compelling reason why he must be off on his time in Bucks row.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                -Ones innocuous-the time he entered bucks row(who cares?)-and the other is not-his "im the man" interview with Lloyds. and I find no other compelling reason why he must be off on his time in Bucks row.
                That's the problem Abby, its not innocuous.
                The whole idea of Lechmere being alone with the body comes from this time.

                I have tried to explain so many times, if the 3.45 exactly is not correct, that supposed gap when Lech is alone with Nichols, claimed to be up to 9 minutes, simply disappears.

                You don't see 3 police officers giving contrary evidence as a compelling reason for his time being off? Not to mention the synchronization issue.?

                Steve
                Last edited by Elamarna; 05-16-2019, 02:30 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                  Sorry I fundamentally disagree Abby.

                  Yes the account needs to be treated with a great deal of caution, which is why I say only accept that which can be corroborated. Either that or REJECT it in TOTAL, so NO man standing in the road, NO 4 minutes to reach Mizen and certainly NO 3.45 exactly.

                  The reports which say the "other man" are from Lechmere at the inquest on the 3rd, it is he saying "other man".
                  So you are saying that you do not believe Lechmere, that he is inventing it. What evidence is it that leads you to this conclusion can I ask? Other than Lechmere is a liar, I mean?

                  If Paul really did say something similar to that Lechmere presents, what else would you expect Lechmere to say.? It appears that you do not wish to accept Paul may have spoken.

                  Or are you suggesting that the press are inventing those comments?

                  Are you seriously suggesting that the reporters at the inquest are not reporting what is said at the inquest ?

                  If so, then we might as well just throw all the inquest reports out of the window.

                  I am confused what you mean by cribbing, who is cribbing The Press or Lechmere?

                  I am genuinely flummoxed as to why you chose to disbelieve both of the Carmen, I can see no evidence which leads one to that conclusion.

                  Really sorry that we disagree on this, but such is life



                  Steve

                  .
                  hi el
                  these are the reports you provided below. lech isn't saying paul said "I think shes dead". the reporter is.





                  IPN 8th September

                  "and in Baker's-row they saw Police-constable Mizen. They told him that a
                  woman was lying in Buck's-row, witness adding, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk." The other
                  man observed, "I think she's dead.""



                  Star 3rd September

                  "They went up Baker's-row, and saw the last witness. Witness said to him, "There's a woman lying down in Buck'srow
                  on the broad of her back. I think she's dead or drunk." The other man said, "I believe she's dead."



                  The Times 4th September

                  "They went to Baker's-row, saw the last witness, and
                  told him there was a woman lying down in Buck's-row on the broad of her back. Witness also said he
                  believed she was dead or drunk, while the other man stated he believed her to be dead"




                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                    hi el
                    these are the reports you provided below. lech isn't saying paul said "I think shes dead". the reporter is.




                    IPN 8th September
                    "and in Baker's-row they saw Police-constable Mizen. They told him that a
                    woman was lying in Buck's-row, witness adding, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk." The other
                    man observed, "I think she's dead.""



                    Star 3rd September
                    "They went up Baker's-row, and saw the last witness. Witness said to him, "There's a woman lying down in Buck'srow
                    on the broad of her back. I think she's dead or drunk." The other man said, "I believe she's dead."



                    The Times 4th September
                    "They went to Baker's-row, saw the last witness, and
                    told him there was a woman lying down in Buck's-row on the broad of her back. Witness also said he
                    believed she was dead or drunk, while the other man stated he believed her to be dead"




                    Afraid not Abby, those comments are all in internal quotation marks within the inquest reports. They should be interpreted as being direct quotes from Lechmere, The IPN and Star may come from a common source. The times generally reported in the 3rd person.

                    The one you left out is in the 1st person throughout. With conversation given additional quotation marks
                    Echo 3rd September

                    ""There's a woman lying in Buck's-row. She looks to me as though she was dead, or drunk." The other
                    man then said, "I believe she is dead." I don't know who this man was; he was a stranger, but appeared
                    to me to be a carman. From the time I left my home I did not see anyone until I saw the man who
                    overtook me in Buck's-row."


                    They are all quotes from Lechmere's testimony on the 3rd, it is Lechmere saying Paul said it, NOT the Reporter.


                    Steve
                    Last edited by Elamarna; 05-16-2019, 03:03 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                      That's the problem Abby, its not innocuous.
                      The whole idea of Lechmere being alone with the body comes from this time.

