Lechmere validity

[rjpalmer]

P.S. To be fair, Fish, another person could read the same testimony and conclude that the Coroner and the jury was concerned that Cross and Paul had bolted from Buck's Row before insuring that a constable had secured the scene. So I admit there is room for another interpretation. Which is why we theorists fight it out. Cheers.

[rjpalmer]

It takes all of five seconds to provide the answer

That's what I was afraid of. We disagree, Fish, but I feel no need to argue about it.

Rather than taking a mere five seconds, I re-read the whole of the inquest testimony this morning, up to the point where Cross is questioned by the jury.

The reason I don't agree with your interpretation is that there was nothing in Cross's deposition that disagreed with Mizen's statement. There was no real 'contradiction,' he just merely gave his version of finding the body and how he alerted Mizen to the body, without adding the somewhat unimportant detail that another constable was on the scene.

Why unimportant? Because Mizen had already testified that he had been alerted to this fact. There was nothing in Cross's statement that would have "jumped out" at the jury as an obviously lie or contradiction or mystery.

Yet, no sooner does Cross finish his deposition, then the Coroner immediately jumps in:

Replying to the coroner, witness denied having seen Police-constable Neil in Buck's-row.

Boy, the Coroner wasted no time, did he? It certainly doesn't sound to me like the Coroner is doubting Cross's testimony; it sounds to me like the Coroner was waiting for an opening, having already heard the tale of Mizen pounding on doors.

And then, as a kicker, the Jury repeats the question! To me, the question, and the repeating of the question, makes little sense if their intention was to doubt Cross. But it makes a great deal of sense if they doubted Mizen.

But that is merely my interpretation and I gather this has been gone over before at great length, so I'll leave it at that. Have a good evening.

[Fisherman]

The most reasonable and innocent explanation I've heard for the "Mizen Scam" is that Mizen was told he was needed in Buck's Row [as there was a drunk/dead woman in the street] and when he arrived to find PC Neil already there, he misremembered what he was told.

No need for duplicity on Lechmere or Mizen's part. Just a good old-fashioned misunderstanding.

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

Goodnight.

[Fisherman]

Toniteīs send-off, with the address Frank van Oploo:

We have discussed whether Lechmere may have been in a "bubble" as he killed Nichols, thus not hearing Paul until late in the process. I think it is a very real possibility.
Today, I saw a Youtube film about a serial killer named Bernard Giles. He was interviewed by Piers Morgan, and when asked about how he could have done what he did to a girl, he asked Morgan in return what HIS passion were. He then described the moment of killing his victims as a sensation where he could "see each atom move".
That, I think, verifies how a killer can be in a bubble when doing away with a victim. Giles was furthermore a sexual predator and a necrophiliac, perhaps further making him useful comparison.

[Harry D]

The most reasonable and innocent explanation I've heard for the "Mizen Scam" is that Mizen was told he was needed in Buck's Row [as there was a drunk/dead woman in the street] and when he arrived to find PC Neil already there, he misremembered what he was told.

No need for duplicity on Lechmere or Mizen's part. Just a good old-fashioned misunderstanding.

[Fisherman]

No one was discussing anything distasteful..

Merely quoting the name used by a former poster on these boards.
Is it distasteful to call Lechmere "Cross"?



What alternative interpretation can there be that BOTH said they spoke to Mizen.
You may wish to argue that they both lied, that However is not interpretation, it is speculative theory.

And of course you will not discuss when there is no realistic alternative.

It just won't do.


Steve

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 wivesī 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.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman -- Think this through carefully. Maybe even sleep on it before you answer. Because I am puzzled.

WHY is the jury asking this question of Charles Cross? What is the precursor to the question? What events led up to it? Why are they asking it?

A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?

Surely they must have a reason for asking it?

Yet, if you read all the depositions leading up to this question, there appears to be nothing preceding it. Yet SOMETHING must have triggered it; there must be some reason for the doubt/confusion/concern in the jury's mind.

The only possibility, as far as I can tell, is that a story has gone abroad that Mizen continued to act like a human alarm clock after being told that a woman was either dead or dying in Buck's Row.

You must admit: the question didn't simply spring up out of thin air. What is your explanation for it? Perhaps you have a better explanation? Why did the jury chose to raise this strange question at this point in time? Because I am puzzled. The jury has just been told by Mizen that he had been alerted to another constable's presence at the crime scene. Why did they want clarification of this from Cross?

With all good wishes. RP

It takes all of five seconds to provide the answer: Because a juryman was puzzled by how there was a discrepancy between Mizens and Lechmeres statements, and decided to ask about it.

