Lechmere validity

[Herlock Sholmes]

In a sense, we are never alone. Maybe we can say that Lechmere was in company with Mrs Green and the Purkisses before Paul arrived? If so, that should perhaps set the bar for what "in company with" truly means.

What remains is that we cannot place Paul at any factually determined distance from either Lechmere or Mizen. And so it remains perfectly possible that he was out of earshot when the two spoke.

End of story.

No no Fish.

This is wordplay. As Steve said we’ve been over this many times and it’s far from end of story. Dusty, like Steve and Pat before him, has just posted an undeniable wealth of evidence that Mizen and Paul we’re together when they spoke to Mizen. Together doesn’t mean - in a house next to the person or twenty feet away. They walked to find a Constable together. Which means side by side. They found a Constable together. They both had the same intention - to inform about Nichols. The Mizen Scam is a leap of faith to make a point. It’s not supported by the overwhelming bulk of the evidence.

[JeffHamm]

All of recorded testimony indicates Cross/Lecmere and Paul were walking together looking for a PC when they found PC Mizen. They both indicated they spoke with PC Mizen, indicating there was a woman laying in Buck's Row, and both indicated she may be dead. Everything recorded indicates they were together, and there is nothing to indicate they whispered, or had any reason to talk to PC Mizen without wanting the other to hear (theory is not an indication - it's an explanation offered when there is an evidenced indication). PC Mizen testifies that he was told he was wanted by a PC in Buck's Row. However, both Paul and Cross/Lechmere testify they only told him there was a woman, who may be dead, in Buck's Row. You see this as evidence of an elaborate confidence game on Cross/Lechmere's part. However, from the testimony the far more likely explanation is something far more common, and far less exciting. Two men, looking for a PC, find one. They think a woman is either passed out drunk, or possibily dead. They could easily have said something like "you're needed in Buck's Row, there's a woman laying there, we think she's dead". And when he gets there, low and behold, there's PC Neil there already, who sends him for the ambulance. He then, when recalling the meeting with the two men, remembers he was told something like "He was needed there", which he naturally presumes means "they meant I was needed there by PC Neil", because of course when he got there he was. However, Cross/Lechmere and Paul would have just been indicating that the police were needed there because of the situation.

His testimony isn't a lie, he wasn't told a lie, it looks far more like a simple miscommunication and, and even you don't like that because it's based upon presuming how Paul and Cross/Lechmere spoke to PC Mizen, it could also be nothing more than very typical memory error of the sort that happens all the time. He was told to go to Buck's Row, when he gets there PC Neil needed him to do things, and he misremembers being told to go there in order to help PC Neil rather than in order to deal with Nichols.

- Jeff

[Elamarna]

I dot have to prove that Paul could not hear what Lechmere said. You cannot prove that he COULD hear it. And THAT is all I have to prove to open up for the possibility that the conversation was not heard by Paul.
.

That Christer is not the case, because you have not proved he may not hear.
For the argument to be possible, you must show that the existing sources which say he was together and indeed spoke to Mizen are untrue.

Without that, to argue it is possible is intellectually dishonest.

If you want we can have last year's debate all over again, that will be fun will it not?

Steve

[Elamarna]

In a sense, we are never alone. Maybe we can say that Lechmere was in company with Mrs Green and the Purkisses before Paul arrived? If so, that should perhaps set the bar for what "in company with" truly means.

What remains is that we cannot place Paul at any factually determined distance from either Lechmere or Mizen. And so it remains perfectly possible that he was out of earshot when the two spoke.

End of story.

Back here again I see.

The argument that Paul did not hear the conversation is one of speculation, not backed by the sources, which say the men were together.
Two of the 3 individuals involved strongly suggest that not only was Paul within hearing distance, but partook of the conversation.
The 3rd Mizen, does not say Paul was not within earshot, only that Mizen did not engage in conversation with him.

Now just on a year back we had the same debate, the issue remains the same, the onus of proof that Paul did not hear, is squarely on those who propose it.
The evidence/sources, despite weak semantic arguments to say the opposite, do not back that view up.

Speculation contrary to evidence, with no counter evidence other than arguing what "together" means, is not even reasoned speculation, it is fantasy, fuelled by a need to invent evidence, BECAUSE that which actually exists is in no way incriminating.



Steve

[Fisherman]

>>The one and only answer I will give Dr Strange is that he is wrong when he says that my personal life and the Lechmere theory are interconnected. <<

Since I have not mentioned anything about your personal life outside these boards and the Lechmere theory, I can't have said they are interconnected, so I can't be wrong!

