Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lechmere validity

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

  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post


    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?
    If its in quotes, it should be seen as a direct quote, that's what i was always taught Abby.

    Why do we need anything else, we have BOTH Carmen saying that Paul Spoke; unless we have actual evidence to counter that we should accept it.


    Is there anything which says this may be incorrect apart from Mizen?


    Steve
    Last edited by Elamarna; 05-16-2019, 03:43 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

      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?
      hi sam

      isn't simply because lech was at the inquest so now Mizen knows his name?

      (and not sure what your statement has anything to do with the quote of els?you seem to be backing him up somehow, but I don't see the relevance between what you quoted El on and your response)

      "Is all that we see or seem
      but a dream within a dream?"

      -Edgar Allan Poe


      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

      -Frederick G. Abberline

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

        It's the same Article Abby.





        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.




        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
        he El
        no worries. Im burnt out anyway lol. need a break : ) but thanks for sticking with it!
        "Is all that we see or seem
        but a dream within a dream?"

        -Edgar Allan Poe


        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

        -Frederick G. Abberline

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

          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?
          Hi, Sam. This is a point I've made again and again. A recap:

          We know that Cross waited in Buck's Row for Paul and called his attention to Nichols.
          We know that Paul tried to walk past, but that Cross "touched his shoulder" and asked him to "come see".
          We know that Cross agreed to continue on with Paul to find a PC.
          We know he found Mizen in Baker's Row, and told him of a woman lying in Buck's Row.
          We know Mizen didn't ask or record his name (or search him or ask him any questions whatever).

          Now, regardless of whether or not he told Mizen Nichols was dead (as both he and Paul claimed) and regardless of whether or not he pulled this "Mizen Scam" and told him he (Mizen) was wanted by a PC in Buck's Row. We've been told that the "scam", the "bluffing it out" with Paul in Buck's Row was all aimed to "take him past the police"... then it seems to have been - shockingly - completely successful. He'd committed murder, made the first person who came along stop and have look at her, and then went off and told the first PC he found where he could find her. And walked off into the dark.... But, then... she shows up at the inquest. Why?

          There are two reasons that I know of that have been floated about.

          First, Paul's Lloyd's article is considered "a bombshell". It drives Cross out and compels him to appear at the inquest. But, this obviously ignores what Paul's Lloyd's statement actually says. Paul's telling has him as the prime actor. He comes across Cross in Buck's Row... and then leaves the reader to conclude that he (Paul) takes it from there. Paul doesn't specifically say he continued alone. but, Cross disappears from the narrative. Paul goes to find a PC. Paul tells him the woman is dead. Alas, what does this "bombshell" contain by way of information that may identify Cross? Well... Paul refers to Cross as "a man". That's it. Not a short man, tall man, skinny man, fat man. Not a CAR man, bearded man, bald man, young man, old man. THIS is the bombshell we're asked to believe DROVE Cross BACK to the police to tell lies about what he'd told PC Mizen.

          The second reason for Cross voluntarily appearing is of a much more recent vintage. It has him fearing he'd be "picked up" because he walked through Buck's Row (or near it) to work. Thus, he'd no choice but to go the inquest. Obviously, it's quite clear that it was quite easy for the police to "pick up" individuals for whom they have no name, even if they have some physical description to go by: Pipeman. Lipsky. Blotchy. The man Lawende saw. The man Long saw. All brought in, right? Well... perhaps these are poor examples. In any event, what IS clear is that it was simply less of an inconvenience for Cross to go to inquest and risk being exposed for "scamming" a PC, "bluffing it out" with Paul, and killing Nichols, than it would be to walk a few minutes out of your way to work for a few weeks.

          Comment


          • And of course Patrick, there was a route to work Lechmere could have taken which is hardly any difference in distance and goes well clear of Bucks Row.

            That route is: across the Cambridge Heath Road and North to Three Colts Lane, west via London St, Cheshire St, Hare St, Slater St, then south to Norton Folgate
            and onto Broad St.

            Distance 3280 yards Approx.

            The other routes via Bucks Row average out at about 3000 yards so that's an additional 300 yards, about 3 minutes extra walking at most.

            steve

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Patrick S View Post
              There are two reasons that I know of that have been floated about.

              First, Paul's Lloyd's article is considered "a bombshell". It drives Cross out and compels him to appear at the inquest. But, this obviously ignores what Paul's Lloyd's statement actually says. Paul's telling has him as the prime actor. He comes across Cross in Buck's Row... and then leaves the reader to conclude that he (Paul) takes it from there. Paul doesn't specifically say he continued alone. but, Cross disappears from the narrative. Paul goes to find a PC. Paul tells him the woman is dead. Alas, what does this "bombshell" contain by way of information that may identify Cross? Well... Paul refers to Cross as "a man". That's it. Not a short man, tall man, skinny man, fat man. Not a CAR man, bearded man, bald man, young man, old man. THIS is the bombshell we're asked to believe DROVE Cross BACK to the police to tell lies about what he'd told PC Mizen.

