Lechmere validity

[Elamarna]

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

[Elamarna]

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

[Elamarna]

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?

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

[Patrick S]

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?

[JeffHamm]

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

[Patrick S]

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.

[JeffHamm]

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

[Abby Normal]

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.

[Fisherman]

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?

[Fisherman]

Indeed, even after the two of them left, they apparently weren't even sure if she was dead or just passed out, so they clearly didn't realize she had been murdered even when they left.

- Jeff

If, that is ...

[Fisherman]

Me a wet blanket

If you argued this all out and conclude that Lechmere lied to Mizen (and said there was a PC on Buck Row,) you don't gain much. Lechmere's entire motivation may have been nothing more than a simple blow off, making sure PC Mizen doesn't say "show me"?

Maybe he actually just wanted to go to work.

And then denying it at inquest really doesn't amount to much; his alternative would have been to tell the truth: "I lied because I didn't want to get involved."

Concluding Lechmere lied doesn't really mean too much; but finding him next to the body never goes away.

The possible lie is something that carries a lot of suspicion. And we can see that Mizen acted as if he HAD been lied to - he did apparently not challenge what Neil said on the first inquest day, meaning that is seems Mizen was convinced that a PC, not the carmen, was the finder.

[Fisherman]

Where would the scam be if Mizen had arrived at the body before Neil?

It would have had Lechmere past the police with all the time in the world to get rid of the murder weapon and clean up, Joshua. To be frank, I suspect that is where Lechmere expected to find himself as he spoke to Mizen; reasonably he could not be sure that Neil would be in place. It was nevertheless the best option he had at that stage. And he would have had the same exit door open at the inquest - just deny what Mizen says and nobody can prove anything. That was exactly what he did if he was the killer, and to great effect too.

[Fisherman]

It's a case built on half-truths and faulty suppositions. It's no different than 99% of the suspect-based theories, only Lechmere has the advantage of being at the scene of the crime. The discrepancies regarding 'Cross' and the "Mizen Scam" have been totally overblown, as they need to be to construct an argument for Lechmere's guilt. Cross was his stepfather's surname, he may have used it in a formal capacity (see the incident in 1876), and it's worthless to lie about your surname and nothing else. Mizen was told he was needed in Buck's Row. When he found PC Neil at the scene, in hindsight he believed Lechmere had told him he was wanted by another policeman. A perfectly rational, human explanation that doesn't assume any dishonesty on the part of Lechmere or Mizen.

What is out you call "half-truth", Harry? I note that you like that term. Please expand!

[Fisherman]

I still don't see how this scam is supposed to work. Presumably, Lechmere hoodwinked Mizen because he didn't want to be searched or questioned by the police, otherwise they might find the murder weapon/blood stains or discover who he was. Therefore, Mizen is led to believe they've already been cleared and lets them on their merry way.

First of all, if Lechmere HAD still been carrying a knife or had any stains on him, I seriously doubt he would've stopped to approach Paul and take him to find a PC in the first place. He would've done a bunk, or agreed to split up and make his escape. Doesn't make sense. That's notwithstanding the fact for a man wishing to conceal his identity, he voluntarily attended the inquest and provided his name, address and place of business.

So he would have run?

Now, WHERE have I heard that before...?

[Fisherman]

Jeff,

I think that post gives a very fair analysis of what may have occurred.

There is however one slight mistake, Paul Does Not specifically say in his Testimony that he spoke to Mizen, he is reported in the accounts has talking in the plural, "we" and "they". Unfortunately there are no verbatim reports of his testimony.

However, he does specifically say he did speak to Mizen in the Lloyds article, which I constantly argue should only be accepted, when it is corroborated by either Lechmere or Mizen, and here it is corroborated by Lechmere, in his inquests Testimony.

It is therefore clear that both Carmen are claiming that both of them spoke to Mizen, to counter this one requires more than Mizen, simply not mentioning any interaction with Paul, he does not specifically say Paul does not talk, such must be noted.

To argue that Paul must be out of earshot, is speculation at best, with the sole objective of making the "SCAM" work.

While agreeing with the basic idea, of why Mizen may have reacted the way he did, not realizing it was an emergency until after the event, I propose a further twist in my upcoming work, one which does not make Mizen a bad man or bad Police officer, just someone trying to protect himself.

Steve

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.