In fact in in Post #624 on the "Window of Time for Nichols murder", just a mere 4 days ago, I specifically stated I am only talking about your theories and conduct on these boards ONLY, to wit,

"I'm sure you are a nice guy and I have no problems generally with you, but please don't claim that you are always honest with us on these boards."


Re-reading the posts here on this thread I see that nobody has said anything negative about your life outside your interaction with us, expect you. Could cite an example from the previous posts that are negative about your personal life?

It's all here in black and white, or on my computer black and a kind of olivey colour.

So cut the "whining" as you put it, and get back to the "issues" as you also put it.

Anybody who posts ""I'm sure you are a nice guy and I have no problems generally with you, but please don't claim that you are always honest with us on these boards" and goes on to say that he does not have a personal beef with the person commented on is wrong. You cannot call a persons honesty into doubt and claim that you have not passed comment on the person as such, I´m afraid.

The mere fact that you seem unable to take that on board tells the whole story. And yes, that is ME passing comment on YOU as a person, but to be perfectly honest, once somebody calls my honesty into question, I find it completely relevant and passable to point out that any such person is one that is not only mishandling the truth but who is also unfit to plead.

Now that we have passed this point - you have called me dishonest and I have called you a liar for doing so - yes, I would be very much itersted to instead turn to the case facts. After all, that is what we are here to discuss.

I know I am, at least. I wouldn´t be so presumptious as to speak for you on the matter.

So, Robert Paul - CAN we place him close enough to have heard Lechmere´s words,, regardless of the volume in which they were uttered?

Of course we can´t.

And even if we could, it would possibly not matter a iot.

[Fisherman]

Must we?
Very Well
It’s not very difficult to agree with such hypotheticals; the problems arise when one tries a 1:1 approach from hypothetical to empirical situation.
Charles Cross did not “totally” disagree with the police and his “version” does not have such traits as you mention

Ah, so you DO agree with what I said! But then you try to qualify yourself by saying that Charles Lechmere did not totally disagree with the police and that there were not the kind of traits that I mention.

But that is wrong. Lechmere said that he had not claimed that there was a PC in Bucks Row, Mizen said he did say that. And that IS total disagreement on the pertinent point, the one that makes it look like a murderer trying to avoid getting caught. The two also disagreed totally on other points, but this is the one that is all-important.
Furthermore, the traits I mention - that the message was one that seemed tailormade to take Lechmere past the police - are to a degree a point of interpretation. But it cannot be challenged that the wording as such - if Mizen was correct - would be very suitable to allow the carman to pass unsearched and unchallenged.

Where does that leave your verdict of laughable? Well, it leaves it a stance that relies toally on an interpretation that is partly wrong and partly very questionable.

So laugh away, but keep in mind that not everybody will laugh with you - least of all those who have a more discerning attitude towards the material.

If you had said that the scam is something that can be discussed, something that you disagree with, something that is not any fact, you would have allowed for a less inflamed discussion. But you didn´t. So let´s see who gets the last laugh.

[Fisherman]

It doesn't work this way. That Paul and Lechmere spoke with PC Mizen together is the historical conventional wisdom. If you want to base an argument on the fact that Paul didn't hear something said to Mizen, by Lechmere, then you have the responsibility to prove Paul couldn't hear the conversation, it's not for the rest of us to prove that he could hear it.

That he could hear it, is the historical CW.

You're trying to turn this into an argument from ignorance and reverse the burden of proof; if you want to rewrite history then the obligation to prove something different lies with you, the burden is not on us to re-prove, for you, what has been accepted and worked as a truth for 120 years.

Can you prove Paul couldn't hear the Lechmere-Mizen conversation? That burden lies with you.

I dot have to prove that Paul could not hear what Lechmere said. You cannot prove that he COULD hear it. And THAT is all I have to prove to open up for the possibility that the conversation was not heard by Paul.

It is not on historical record that Paul was close enough to hear what was said, for the simple reason that the distance between Lechmere and Paul at the critical time is not recorded anywhere.

For the record, even if Paul was sitting on Lechmere´s shoulders as the latter (mis)informed the PC, it still applies that this must not mean that Lechmere did not say what Mizen told the inquest he said. And so, the whole effort to try and place Paul close enough to Lechmere to ensure that he must have heard what was said crumbles into a possible total insignificance.

Just don´t try to alter undeterminable matters into points of fact. Too many posters engage in that kind of behaviour (and now the ever inventive Dr Strange will pick up on this and say "You would know!", and it would be the same kind of desinformation as always), and it does not serve any just assessment efforts.

