Lechmere validity

[Patrick S]

Hi Harry D,

The "scam" idea also creates more problems of validity for the whole Lechmere/Cross is guilty. If he actually lied and said to PC Mizen that he was wanted by a PC, then if Paul's in company with him, he's now got a witness to that lie who could contradict him. He might bank on Paul saying nothing and hope Paul thinks he's just trying to get PC Mizen to go more quickly to the aid of the woman. But, once that lie was uncovered, as it did come up in the inquest, if Paul backed PC Mizen up then Cross/Lechmere will have some explaining to do. And, given that Paul also thought Nichols might be dead, there was no need for any sort of "scam", they just have to tell PC Mizen that the woman was dead and he would go - as he did say she was dead or drunk, and he also testifies that Paul said he thought she was dead. Simply adding "he was wanted by a PC" doesn't really increase PC Mizen's need to go, it's a pretty limp scam really. But inserting that lie would make the whole "scam" just serve to increase attention on him if it were uncovered (as he would have thought likely given that when they left there was no PC in Buck's Row, and two a guilty Cross/Lechmere would know what is going to be found). The point of the "scam" was the exact opposite, though, to divert suspicion from him yet it clearly is going to do exactly the opposite once revealed. So the theory actually contradicts itself, and in a way that is painfully obvious that it would. And given that Cross/Lechmere has identified himself, and given details of residence and place of work, etc, he's clearly not worried about the police finding him, which he would be if guilty.

Now, if Paul is not close enough to hear, despite the testimony that he spoke to PC Mizen (at least according to Cross/Lechmere) that might mitigate some of the risk since now Paul couldn't back up PC Mizen. Hence Fisherman's focus on redefining what walking together and being in company means (Oxford might need to put out a new dictionary soon for all the new definitions that seem to arise out of this Lechmere/Cross theory actually). The scam, is, well, a scam. It's an overly complex and unnecessary complication when viewed at from the evidence to theory, but it's a necessary aspect if start from the theory and need to make the evidence fit it. The former is how we try to track down truth, the latter is how we make up stories.

- Jeff

The whole "scam" is non-intuitive. As you say, "it's pretty limp". It's not something anyone trying to achieve the objective (getting away with Nichols' murder) would conceive, much less execute. Further, in order to arrive at the point where this "scam" is deemed necessary (according to Christer, et al), Cross must make several decisions that do not serve to achieve his objective, either: 1. Waiting for Paul to arrive rather than walking way; 2. Telling Cross about the presence of Nichols' body in Buck's Row even as he (Paul) tried to walk past him; 3. Going with Paul to find a PC rather than simply walking in another direction. And then, having somehow achieved escape... duping Paul, "scamming" Mizen (who didn't ask his name or for any information at all that may be used to identify him), his next decision was to appear at the inquest voluntarily because of Paul's Lloyd's article, which refers to him only as "a man", but to mitigate against danger by giving the name "Cross" rather than "Lechmere" but giving his genuine address and place of employment. We've been told alternately that Cross had "no choice" (by Griffiths in the documentary - he's quite clear saying that he COULD NOT have walked on because someone else was in Buck's Row and that flight was further made impossible leaving Cross NO CHOICE but to stay and bluff it out) and that he "chose" this convoluted path of bluffs and scams because he liked the action and excitement. In short, there IS no evidence to support the theory. There is invention and assumption, but even those aren't enough to make it plausible. Of course, the same can be said of many other theories floating around. I think the frustration of those peddling this one is that their "candidate" hasn't been elevated as the "prime suspect" or the "likely killer". And I think that's done a dis-service to the work they've done.

[Patrick S]

Jeff,


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

Exactly right. Of course this is primary reason I call the Mizen Scam "laughable". There are so many "devices" for lack of a better term required for it's existence.