              The second reason for Cross voluntarily appearing is of a much more recent vintage. It has him fearing he'd be "picked up" because he walked through Buck's Row (or near it) to work. Thus, he'd no choice but to go the inquest. Obviously, it's quite clear that it was quite easy for the police to "pick up" individuals for whom they have no name, even if they have some physical description to go by: Pipeman. Lipsky. Blotchy. The man Lawende saw. The man Long saw. All brought in, right? Well... perhaps these are poor examples. In any event, what IS clear is that it was simply less of an inconvenience for Cross to go to inquest and risk being exposed for "scamming" a PC, "bluffing it out" with Paul, and killing Nichols, than it would be to walk a few minutes out of your way to work for a few weeks.
              Alternatively - and this is probably an outrageous suggestion - Cross was just a decent chap.
              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

                Alternatively - and this is probably an outrageous suggestion - Cross was just a decent chap.
                I think that's the most likely explanation Sam

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

                  Alternatively - and this is probably an outrageous suggestion - Cross was just a decent chap.
                  A fair reading of what we know might support that suggestion. I think his actions are what could be fairly expected of a "decent chap". His actions as they're reported by others include alerting Paul to a woman lying on the pavement. Telling a PC of the woman and where he could find her. Appearing voluntarily at the inquest a few days after the event. I've suggested in the past that many decent, law abiding citizens would have considered their civic duty done: Cross reported the woman lying in Buck's Row to a policeman. Yet, he goes further and lends his voice to the inquest. This thread of absurdity, of course, runs through it all. His staying to "bluff it out" with Paul. The "Mizen Scam". The idea that a murderer who walked away clean would appear at the inquest 72 hours later to tell lies about a policeman. Of course, this foolishness only works if we bring a belief that Cross was Jack the Ripper with us from the outset.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                    And of course Patrick, there was a route to work Lechmere could have taken which is hardly any difference in distance and goes well clear of Bucks Row.

                    That route is: across the Cambridge Heath Road and North to Three Colts Lane, west via London St, Cheshire St, Hare St, Slater St, then south to Norton Folgate
                    and onto Broad St.

                    Distance 3280 yards Approx.

                    The other routes via Bucks Row average out at about 3000 yards so that's an additional 300 yards, about 3 minutes extra walking at most.

                    steve
                    With that kind of detailed knowledge Steve you should consider writing a book on the events in Bucks Row.
                    Regards

                    Herlock






                    "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                    Comment


                    • And to restate the obvious, we have the complications of the Scam, like the fact that Lechmere couldn’t have known that he’d have been able to somehow speak to Mizen out of Paul’s hearing. And the fact that, in the darkness of the murder site, he couldn’t have known for anything like certain that he didn’t have blood on him when he came face to face with Mizen. We might even add that how could Lechmere have known that Paul wouldn’t have panicked and started accusing him of murder in Buck’s Row? Then we have to weigh all of this against the undoubted fact that Lechmere could have simply walked away to safety and avoided it all.
                      Regards

                      Herlock






                      "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                        What you see is how I say that it must be accepted that the PC in case may have told the truth. But you prefer to word it as if I am saying that we MUST believe the PC over the carman.
                        It is called misleading and it is closely linked to propaganda.
                        Something I've found "misleading" and perhaps acting as "propaganda" helping to inspire all those Lechmere fans to leave "two thumbs up" reviews for the "internationally sent documentary".

                        We're told, "When Christer discovered that his suspect's real name was Charles Lechmere, he could confirm where he lived and where he worked." This is clearly "misleading" in that it gives one the idea that his home and work addresses hadn't previously been known, and would have remained a mystery but for Christer's research. Then we're shown Christer and Andy determining timings based on the revelations that Lechmere originated from 22 Doveton Street and was bound for Pickford's in Broad Street.