[Fisherman]

>>Of course, it WOULD be fun to see you try and wriggle your way out of this:
"Because of that, an imaginative story has to created about Paul not being there, even though ALL THREE agree he was."
Yes, all three agree that Paul arrived with Lechmere in Bakers Row. But what does "there" mean in practical terms? Is it proven that he was close enough to hear the conversation between Lechmere and Mizen? If so, please provide evidence that proves that, so we can get it overwith.
Mizens take on things goes like this: "a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row" in DT, and like this: "I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row)", and like this: "at a quarter past 4 on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, and a man passing said "You are wanted in Baker's-row."
To name but a few.
Now, you tell me, where is the distance between Paul and Lechmere given?<<

Where? in the Mizen testimony reports you deliberately edited out of you quoting, of course.

Echo: "There was another man in the company of Cross WHEN THE LATTER SPOKE ..."
Morning Advertiser: "The Coroner: There was another man in the company with Cross? The Witness: YES."
Walthamstow and Leyton Guardian: "WHEN CROSS SPOKE TO THE WITNESS HE WAS ACCOMPANIED BY ANOTHER MAN."
Times: "WHEN CROSS SPOKE TO THE WITNESS HE WAS ACCOMPANIED BY ANOTHER MAN, and BOTH OF THEM went down Hanbury Street."
Star: " Cross,WHEN HE SPOKE TO THE WITNESS ABOUT THE AFFAIR, WAS ACCOMPANIED BY ANOTHER MAN."

Inspector Abberline: " THEY met P.C. 55.H Mizen and AQUATINTED HIM of what they had see."

And, of course Inspector Swanson's report of Oct 19th, you know, the one you consider gospel and the last word,
"THEY informed P.C. 55H Divn.Mizen in Bakers Row

All put in context:
Daily News, Illustrated Police News, East London Observer, Lloyds Newspaper and Daily Telegraph: " when a carman passing by IN THE COMPANY of ANOTHER MAN."

Those are the facts.



>>Mizen consistently says that ONE man spoke to him, he never says he was approached by two men... <<

Both Abberline and Swanson who, presumably had access to Mizen's either written or verbal report, recount both men talking to P.C. 55H, as opposed to the vagueness of journalistic precising. Plus, of course both Cross and Paul confirm both spoke to Mizen.

Those are the facts.



>>Please provide any proof you have that Paul must have been able to hear Lechmeres words.<<

Echo: "There was another man in the company of Cross WHEN THE LATTER SPOKE ..."
Walthamstow and Leyton Guardian: "WHEN CROSS SPOKE TO THE WITNESS HE WAS ACCOMPANIED BY ANOTHER MAN."
Times: "WHEN CROSS SPOKE TO THE WITNESS HE WAS ACCOMPANIED BY ANOTHER MAN, and BOTH OF THEM went down Hanbury Street."
Star: " Cross,WHEN HE SPOKE TO THE WITNESS ABOUT THE AFFAIR, WAS ACCOMPANIED BY ANOTHER MAN."
Inspector Abberline: " THEY met P.C. 55.H Mizen and AQUATINTED HIM of what they had see."
Inspector Swanson's report of Oct 19th: "THEY informed P.C. 55H Divn.Mizen in Bakers Row".

Those are the facts.


>>Mrs Green was also "there" as was the couple in Essex Wharf.<<

Correct! As were the rest of her family and the Purkis's which means Cross was never alone with the body,

In a sense, we are never alone. Maybe we can say that Lechmere was in company with Mrs Green and the Purkisses before Paul arrived? If so, that should perhaps set the bar for what "in company with" truly means.

What remains is that we cannot place Paul at any factually determined distance from either Lechmere or Mizen. And so it remains perfectly possible that he was out of earshot when the two spoke.

End of story.

[drstrange169]

>>Of course, it WOULD be fun to see you try and wriggle your way out of this:
"Because of that, an imaginative story has to created about Paul not being there, even though ALL THREE agree he was."
Yes, all three agree that Paul arrived with Lechmere in Bakers Row. But what does "there" mean in practical terms? Is it proven that he was close enough to hear the conversation between Lechmere and Mizen? If so, please provide evidence that proves that, so we can get it overwith.
Mizens take on things goes like this: "a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row" in DT, and like this: "I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row)", and like this: "at a quarter past 4 on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, and a man passing said "You are wanted in Baker's-row."
To name but a few.
Now, you tell me, where is the distance between Paul and Lechmere given?<<

Where? in the Mizen testimony reports you deliberately edited out of you quoting, of course.