[Patrick S]

Well, PC Mizen describes Cross/Lechmere as being in company, so together. Paul testisifies he spoke with PC Mizen, which isn't mentioned in PC Mizen's testimony. Paul and Cross/Lechmere also indicate that after examining Nichols they decided the best thing was to go find a PC, and when they left they didn't go running or anything, they just contined on their way to work. That indicates they were both unaware of the extent of her injuries. So when they spoke to PC Mizen they are not going to be frantic, but rather conveying what the thought they found, a woman laying in the street, whom they thought might be dead, but that belief was probably not as strong at the time they reported it as it would become after it was confirmed she was dead, and worse, mutilated. So, at the time there's no reason for separation as the incident they would be reporting would be coming across as more likely just someone passed out drunk. Hence, PC Mizen probably finished knocking up a few more places before heading off to Buck's Row - the situation did not appear to be the emergency that it was. Both the increase in the belief she was dead, and the down playing by PC Mizen, is what happens with human memory as more facts come to light. Paul and Cross/Lechmere both increase their presentation and memory of how sure they were she was dead, and PC Mizen downplays the importance (and inserts the idea of being need by a PC because when he got there he was needed by PC Neil to go get the ambulance). His downplaying justifies why he kept knocking up, but recognizing the seriousness of the incident once he gets there also means he deny's that, probably because it was one or two more residences.

And Cross/Lechmere, being the one who drew Paul into the whole scenario, means he's the one who is still primarily responsible for reporting the incident to the PC, so he would be the one to speak first. It's all very mundane and innocent type behaviour. And, with the lack of any testimony indicating that PC Mizen spoke to the men separately (Fisherman's descriptions in previous posts describe a situation where Paul doesn't even speak to PC Mizen, but we know that's wrong because of Paul's testimony, and we know Fisherman himself doesn't believe that because the Lloyd's article, if anything, indicates it's Paul who did all the talking).

So, while one could say it is possible the men were spoken to separately, there is nothing in the evidence to support that claim, and it is unnecessary to presume it given the evidence we do have, which places them together, does not produce any issues when taken at face value. I guess what's missing (and I don't mean this disparagingly) is any evidence to back it up, and nothing incoherent in the evidence that gets resolved by inserting it as an unsupported assumption.

- Jeff

Good summation. A common sense interpretation of what we know based on the sources. Nice work and thanks.

[Harry D]

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.

[JeffHamm]

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.

Hi Harry D,

The "scam" idea also creates more problems of validity for the whole Lechmere/Cross is guilty. If he actually lied and said to PC Mizen that he was wanted by a PC, then if Paul's in company with him, he's now got a witness to that lie who could contradict him. He might bank on Paul saying nothing and hope Paul thinks he's just trying to get PC Mizen to go more quickly to the aid of the woman. But, once that lie was uncovered, as it did come up in the inquest, if Paul backed PC Mizen up then Cross/Lechmere will have some explaining to do. And, given that Paul also thought Nichols might be dead, there was no need for any sort of "scam", they just have to tell PC Mizen that the woman was dead and he would go - as he did say she was dead or drunk, and he also testifies that Paul said he thought she was dead. Simply adding "he was wanted by a PC" doesn't really increase PC Mizen's need to go, it's a pretty limp scam really. But inserting that lie would make the whole "scam" just serve to increase attention on him if it were uncovered (as he would have thought likely given that when they left there was no PC in Buck's Row, and two a guilty Cross/Lechmere would know what is going to be found). The point of the "scam" was the exact opposite, though, to divert suspicion from him yet it clearly is going to do exactly the opposite once revealed. So the theory actually contradicts itself, and in a way that is painfully obvious that it would. And given that Cross/Lechmere has identified himself, and given details of residence and place of work, etc, he's clearly not worried about the police finding him, which he would be if guilty.

Now, if Paul is not close enough to hear, despite the testimony that he spoke to PC Mizen (at least according to Cross/Lechmere) that might mitigate some of the risk since now Paul couldn't back up PC Mizen. Hence Fisherman's focus on redefining what walking together and being in company means (Oxford might need to put out a new dictionary soon for all the new definitions that seem to arise out of this Lechmere/Cross theory actually). The scam, is, well, a scam. It's an overly complex and unnecessary complication when viewed at from the evidence to theory, but it's a necessary aspect if start from the theory and need to make the evidence fit it. The former is how we try to track down truth, the latter is how we make up stories.

- Jeff

[Harry D]

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

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.