                      I have tried to explain so many times, if the 3.45 exactly is not correct, that supposed gap when Lech is alone with Nichols, claimed to be up to 9 minutes, simply disappears.

                      You don't see 3 police officers giving contrary evidence as a compelling reason for his time being off? Not to mention the synchronization issue.?

                      Steve
                      hi el
                      IMHO it is innocuous, compared to his Lloyds article-which I was responding to Patricks query about how could he be accurate with one and not the other-and the reason is because ones a boastful article and the other is simply when he entered bucks row.

                      "The whole idea of Lechmere being alone with the body comes from this time."

                      Lech WAS alone with the body-we just dont know how long-which is what were debating and trying to figure out.

                      "You don't see 3 police officers giving contrary evidence as a compelling reason for his time being off?"

                      I see it as possible evidence he was off, but no not compelling-two of the police contradict each other-so theyre out, which only leaves Mizen contradicting. and as ive mentioned many times before-I think between him and paul, paul has the upper hand in accuracy, because hes marking his time with something that just happened before-him leaving home.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                        hi Patrick
                        I knew this was coming LOL. and Mizen is lying (or mistaken) yet gets his timings right?

                        but ill try to answer-Im not necessarily saying Paul is lying or mistaken in this article-it could be BS from the reporter or paper. Im just stating that this Lloyds report seems to be highly innacurate and has paul stating that he thinks shes dead (and not only that-long dead) and that the subsequent papers take this and add to their reports-all seemingly implying that Paull spoke directly to mizen (ie.-"the other man said I think shes dead"). everything else has Paul saying we.

                        and yes-even if the Lloyds article is accurate with what Paul said to them (which is questionable in its own right)and he lied out his face to them, he can still be accurate with his timing on entering Bucks Row-its two separate things-done at two different times-for two different reasons-told to two different audiences. he could be lying about one and telling the truth about the other. and anyway-Ones innocuous-the time he entered bucks row(who cares?)-and the other is not-his "im the man" interview with Lloyds. and I find no other compelling reason why he must be off on his time in Bucks row.
                        Thanks, Abby.

                        I'm not saying he's lying or mistaken with respect to his timings, either. I'm also not saying he's completely honest, accurate, and correct in any or everything he says.

                        I maintain that we simply don't know. We don't know anything about Paul's character, despite efforts that have been made to characterize him as "lying" and "big-upping" in his Lloyd's statement. We don't know that he was the kind of person to allow himself to be duped and manipulated by Cross. We don't know if his character was such that he'd allow Cross tell lies to a PC and agree to go along with those lies, tacitly or otherwise.

                        For reasons I've made in previous posts, I don't think that we know enough about Paul to say he harbored an anti-police sentiment or bias. I think there's enough evidence to suggest the possibility that Paul's comments were to some extent justified, especially as they pertain to Mizen's reaction, and/or informed by media and local criticism of the police for the fact that four previous attacks on woman had occurred "under their noses" in the area and their inability to resolve those cases. In short, I do not think the frustration with and criticism of the police could be inferred from his Lloyd's statement were atypical of East End residents in the late summer of 1888.

                        As to his time, I share you're viewpoint. I have no reason to believe Paul is lying about his time for entering Buck's Row. I think it's likely that it was not "exactly" 3:45am when he walked up Buck's Row. But, that feeling is based more on the realities of establishing firm, to the minute times, in Victorian London, not on any desire to discredit Paul or because of some perception that it was his character to lie. Again, aside from what we know he said in Lloyd's and at the inquest we know absolutely nothing about him. Thus, I stop short of seeing "big upping" and "police hatred" in his statement.

                        It's simply my view that Paul becomes whatever the Lechmere theory or the Mizen scam need him to be.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                          Afraid not Abby, those comments are all in internal quotation marks within the inquest reports. They should be interpreted as being direct quotes from Lechmere, The IPN and Star may come from a common source. The times generally reported in the 3rd person.

                          The one you left out is in the 1st person throughout. With conversation given additional quotation marks
                          Echo 3rd September

                          ""There's a woman lying in Buck's-row. She looks to me as though she was dead, or drunk." The other
                          man then said, "I believe she is dead." I don't know who this man was; he was a stranger, but appeared
                          to me to be a carman. From the time I left my home I did not see anyone until I saw the man who
                          overtook me in Buck's-row."


