Lechmere validity

[Elamarna]

Maybe this is the "historic" approach that you pride yourself on - to accept as fact what a man who is suggested to be the killer says. Becasue that is what you do, repeatedly: trust Lechmere and give his testimony the same credence as that of the other participants in the drama.

I am not saying that one should not look on matters like that. It is something that must be done. But equally, when somebody is suggested as a suspect in a murder case, one must look at the matter from an angle where the proposed killer is not given the same credence as the other participants, to see what picture emerges then. It is what the police do, for example. They allow themselves the freedom of thought that stems from looking at the overall picture with the idea that X was the killer.

The problem of course is that you start from suspecting him, and follow with somewhat circular argument, you do not trust him because you think he is the killer, and because he is the killer he cannot be trusted.

You see I do not just look at what Lechmere says, I compare it to the known evidence, rather than speculation, and see if it can be corroborated. Following that method I see No reason not to trust the majority of what Lechmere says.


[QUOTE=Fisherman;n709955]

I can understand if it does not sit well with a more academic approach, based on the belief that nobody should be treated as a suspect at any stage; it is only when a case is proven that we may look in the mirror and see how the new outcome fits the old thinking.

It is a very nice way to treat people, generally speaking, and a comfortable working ethic since if dissolves the idea that suspects exist.

On a more realistic level, though, I think that it is absolutely useless when it comes to trying to establish the validity of a suspicion.

In your cozy little world, it can always be yelled "BIAS!!" once we look at cases from an angle that explores the possible guilt of a suspect. In my world (which is also the world of the police in this respect), it is accepted that - sad though it sounds - some people are less useful members of society than others.

I am perfectly willing to be called biased if those are the grounds. I prefer a thorough quest for the truth to half-religious strivings for everybody´s righ to be called innocent until proven guilty. You see it the other way around, although you are perfectly willing to accuse Mizen of lying on what will be circumstantial evidence only. Win a few, loose a few, eh?

My cosy world? You mean the one where theories have to be tested, and seen to stand or fall.

I believe there is ample non circumstantial evidence to suggest that Mizen is not telling a truthful account of what occurs from the moment he meets the Carmen until he meets Neil.


Steve

[Fisherman]

"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."

This is an example of how you point out that you are working to an agenda where you are ready to accept what Paul says if it is corroborated by Charles Lechmere - who is the person scrutinized for quite possibly being the killer of Nichols and who may quite well have read the Lloyds article. If you say that it is a "historically correct" way of going about finding out who may have been guilty in a murder case, I would like to take the opportunity to point out that it could well be the exact opposite - a surefire way not to be able to find out what really happened.

To me, this is a classic example of square thinking, a ridiculous approach to a problem that needs to be looked at with an open eye for all possibilities. Locking oneself to a dogmatic rule thinking was never a good thing, and in my view, it can achieve one thing only: a certainty that the case will never be solved.

I am quite fine with you exploring this route to wisdom, Steve, but that is not in any way going to stop me from using other paths. And I do NOT appreciate being called biased for it, so I would very much like if you could accept that and let us both move on. In the end, I say let the results decide which is the better way. Results are hard to argue with.

[Harry D]

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.

Yup, it's an exercise in futility. When Lechmere does anything remotely suspicious, it's because he's the killer. When he does anything perfectly innocent, it's because he's the killer. You simply can't have a rational debate with a suspect-based theorist. They are blinded by confirmation bias.

What do we think? That Fisherman is going to turnaround and proclaim "Damn, you've provided some strong and cogent arguments, perhaps I need to re-evaluate my convictions" or do we think he'll just double-down on the Lechmere as Ripper stuff?

[Fisherman]

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

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.

[Fisherman]

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

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.

[Fisherman]

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

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.

[Fisherman]

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

Maybe this is the "historic" approach that you pride yourself on - to accept as fact what a man who is suggested to be the killer says. Becasue that is what you do, repeatedly: trust Lechmere and give his testimony the same credence as that of the other participants in the drama.

I am not saying that one should not look on matters like that. It is something that must be done. But equally, when somebody is suggested as a suspect in a murder case, one must look at the matter from an angle where the proposed killer is not given the same credence as the other participants, to see what picture emerges then. It is what the police do, for example. They allow themselves the freedom of thought that stems from looking at the overall picture with the idea that X was the killer.

I can understand if it does not sit well with a more academic approach, based on the belief that nobody should be treated as a suspect at any stage; it is only when a case is proven that we may look in the mirror and see how the new outcome fits the old thinking.

It is a very nice way to treat people, generally speaking, and a comfortable working ethic since if dissolves the idea that suspects exist.

On a more realistic level, though, I think that it is absolutely useless when it comes to trying to establish the validity of a suspicion.

In your cozy little world, it can always be yelled "BIAS!!" once we look at cases from an angle that explores the possible guilt of a suspect. In my world (which is also the world of the police in this respect), it is accepted that - sad though it sounds - some people are less useful members of society than others.

I am perfectly willing to be called biased if those are the grounds. I prefer a thorough quest for the truth to half-religious strivings for everybody´s righ to be called innocent until proven guilty. You see it the other way around, although you are perfectly willing to accuse Mizen of lying on what will be circumstantial evidence only. Win a few, loose a few, eh?

[Fisherman]

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

Can you be just a little bit less dramatic? I said that I don´t think that Paul spoke to Mizen at all. I didn´t say that he could not have done so. I do not insist on how "exactly" should be taken as gospel, I say that I think that it may well be the best and closest timing we have.

I don´t make myself a zealot. But you seem intent on it. For whatever reason.

[Fisherman]

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

Then maybe they are also matters where it takes two listeners? I have very clearly clarified what I mean. I mean that much as I don´t personally THINK that the carmen made any side trips, there is no way that we can rule out that they may have done so. The wording "together" does not hinder it as such.
I really cant be any clearer than that.

[Elamarna]

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

[JeffHamm]

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

[Elamarna]

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

[Elamarna]

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

[Patrick S]

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.

[Abby Normal]

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?