[JeffHamm]

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

Hi Steve,

Oh, in Evans and Skinner, where they present the inquest as reported in The Times it reads under Paul's testimony:
By the coroner - The morning was a rather chilly one. Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen.

Although Paul's testimony does not include that detail of speaking to PC Mizen, the coroner's summing of his testimony seems to indicate that Paul testified that he did speak to PC Mizen, though I suppose it could be read otherwise. It seems to me that if only Cross/Lechmere spoke, then the coroner would not include that point in Paul's bit, or would have refered to "and the other man told him what they saw". The use of they implies, to me, both spoke. But as for the Lloyd's article, yes, while I suspect the specific details and extent of the information that is attributed to Paul in the Lloyds article are suspect, I think the general gist that he spoke to the PC and agreed with Cross/Lechmere that he thought the woman might be dead, is probably correct.

As for PC Mizen's response, I'm sure there are other possible explanations. I don't think he was a bad fellow, nor a bad police officer. Rather, I suspect he was under the impression that there was someone drunk in the street, so he would ensure these people were up and off to work then go deal with it. The impression one gets from both Paul and Cross/Lechmere's actions and behaviour is that they aren't in any panic, so they definately don't think they've stumbled on a murder, but rather figure she's passed out, though possibly dead (either from drink or natural causes). That lack of fuss would not raise the emergency flag when they spoke to PC Mizen in my mind. But, again, that's just one possible explanation. Will be interested in hearing yours.

- Jeff

[Elamarna]

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

[JeffHamm]

what if paul stood a little ways off when they encountered Mizen? I would think in a situation like this really only one man needs to tell the officer whats going on. seems like lech took the lead to me that's it. am I missing something?

Well, PC Mizen describes Cross/Lechmere as being in company, so together. Paul testisifies he spoke with PC Mizen, which isn't mentioned in PC Mizen's testimony. Paul and Cross/Lechmere also indicate that after examining Nichols they decided the best thing was to go find a PC, and when they left they didn't go running or anything, they just contined on their way to work. That indicates they were both unaware of the extent of her injuries. So when they spoke to PC Mizen they are not going to be frantic, but rather conveying what the thought they found, a woman laying in the street, whom they thought might be dead, but that belief was probably not as strong at the time they reported it as it would become after it was confirmed she was dead, and worse, mutilated. So, at the time there's no reason for separation as the incident they would be reporting would be coming across as more likely just someone passed out drunk. Hence, PC Mizen probably finished knocking up a few more places before heading off to Buck's Row - the situation did not appear to be the emergency that it was. Both the increase in the belief she was dead, and the down playing by PC Mizen, is what happens with human memory as more facts come to light. Paul and Cross/Lechmere both increase their presentation and memory of how sure they were she was dead, and PC Mizen downplays the importance (and inserts the idea of being need by a PC because when he got there he was needed by PC Neil to go get the ambulance). His downplaying justifies why he kept knocking up, but recognizing the seriousness of the incident once he gets there also means he deny's that, probably because it was one or two more residences.

And Cross/Lechmere, being the one who drew Paul into the whole scenario, means he's the one who is still primarily responsible for reporting the incident to the PC, so he would be the one to speak first. It's all very mundane and innocent type behaviour. And, with the lack of any testimony indicating that PC Mizen spoke to the men separately (Fisherman's descriptions in previous posts describe a situation where Paul doesn't even speak to PC Mizen, but we know that's wrong because of Paul's testimony, and we know Fisherman himself doesn't believe that because the Lloyd's article, if anything, indicates it's Paul who did all the talking).

So, while one could say it is possible the men were spoken to separately, there is nothing in the evidence to support that claim, and it is unnecessary to presume it given the evidence we do have, which places them together, does not produce any issues when taken at face value. I guess what's missing (and I don't mean this disparagingly) is any evidence to back it up, and nothing incoherent in the evidence that gets resolved by inserting it as an unsupported assumption.

- Jeff

[harry]

Cross was a legal surname,Fisherman.It was the name he was known by nationally.It in no way defines guilt.
Whether the present day knowledge would have solved the Ripper murders is debateable.In the case of Cross,it is equally likely it would have cleared him.
However to even broach the subject,as you have,clearly shows the lack of incriminating evidence in 1888.