You should not accept as a given that Mizen was told anything at all about the gravity of the situation - we must of course accept that he could well have told the truth about it all, and if he did, all he was told was that there was a woman flat on her back in Bucks Row. Nota bene that the PC is quoted in the Echo (or was it the Star?) as saying that nothing was said about any murder or suicide.
Nor did the carman tell him that HE was the finder, according to Mizen - he was left to believe that the PC was, and accordingly, he had nothing to say when Neil took the stand on the first day of the inquest and claimed that role.

Does it not occur to you how perfectly shaped the message from Lechmere to Mizen was to allow him to pass unsuspected of anything at all? Does it not intrigue you how all of these little pieces are in sync? Maybe you should sleep on that - I actually think that would be more called for than any such thing on my behalf. To be perfectly honest, I don't see why anyone would argue that a jury member would put that question to Lechmere on account of having been told that Mizen knocked people up after having spoken to the carman.

And donīt forget the differences involved. Which message would make you run to Bucks Row:

1. There's a woman in Bucks Row, lying there, and I think she may be dead! We looked at her and she was cold and limp!

or

2. Hello officer! A colleague of yours sent us from Bucks Row, he was dealing with a woman there who was lying flat on her back (wink, wink)

Once we choose to believe every single word Lechmere said and use it to exonerate him, we get a swift process. Whether it is swift justice or not is another matter.

[Fisherman]

I'd love some help with that!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 Lechmereīs 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.

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.

[Patrick S]

No, it is not clear at all that Mizen said what he said as a personal defense against Pauls statements in Lloyds. If we were to accept that, we would rob him of any possibility of having spoken the truth - regardless of what he says, he is the villain.

Of course it's clear. Far more clear than some far-flung, barely intelligible "Mizen Scam" that's taken the better part of 19,000+ posts for you to explain and defend.

There was no indictment of Lechmere published prior to HIS appearance at the inquest. No one called his actions "a great shame". Of course, that CANNOT be said of Jonas Mizen. As for him being a "villain", of course that's patently absurd. Good people do bad things. Everyone makes mistakes. Sometime you gotta do what you gotta do. Cover your ass......There are myriad cliches that cover such behavior. Pretending that Mizen must either be good and true and honest or a "villain" just adds to the absurdity and provides another dependency upon which this entire house of cards must rest.

That is a VERY flawed way of looking at matters like these. It even has a name: prejudice.

This is, to coin a phrase, beyond laughable. You have said yourself that one MUST VIEW LECHMERE'S ACTIONS WITH THE IDEA THAT HE KILLED Nichols. I'll leave it at that.

And please donīt lie about how I would have reacted with "outrage" when having it suggested that Mizen could have lied. Lies never enhanced a discussion, it only inflames it. Nor has it been suggested by me that the men looked separately for a PC, that too is a lie. What has been said is that we cannot guarantee that they were always close enough together to be within earshot of each other.

It's not a lie to say that you've reacted with outrage when it's been suggested that Mizen could have lied. You cited his Christianity as further proof of his righteousness. If I have the time and inclination I'll find the post(s). Since we're throwing around words like "lies", if you say you didn't post such foolishness, than you are, of course, lying. And I'm sorry if I misunderstood your earlier post: you do not propose they went off to find a PC separately, only that they were physically separated enough to have private conversations and commit scams on police officers at 4am on deserted streets even though Paul and Cross agree they were together. You've now created some distance between the carmen because you must, of course.

Can you expand on why you lie and distort like this, Patrick? Or maybe you want help with that?

I'd love some help with that!

[Elamarna]

I came as far as your wording about Mr "Stow", which I find distasteful and will not discuss any further here

No one was discussing anything distasteful..

Merely quoting the name used by a former poster on these boards.
Is it distasteful to call Lechmere "Cross"?

- and to the passus where you say that "historical sources" say that both carmen spoke to Mizen as if the sources do not allow for the opposite interpretation.

With that kind of attitude towards the sources there is no much reason at all for me to discuss this with you or anybody else who selectively elevate sources they like to facts.

Goodbye for now.

What alternative interpretation can there be that BOTH said they spoke to Mizen.
You may wish to argue that they both lied, that However is not interpretation, it is speculative theory.

And of course you will not discuss when there is no realistic alternative.

It just won't do.


Steve

[rjpalmer]

No, it is not clear at all that Mizen said what he said as a personal defense against Pauls statements in Lloyds.