                          They are all quotes from Lechmere's testimony on the 3rd, it is Lechmere saying Paul said it, NOT the Reporter.


                          Steve

                          Thanks El
                          well that last one (thanks for providing!)does appear to have lech having Paul saying it directly but the others do not IMHO. however, in none of them does it have him speaking or saying anything directly to Mizen. theyre all so nebulous. Is there anything other than the Lloyds article that has Paul saying he himself spoke directly to mizen?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                            They are all quotes from Lechmere's testimony on the 3rd, it is Lechmere saying Paul said it, NOT the Reporter.
                            And get this, from the Echo: Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross [my underline]

                            He "now" knew the man to be named Cross... Mizen only found out Cross's name sometime after the night in question, which almost certainly means that Mizen didn't take down his name or contact details at the time. Which in turn means that Cross came forward separately to volunteer those details. Whether he did so unprompted, in response to an appeal for witnesses, or on Mizen's instruction, he did the right thing, didn't he?
                            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Patrick S View Post

                              Thanks, Abby.

                              I'm not saying he's lying or mistaken with respect to his timings, either. I'm also not saying he's completely honest, accurate, and correct in any or everything he says.

                              I maintain that we simply don't know. We don't know anything about Paul's character, despite efforts that have been made to characterize him as "lying" and "big-upping" in his Lloyd's statement. We don't know that he was the kind of person to allow himself to be duped and manipulated by Cross. We don't know if his character was such that he'd allow Cross tell lies to a PC and agree to go along with those lies, tacitly or otherwise.

                              For reasons I've made in previous posts, I don't think that we know enough about Paul to say he harbored an anti-police sentiment or bias. I think there's enough evidence to suggest the possibility that Paul's comments were to some extent justified, especially as they pertain to Mizen's reaction, and/or informed by media and local criticism of the police for the fact that four previous attacks on woman had occurred "under their noses" in the area and their inability to resolve those cases. In short, I do not think the frustration with and criticism of the police could be inferred from his Lloyd's statement were atypical of East End residents in the late summer of 1888.

                              As to his time, I share you're viewpoint. I have no reason to believe Paul is lying about his time for entering Buck's Row. I think it's likely that it was not "exactly" 3:45am when he walked up Buck's Row. But, that feeling is based more on the realities of establishing firm, to the minute times, in Victorian London, not on any desire to discredit Paul or because of some perception that it was his character to lie. Again, aside from what we know he said in Lloyd's and at the inquest we know absolutely nothing about him. Thus, I stop short of seeing "big upping" and "police hatred" in his statement.

                              It's simply my view that Paul becomes whatever the Lechmere theory or the Mizen scam need him to be.
                              thanks Patrick

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                                hi el
                                IMHO it is innocuous, compared to his Lloyds article-which I was responding to Patricks query about how could he be accurate with one and not the other-and the reason is because ones a boastful article and the other is simply when he entered bucks row.
                                It's the same Article Abby.


                                Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post


                                "The whole idea of Lechmere being alone with the body comes from this time."

                                Lech WAS alone with the body-we just dont know how long-which is what were debating and trying to figure out.



                                He is not alone with the body if, as I and other contend he is only 40 or 50 yards ahead of Paul in Bucks Row.

                                without the gap caused by Paul's 3.45 exactly there is NOTHING to say Lechmere is there alone with the body, absolutely nothing.


                                Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post


                                "You don't see 3 police officers giving contrary evidence as a compelling reason for his time being off?"

                                I see it as possible evidence he was off, but no not compelling-two of the police contradict each other-so theyre out, which only leaves Mizen contradicting. and as ive mentioned many times before-I think between him and paul, paul has the upper hand in accuracy, because hes marking his time with something that just happened before-him leaving home.
                                Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                                How do they contradict each other Abby? I assume you mean Thain and Neil?
                                Neil says "AT 3.45"; Thain says "AT ABOUT 3.45" such is consistent with the account of Neil of hearing Thain immediately after he finds the body.

                                So it does not leave just Mizen, all 3 remain.

                                To give Paul the upper hand over Mizen, based on Speculation that something happened at home is just that, speculation.
                                Are we really expected to believe that Paul would have a more accurate time, than a police officer engaged in knocking up?

                                We are not going to agree which is sad, but its not the first time, and wont be the last.


                                cheers


                                Steve

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X