[Abby Normal]

what if paul stood a little ways off when they encountered Mizen? I would think in a situation like this really only one man needs to tell the officer whats going on. seems like lech took the lead to me that's it. am I missing something?

[Harry D]

Whats wrong with good old-fashioned understandings, Harry? Apart from how they point to Lechmere as the killer, I mean?

Goodnight.

Would you not agree that it requires an unbiased approach, Fish? Since neither Lechmere nor Mizen is supported by Paul, it's a case of he said, he said. PC Mizen is not a more reputable witness simply because he was a copper. Policemen are not infallible. They suffer from the same human lapses as anyone else. However, we can reconcile the discrepancy between the two accounts without jumping to accusations of dishonesty.

What purpose did the Mizen scam serve anyway? If Lechmere was that concerned about being grilled, he wouldn't have approached Paul in the first place.

[JeffHamm]

I really cannot bring myself to take any interest in this post. I got to the two initial statements where you say that it is clear that I think that the carmen ducked into adjaent streets - which is not true, and which I have told you before that I don´t believe.

Earlier, you said that my arguement that they left together, and went looking for a PC together, meant they were together, and you're reply was "Do we really know that neither man swiftly ducked into an adjacent street to check for a PC, Jeff? " as suggesting a counter example. I then presented my reasons for not thinking that, to which you then replied "In your reply to me you put "Right, Jeff! I first note that you - of course - cannot rule out that one of the carmen DID duck into an adjacent street. You just find it unlikely. Good! We agree. On both counts."

Now, your 2nd reply indicates that you believe this to be possible. You say I cannot rule it out, and you agree that you cannot either. I had, of course, ruled it out and you misread my reply, but that notwithstanding, above you are saying you believe thy did - or at least you believe that is possible. So, again, provide details of this belief. I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm responding to what you are saying. If you don't believe these things, but actually agree with my arguement that there is no evidence of such things, then why make it sound like you are presenting an alternative without clarifying that you don't actually believe it?

You then go on to say that I stated that Lechmere and Paul arrived at Mizen together, and that is not true either. I was not there, and so all I can do is to make as good a guess as possible.

Again, I quote you from above:
"Imagine that the two turned the Bakers Row corner jointly. Imagine that they were talking as they did. Imagine that Mizen noticed them: "There's two guys walking to work together and chatting as they go". Imagine that Lechmere veered off as the only person to speak to Mizen (extremely well reinforced by how Mizen says that one man, not two men, spoke to him). Imagine that Mizen was at the northern side of the corner of Hanbury Street and Bakers Row, and that Paul rounded that corner on the southern side while Lechmere went up to Mizen and spoke to him. Further imagine that the conversation took all of ten seconds , and that Lechmere then joined up with Paul again.
If that was so, why would not Mizen answer the question "there was another man in company with Cross?" with a "Yes"...? What were his alternatives? To say that they were not in company at the very instance when Lechmere spoke to him?"

You describe, with perfect clarity, the two arriving together at PC Mizen. If you don't believe they did, stop saying you do.

I find it hard to discuss with somebody who turns what I say into a mockery that has little or nothing to do with my take on things.

You don't seem to have a consistent take on things. In one reply you say you believe there is some possibility of side trips, and you describe Cross/Lechmere and Paul arriving and meeting PC Mizen together, but when I ask about your beliefs, you next reply says you never said these things.

I'm asking you direct questions on these beliefs to try and understand what it is you do believe, but you won't do that. I'm left to conclude that you believe nothing and everything.

The rest is along the same lines. You say that I find it remarkable that a local resident has connections with the local area...! If you really want to discuss the case, then don´t try to get fresh with me. It will have the exact opposite effect.
Like now.

I do find that remarkable, if in fact you do still believe it. I'm surprised you didn't deny that as well.