Hi Fisherman -- Think this through carefully. Maybe even sleep on it before you answer. Because I am puzzled.

WHY is the jury asking this question of Charles Cross? What is the precursor to the question? What events led up to it? Why are they asking it?

A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?

Surely they must have a reason for asking it?

Yet, if you read all the depositions leading up to this question, there appears to be nothing preceding it. Yet SOMETHING must have triggered it; there must be some reason for the doubt/confusion/concern in the jury's mind.

The only possibility, as far as I can tell, is that a story has gone abroad that Mizen continued to act like a human alarm clock after being told that a woman was either dead or dying in Buck's Row.

You must admit: the question didn't simply spring up out of thin air. What is your explanation for it? Perhaps you have a better explanation? Why did the jury chose to raise this strange question at this point in time? Because I am puzzled. The jury has just been told by Mizen that he had been alerted to another constable's presence at the crime scene. Why did they want clarification of this from Cross?

With all good wishes. RP

[Patrick S]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;n709505]

Yes, once you stop claiming that the scam was something I made up, we can stop discussing. Before that, no, not very likely. Pointing out how the elements of a conversation involves parameters that are in line with trying to evade the police is not "making something up". Saying that it IS, is what is making something up.

Glad we cleared that up!

And yes, you cannot prove that the scam did not happen. And even if you could, you could still not talk of me making it up.

Do many people consider the scam a good pointer to guilt? Look at the comments to the documentary, and find out.

Do many find the suggestion "laughable"?

Of course you made it up. That's beyond debate. If you didn't make it up, where did it come from? Clearly, any fair reading of the sources doesn't point to a "Mizen Scam". You invented the "Mizen Scam" to bolster this fringe theory of yours. This is obviously true in that the sources from which you've created your "scam" existed for 120+ years without anyone seeing a "Mizen Scam". It took you working back from a presumption that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper, and thus a psychopath, etc. to come up with the idea. Thus, you made it up.

But, let's be clear: I don't blame you. I understand that's how the suspect game is played. You're not the first to propose convoluted scenarios based on assumption and invention in order to recruit believers, even if they're Youtube viewers with only a passing interest and cursory knowledge of "Jack the Ripper". The "Mizen Scam", I'm sorry to say, is nonsense and, yes, you made it up. There's certainly no evidence it happened. There's far more evidence that it did not. And you KEEP returning to this word, "laughable". Yes. It's laughable. Forcing me to keep reiterating that isn't going to change my view any more than you're going to this Lechmere the Ripper business of yours.

[Fisherman]

It think you make excellent points here, RJ. I'd like to address your "good cop, bad cop" point here. Certainly, you're correct: there are good cops and there are bad cops. As I've suggested to Christer before and still maintain, I don't allege that Mizen was either good or bad. I think it's clear that he wasn't truthful about being told he was wanted by a PC in Buck's Row. If one looks at the chronology of events it's clear that Mizen took the stand and said what he said as a personal defense against Paul's "Remarkable Statement". Paul called Mizen's lack of response "a great shame", he said he "continued knocking up" even though he'd been "told (she) was dead". But, I don't know enough about his career and life to know if he was a "good cop" or a "bad cop". In the past, of course, Christer has reacted with outrage at the mere suggestion that Mizen could have been anything other than a truth-telling Christian gentleman. This is simply more of what's required if we're to believe in this "scam" and, ultimately, Lechmere as a serial killer. Mizen must be unimpeachable, even as his version of events is uncorroborated by the other two present. Lechmere must be lying and scamming because he must be a psychopath because he must have killed Nichols. Paul must have an anti-police bias that compels him to enable and tacitly support Lechmere's scam, or he's so obtuse that he's duped by Lechmere into allowing him (Lechmere) a private conversation with Mizen and not mentioning it to anyone. (Note: This idea that the men went about looking for a PC separately is, as you likely know, quite new. It's clear they went together and the inquest make it clear both men were present when they interacted with Mizen in Baker's Row). And this is why I call the idea of this "Mizen Scam" laughable. One implausible possibility is stacked upon another in order to arrive at the desired conclusion.

No, it is not clear at all that Mizen said what he said as a personal defense against Pauls statements in Lloyds. If we were to accept that, we would rob him of any possibility of having spoken the truth - regardless of what he says, he is the villain.

That is a VERY flawed way of looking at matters like these. It even has a name: prejudice.