                        Alas, we know that Christer's "suspect" gave his real address and place of employment AT THE INQUEST. These were never a mystery, were widely reported at the time, and have been known for 130 years. Of course, this information makes the revelation that he "gave a FALSE NAME at the inquest" far less damning (and less entertaining), doesn't it? "Closely linked to propaganda" indeed.
                        Last edited by Patrick S; 05-16-2019, 07:57 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                          And to restate the obvious, we have the complications of the Scam, like the fact that Lechmere couldn’t have known that he’d have been able to somehow speak to Mizen out of Paul’s hearing. And the fact that, in the darkness of the murder site, he couldn’t have known for anything like certain that he didn’t have blood on him when he came face to face with Mizen. We might even add that how could Lechmere have known that Paul wouldn’t have panicked and started accusing him of murder in Buck’s Row? Then we have to weigh all of this against the undoubted fact that Lechmere could have simply walked away to safety and avoided it all.
                          Of course this is all correct, Herlock. The whole premise begins with Cross, having just killed and mutilated Nichols, hearing footsteps forty yards off and deciding to simply stay on the spot with his victim, despite the fact that he had no idea WHO was approaching. As we now know, Christer does NOT endorse Griffiths' very clear statements in the internationally sent documentary that Lechmere HAD NO CHOICE but to remain because someone else (Paul) was in Buck's Row. Griffith's, the narration tells us, believes Lechmere COULD NOT escape due to the police presence in the area. So we have Lechmere killing and mutating Nichols, hearing footsteps forty yards off in the dark, and immediately CHOOSING to cede control of the environment by introducing this unknown person to the events in real time. And I'm supposed to avoid words like "laughable". I'm sorry... but I simply cannot.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Patrick S View Post

                            Of course this is all correct, Herlock. The whole premise begins with Cross, having just killed and mutilated Nichols, hearing footsteps forty yards off and deciding to simply stay on the spot with his victim, despite the fact that he had no idea WHO was approaching. As we now know, Christer does NOT endorse Griffiths' very clear statements in the internationally sent documentary that Lechmere HAD NO CHOICE but to remain because someone else (Paul) was in Buck's Row. Griffith's, the narration tells us, believes Lechmere COULD NOT escape due to the police presence in the area. So we have Lechmere killing and mutating Nichols, hearing footsteps forty yards off in the dark, and immediately CHOOSING to cede control of the environment by introducing this unknown person to the events in real time. And I'm supposed to avoid words like "laughable". I'm sorry... but I simply cannot.
                            The "scam", which is specifically the claim that Lechmere/Cross told PC Mizen a policeman wanted him in Buck's Row, was also entirely unnecessary for purpose. The goal, according to Fisherman, is to get PC Mizen to move on as quickly as possible so he's not searched. But getting searched is more likely as soon as he mentions she might be dead, which he testifies that he did. Now, if his claim that Paul said "I think she's dead", that would mean they're both right there, hearing what each other says to PC Mizen. Cross/Lechmere, to avoid being searched, just needs to downplay the dead part (because the more PC Mizen is made to believe there's a dead woman on the street, the more probable the risk of him also taking names, and doing a quick search), so he would only have to say something like "Maybe, she's probably drunk, but she is certainly near death and needs your assistance". If, we ignore all the coroborating statements that put Lechmere/Cross and Paul both talking to PC Mizen at the same time, and make Paul vanish, then again, all the more reason why all Lechmere/Cross has to do is report a drunk woman, passed out who appears near death is in Buck's Row. This isn't something a cop is going to take names for, or search someone, it's just someone doing their civic duty.

                            The "scam", as a scam, is both illogical and unwarrented by the overall evidence. It does not logically follow from anything we have, and is specifically designed to remove from consideration a large amount of the limited evidence we have (testimonies that Cross/Lechmere and Paul walked together, were in company as described by PC Mizen, and indications that both Cross/Lechmere and Paul spoke to PC Mizen, some of that coming from newspaper reports, others from the inquest testimony itself). The bits of testimony that become questionable are greatly reduced (PC Mizen saying he was told he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row) are of the sort that occur in spoken testimony (when he got to Buck's Row he was indeed wanted by a policeman, PC Neil sent him off to the ambulance, and there was indeed a dead woman in the street - human memory, being what it is, would easily conflate these two events resulting in PC Mizen simply either misremembering, so not lying per se, or even simply misspeaking.

                            Comparing the unnecessary complexity of the "scam" hypothesis with the alternative shows that the scam hypothesis is neither evidence based nor necessary, and results in a large scale culling of indpendant bits of data/evidence. It is designed to make disconfirming evidence "go away" in order for a chosen theory to remain in consideration. Therefore, unless new evidence comes to light to corroborate it, it should be considered falsified. Mind you, it's creative, and it would make for good TV.

                            - Jeff

                            Comment


                            • I’ve mentioned this before but why didn’t Lechmere simply say to Paul as they walked away from the body “to increase our chances of finding a Constable you go that way and I’ll go this way”? Then Lechmere would have just had to avoid a Constable and any chance of being searched.
                              Regards

                              Herlock






                              "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                                I’ve mentioned this before but why didn’t Lechmere simply say to Paul as they walked away from the body “to increase our chances of finding a Constable you go that way and I’ll go this way”? Then Lechmere would have just had to avoid a Constable and any chance of being searched.
                                Or better yet, why didn't he just take off the moment he saw someone in the distance coming down Buck's Row and avoid all the complications of having someone see his face in the first place? Or let Paul pass when it was clear he was going to?

                                Nothing in Lechmere/Cross's behaviour is at all consistent with the conclusion of guilt.

                                - Jeff

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X