Echo: "There was another man in the company of Cross WHEN THE LATTER SPOKE ..."
Morning Advertiser: "The Coroner: There was another man in the company with Cross? The Witness: YES."
Walthamstow and Leyton Guardian: "WHEN CROSS SPOKE TO THE WITNESS HE WAS ACCOMPANIED BY ANOTHER MAN."
Times: "WHEN CROSS SPOKE TO THE WITNESS HE WAS ACCOMPANIED BY ANOTHER MAN, and BOTH OF THEM went down Hanbury Street."
Star: " Cross,WHEN HE SPOKE TO THE WITNESS ABOUT THE AFFAIR, WAS ACCOMPANIED BY ANOTHER MAN."

Inspector Abberline: " THEY met P.C. 55.H Mizen and AQUATINTED HIM of what they had see."

And, of course Inspector Swanson's report of Oct 19th, you know, the one you consider gospel and the last word,
"THEY informed P.C. 55H Divn.Mizen in Bakers Row

All put in context:
Daily News, Illustrated Police News, East London Observer, Lloyds Newspaper and Daily Telegraph: " when a carman passing by IN THE COMPANY of ANOTHER MAN."

Those are the facts.



>>Mizen consistently says that ONE man spoke to him, he never says he was approached by two men... <<

Both Abberline and Swanson who, presumably had access to Mizen's either written or verbal report, recount both men talking to P.C. 55H, as opposed to the vagueness of journalistic precising. Plus, of course both Cross and Paul confirm both spoke to Mizen.

Those are the facts.



>>Please provide any proof you have that Paul must have been able to hear Lechmeres words.<<

Echo: "There was another man in the company of Cross WHEN THE LATTER SPOKE ..."
Walthamstow and Leyton Guardian: "WHEN CROSS SPOKE TO THE WITNESS HE WAS ACCOMPANIED BY ANOTHER MAN."
Times: "WHEN CROSS SPOKE TO THE WITNESS HE WAS ACCOMPANIED BY ANOTHER MAN, and BOTH OF THEM went down Hanbury Street."
Star: " Cross,WHEN HE SPOKE TO THE WITNESS ABOUT THE AFFAIR, WAS ACCOMPANIED BY ANOTHER MAN."
Inspector Abberline: " THEY met P.C. 55.H Mizen and AQUATINTED HIM of what they had see."
Inspector Swanson's report of Oct 19th: "THEY informed P.C. 55H Divn.Mizen in Bakers Row".

Those are the facts.


>>Mrs Green was also "there" as was the couple in Essex Wharf.<<

Correct! As were the rest of her family and the Purkis's which means Cross was never alone with the body,

[drstrange169]

>>The one and only answer I will give Dr Strange is that he is wrong when he says that my personal life and the Lechmere theory are interconnected. <<

Since I have not mentioned anything about your personal life outside these boards and the Lechmere theory, I can't have said they are interconnected, so I can't be wrong!

In fact in in Post #624 on the "Window of Time for Nichols murder", just a mere 4 days ago, I specifically stated I am only talking about your theories and conduct on these boards ONLY, to wit,

"I'm sure you are a nice guy and I have no problems generally with you, but please don't claim that you are always honest with us on these boards."


Re-reading the posts here on this thread I see that nobody has said anything negative about your life outside your interaction with us, expect you. Could cite an example from the previous posts that are negative about your personal life?

It's all here in black and white, or on my computer black and a kind of olivey colour.

So cut the "whining" as you put it, and get back to the "issues" as you also put it.

[Kattrup]

Let´s proceed with the issue at hand, Kattrup!

Must we?
Very Well

It should be interesting and - I believe - revealing. If I am wrong, then of course I am the one that will be revealed, but let's see!

You say you agree with Patrick, that the Mizen scam is laughable. Now, I am not sure, because people say the strangest things out here, but presumably you would agree with this:

If a person who is linked to a crime scene totally disagrees with the police about what has passed between them on the day of a murder, and if that disagreement is of a character where the version of the person linked to the crime scene bears traits that are consistent with having been fabricated in order to escape responsibility for the crime, then the matter must be investigated and some degree of suspicion must be entertained that the person involved may be lying to save his neck.

It’s not very difficult to agree with such hypotheticals; the problems arise when one tries a 1:1 approach from hypothetical to empirical situation.
Charles Cross did not “totally” disagree with the police and his “version” does not have such traits as you mention

[APerno]

Of course, it WOULD be fun to see you try and wriggle your way out of this:

"Because of that, an imaginative story has to created about Paul not being there, even though ALL THREE agree he was."

Yes, all three agree that Paul arrived with Lechmere in Bakers Row. But what does "there" mean in practical terms? Is it proven that he was close enough to hear the conversation between Lechmere and Mizen? If so, please provide evidence that proves that, so we can get it overwith.