And please donīt lie about how I would have reacted with "outrage" when having it suggested that Mizen could have lied. Lies never enhanced a discussion, it only inflames it. Nor has it been suggested by me that the men looked separately for a PC, that too is a lie. What has been said is that we cannot guarantee that they were always close enough together to be within earshot of each other.

Can you expand on why you lie and distort like this, Patrick? Or maybe you want help with that?

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Patrick S;n709493]

Saying that a lack of judgment is what lies behind speaking about the Mizen scam as laughable is doing the same thing as you do but in a much more civil way. I am not saying that your view is clownish or piss poor, I am saying that it reveals a lack of judgment. I use that kind of phrasing to preserve some sort of correct use of language in a debate.

The scam is a matter that divides people. Many say that is the clearest indicator there is for Lechmeres guilt, and that does not make them laughable. It makes them people expressing a considered view.

I never said anyONE was laughable. But, keep trying to infer that I did.

MANY say the "Mizen Scam" is the clearest indicator of Lechmere's guilt? Many? Really?

It does not apply that there is equal reason to call all things that cannot be proven laughable - it boils down to how credible these things are. And if we are hellbent on calling them laughable, it takes some substance - a lot more than you have come up with.

I have a different metric. If I FIND SOMETHING LAUGHABLE... then I call it... LAUGHABLE.

Personally, I donīt think it is a 50/50 issue, too much material is in line with guilt for me to do so, but I am perfectly fine with those who hold that view. I would also be fine with those saying that it is 90/10 in favour of the scam never having existed if they could only intelligiably motivate it. So far, that has not happened.

I can't prove it did't happen. You can prove it did. Obviously, it's ridiculous to invent some 50-50 or 90-10 probabilities for something you made up to fit your preferred conclusion having happened.

I really donīt want to discuss this any more with you, Patrick, so Iīd be happy to leave it there.[/QUOT

Okay. We can stop discussing it. Thanks.

Yes, once you stop claiming that the scam was something I made up, we can stop discussing. Before that, no, not very likely. Pointing out how the elements of a conversation involves parameters that are in line with trying to evade the police is not "making something up". Saying that it IS, is what is making something up.

Glad we cleared that up!

And yes, you cannot prove that the scam did not happen. And even if you could, you could still not talk of me making it up.

Do many people consider the scam a good pointer to guilt? Look at the comments to the documentary, and find out.

Do many find the suggestion "laughable"?

[Fisherman]

Yes, Mr. Perno. This is the counter argument and you've struck the nail firmly on the head. That there was some confusion over what happened in Buck's Row is not an invention by Fisherman and the Lechmerians; it was a genuine element of the inquest.

A Juryman [to Cross]: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?
Cross: No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row.

Of course, only one testimony earlier, Mizen claimed he HAD been told that another cop had the matter in hand.

Mizen: ..."another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying..."

So, as you rightly point out, the conflict is between Cross and Mizen. They deny each other's accounts. Mizen states he was told there was another copper; Cross denies he said any such thing.

Who had the motive to lie? In the Lechmerian world, Cross had the motive to lie, because he was Jack the Ripper. In the outside world, Mizen had the motive to lie, because he kept knocking on doors, waking people up (was there a monetary inducement to this activity?) and thus was covering his own arse for not immediately tending to a murder victim.

No offense meant to the men and women of the police force, but sometime ago I witnessed a man blatantly speeding through a red-light, nearly causing a collision. Driving directly behind him was a patrol car! Rather than flip on his lights, and go after the man, the patrolman turned into a Duncan Donuts shop where he presumably took a break. It sounds like a cliché, I know, but I assure you it happened. I can even tell you the exact intersection where it happened. As with any profession, there are good cops, there are bad cops, and there are some that are indifferent and not particularly dedicated to the matter at hand. Again, no offense to the force, as I could say precisely the same thing about my old employees. In any profession, there are a good 20-40% that simply "go through the motions." Somedays it feels closer to 80%.

So the donut policeman you saw tells us that it is likelier that Mizen lied than that Lechmere did it? Or am I missing something here? As I understand matters, though, Mizen was not criticized by any party (other than Robert Paul) for not doing his work properly, and it seems that he breached no rules, nor did he show himself unfit to do a policemans job. And, as we know, he did get the next best grade when he retired.

By the way, the "Lechmereians" are not saying that Lechmere lied because he was the Ripper. Itīs more like we are saying that he was the Ripper because he lied. That way, we do not pass the verdict before looking for evidence to bolster it - we instead look at the evidence and find that it supports the idea that he was the killer of Nichols. It may seem a small difference to those not schooled in these matters, but we both know it is imperative to get these things right.