Basically, Fisherman, we both know you believe Paul spoke to PC Mizen, so we both know that PC Mizen's "a man" statement cannot be interpreted as PC Mizen only talking to Lechmere/Cross. We both know that because of how strongly you push Paul's Lloyd's article where you've mined the word exactly, and use that when arguing about the time line. And that time line gets really messed up for you if you starting including side trips between the body and PC Mizen, which for some reason you believe may be possible (as per your statement above - you can't rule it out). Well, if they did, your arguements about how long it took them to get from Nichols to PC Mizen needs to account for this possibility and you can't. You also know that if PC Mizen is shown, yet again, to be the less accurate, other aspects of your theory get weakened.

Hence, you won't answer my questions on those points, because you aren't interested in making your ideas clear to others. You use a form of debate and discussion that relies upon smoke and mirrors, you confuse and distract, because when presented clearly it all falls down.

- Jeff

[Elamarna]

If you choose to play the game "I meant nothing at all by saying Mr "Stow" ", we have nothing more to say to each other.

The only place where Paul said he spoke to Mizen was the Lloyds interview - and we KNOW that it is not truthful in all parts. At the inquest, it becomes VERY clear that far from being instrumental in the discussion, Paul was not even significant enough for Mizen to remember his involvement.

At the inquest, Paul does NOT say that he spoke to Mizen. He says "we told him", which equals we informed him, quite possibly meaning that the entity of the two carmen passed on a message - meaning that EITHER of them OR BOTH could have done so. I have repeatedly pointed to this very realistic possibility, but some have sealed their ears with wax on those occasions.
If three neighbors get pissed about having a noisy man living in their street and join up and go knocking on that man's door, and if one of the three tells the man "you either shut up or you move", then any of the other two who said NOTHING can answer their wives´ question "Did you tell him off?" with a "Yes, we did!" without lying about it. It is a very common thing to do, and that may well apply here too.

Firstly no one is playing any Games.
That a major player in the Lechmere theory , uses an alternative name, like Lechmere himself cannot be ignored.
However nothing was said that was "distasteful".

If that means you will not talk to me, I am heartbroken.

How truly selective of you. Indeed Paul's comments at the inquest are limited, all we have is reporting in the 3rd person, no 1st person or verbatim accounts.
IT SEEMS he is not asked for his account of the meeting at all. Odd that, given the Lloyds account.

Mizen ignores Paul's input not because it is insignificant, but probably because it is the reason for Mizen's version of events in the first place.

Of course Lechmere also says Paul spoke to Mizen too , but let's just ignore that because it does not fit the narrative we wish to portray.

You are not interpreting the sources, rather what we have is speculative theorizing, fuelled by bias and a need to sustain the theory conrary to the sources.

The posts display a truly shameful approach to serious historical research.

Steve

[Patrick S]

Here it is:

I suggest that you misrepresent what I am saying because you need to create a picture of me as a half-witted person with few insights into the Ripper case. It is a methodology that is very common on net forums, but no less deplorable on account of that.

Why on earth do I "need to create a picture of (you) as a half-witted person with few insights into the Ripper case"? I've complimented your work and knowledge many times, but of course it can never be enough. I offer my opinions on your theory, on what you've written here, on your documentary. I've never commented on your intelligence (or your nationality or your abilities as a parent or any of the things you've recently bemoaned) and have conceded on many occasions that you are exceptionally well versed in the Ripper case and I've admitted my own knowledge has expanded as a result of your theory and the work you've put into it. I'm not quite sure what you're after, Christer. And I say this sincerely....This is very strange. I don't mean to offend you, but this is behavior one might expect from a fifteen year old child. It's both narcissistic and pitiable.

Trying to claim that I was outraged by the suggestion that Mizen could have lied is equally claiming that I have no idea that the police can de dishonest, and that suits you perfectly.

The problem is that I regularly reveal you for these antics.

Again, this is very strange stuff. You reveal my antics? What do you propose my true agenda is, Christer? I disagree with your theory. You seem to require this be personal. It's not. Frankly, you are irrelevant to my views. The words you write on the boards are. Your documentary. Your theory. Are you suggesting I don't actually disagree to extent that I represent in my posts, but rather that I have some personal bias against you? Again, I apologize for saying this, but I think that you have some need to believe any disagreement is because of WHO YOU ARE rather than the content of your argument. Perhaps it's some soul-crushing arrogance that can only be a burden. I don't envy you. Either way, I'm actually very sorry you feel as you do.