It doesn't work this way. That Paul and Lechmere spoke with PC Mizen together is the historical conventional wisdom. If you want to base an argument on the fact that Paul didn't hear something said to Mizen, by Lechmere, then you have the responsibility to prove Paul couldn't hear the conversation, it's not for the rest of us to prove that he could hear it.

That he could hear it, is the historical CW.

You're trying to turn this into an argument from ignorance and reverse the burden of proof; if you want to rewrite history then the obligation to prove something different lies with you, the burden is not on us to re-prove, for you, what has been accepted and worked as a truth for 120 years.

Can you prove Paul couldn't hear the Lechmere-Mizen conversation? That burden lies with you.

[Fisherman]

Of course, it WOULD be fun to see you try and wriggle your way out of this:

"Because of that, an imaginative story has to created about Paul not being there, even though ALL THREE agree he was."

Yes, all three agree that Paul arrived with Lechmere in Bakers Row. But what does "there" mean in practical terms? Is it proven that he was close enough to hear the conversation between Lechmere and Mizen? If so, please provide evidence that proves that, so we can get it overwith.

Mizens take on things goes like this: "a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row" in DT, and like this: "I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row)", and like this: "at a quarter past 4 on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, and a man passing said "You are wanted in Baker's-row."
To name but a few.

Now, you tell me, where is the distance between Paul and Lechmere given? Where is out proven that Paul must have heard what Lechmere said to Mizen? In these or any other sources? Pray tell me!
Mizen consistently says that ONE man spoke to him, he never says he was approached by two men, and "passing in company with" does not necessarily mean that the two carmen passed arm in arm. It only points to how Mizen could tell that they were in company, meaning that they were trekking together. This he could have gathered from, for example, how ne noticed that the two men spoke to each other as they arrived in Bakers Row, from how Lechmere said to Paul "You go ahead and I will talk to the officer" from how he noted how Lechmere said "wait for me" to the disappearing Paul or from a number of other things, none of them meaning that Paul was physically close to Lechmere. No physical proximity can be established, and consequently it cannot be established whether Paul must have heard what Lechmere told Mizen or not.

Please provide any proof you have that Paul must have been able to hear Lechmeres words. You see, it is not the fact that Paul "was there" that is of importance, it is whether he was within earshot of Lechmere and Mizen. And believe it or not, just like my person and the theory, these are different matters. Mrs Green was also "there" as was the couple in Essex Wharf.

[Fisherman]

The one and only answer I will give Dr Strange is that he is wrong when he says that my personal life and the Lechmere theory are interconnected. They are emphatically not. The overall idea is - if I am not much mistaken - to try and paint me out as a bad person, and then to let that taint the suggestion of Lechmere as the killer.

It is an abominable approach, and one that does not work. Einstein was either right or wrong about relativity. If he had participated in a docu where something was worded in a less than clear way, that would not influence relativity in any shape or form.

So no, Dr Strange, it did not work this time either.

Since the rest of your posts are along the exact same line and doubtlessly aiming at the same thing, I will leave it uncommented on. It allows me to point out that such material deserves no answer, and it allows you to claim that I actually cannot answer your valued thinking and questions. That should keep us both happy, I´d say.

PS. You can always try the old ploy "Now he compares himself to Einstein - oh, the arrogance!" DS.

[Fisherman]

Let´s proceed with the issue at hand, Kattrup! It should be interesting and - I believe - revealing. If I am wrong, then of course I am the one that will be revealed, but let's see!

You say you agree with Patrick, that the Mizen scam is laughable. Now, I am not sure, because people say the strangest things out here, but presumably you would agree with this:

If a person who is linked to a crime scene totally disagrees with the police about what has passed between them on the day of a murder, and if that disagreement is of a character where the version of the person linked to the crime scene bears traits that are consistent with having been fabricated in order to escape responsibility for the crime, then the matter must be investigated and some degree of suspicion must be entertained that the person involved may be lying to save his neck.

Just let me know if you agree with this, or if you think that it would be laughable to consider the discrepancy/discrepancies meaning that it would be completely logical to entertain suspicion that the person involved is not telling the truth.

Patrick of course qualified his verdict by saying that it is how we know the movements, whereabouts and statements made by Paul in connection with the Carmens conversation with Mizen that makes the Mizen scam laughable. Maybe you want to qualify your take on the matter along the same lines? Or maybe you consider disagreements of this type as totally unworthy of any further investigation or suspicion. To me, the term laughable suggests a certainty on your behalf that Lechmere actually could not have lied to Mizen to hide his culpability. Is this so? Do you consider this proven?

Once I have your answer, we can move on.