Claiming that I have said that the carmen went separate ways to look for a PC is the exact same - it implies that I have no idea whatsoever about what was said in the reports. You now retract it, quite possibly because you realized that it was an impossible thing to suggest.

Again, this is all quite bizarre. I "retracted it" because I was wrong and I said so. I then clarified my understanding based on a re-reading of what you actually wrote (which was equally absurd and based only on what you must invent for certain aspects of your theory to be true).

The problem, once again, is that I do know what was in the reports. I would even go so far as to say that I know it exceptionally well. And I would never claim that the carmen went separate ways precisely because I know what the sources say.

Conceded. I know you know it quite well. Very well. Exceptionally well. What else can I say to make you feel better about yourself?

These same sources, however, do NOT and can NOT rule out that one of the carmen MAY have ducked into an adjacent street to look for a PC, and THAt was what I said in response to Jeff Hamms over-belief that the carmen MUST have been close together throughout. That is not in any way a proven thing.

You seem to have a habit of imagining things that happened simply because the sources do not say they didn't happen. But... okay. Let's be calm.

When discussing this with Jeff, I took care to point out that I myself favor the idea that they DID walk together, at least reasonably close, down Bucks Row.

Okay.... So, that means we agree... after all this? And we still have the issue of Paul either allowing Cross to lie to Mizen in his presence without correcting him on the spot or mentioning it at the inquest OR allowing Cross to pull Mizen aside for a private chat without thinking it odd or mentioning THAT on the spot or at the inquest.

But dis these precautions on my behalf save me from being grossly misrepresented by you? Off course not.

Grossly misinterpreted? Honestly... I'll say this again: I misread what you wrote and corrected myself in a post before this one.

A final example: You dislodge the phrase "one MUST VIEW LECHMERE'S ACTIONS WITH THE IDEA THAT HE KILLED Nichols" from its context, where I will have said something like "to understand what I am saying one must view Lechmere´s actions with the idea that he killed Nichols". And you once more get what you want - the zealot, the fanatic, the half-wit. Congratulations on having pulled another of your stunts of.

I've not called you a zealot, a fanatic or, again, a half-wit. I've not tried to pull a stunt. I will say I don't see a difference between "one MUST VIEW LECHMERE'S ACTIONS WITH THE IDEA THAT HE KILLED Nichols" and "to understand what I am saying one must view Lechmere´s actions with the idea that he killed Nichols", but it's clear that you do. So... I won't do that again. The point, though, is a simple one: in order for any of this to make sense one must start from a place that has Lechmere killing Nichols. Further, his subsequent actions only makes sense if he killed Nichols AND was a psychopath (as you argue only a psychopath would have killed Nichols, been Jack the Ripper, etc.) taking risks for "the thrill" rather than looking to simply get away with his crime. Apologies, again, but to me this is laughable. It's perfectly plausible to you. And that's fine. Despite this strange post, I've not called you a half-wit or anything of the kind.

As I say, I generally point these things out. The "discussion technique" (in this case a finer phrase for "pack of lies") is an abomination and it serves no good purpose at all. I am therefore disinclined to have any further "discussion" with you, least you better yourself in this department. If not, you will find yourself answered by a reoccurring post where it says that I have grown tired of discussing with you on account of how I perceive that you regularly abuse and misrepresent all I say.

The choice is yours.

You've done all this previously. I've said this before. I don't require responses from you, Christer. If you choose to respond, you can. If you don't, that has not and will not affect me. My posts are intended to refute your theory, not to attack you. I'm concerned that you don't understand the difference and have, seemingly, become convinced that your the victim of some "abomination", a "pack of lies" that's intended to strike at you, rather than your theory. That's not been my intent.

For what they're worth, my responses above bold. I found this post quite bizarre. I won't respond to any further imagined persecution accusations and I'm finished giving you praise and compliments because you fish for them (no pun intended). I've given them genuinely in the past but it's quickly forgotten and you seem to require them far more frequently than I'm inclined to give them. But, if I have something I wish to add to these boards, I'll do so. These types of strange, juvenile rants not withstanding. Best wishes, Christer.