Lechmere validity

[Kattrup]

I have been called a bad journalist, I have been made fun of for being Swedish, I have had my relationship to my children commented on, as well as my working ethics, I have been accused of making money from relatives of war time casualties - and that's off the top of my head. I have furthermore been called a liar, a misleader and so on. If you think that is hilarious, I can only disagree. I find it sad and telling in equal amounts.

I certainly would never find unreasonable accusations and baseless slander hilarious.

[Fisherman]

I reccommend, Kattrup, that instead of discussing me, you should instead comment on for example the Mizen scam. Do you agree that it is laughable to suggest that it could point to guilt on Lechmere´s part?

Or is it too late for you to discuss that...?

[Fisherman]

I certainly would never find unreasonable accusations and baseless slander hilarious.

Good. Then we agree.

[Kattrup]

I reccommend, Kattrup, that instead of discussing me, you should instead comment on for example the Mizen scam. Do you agree that it is laughable to suggest that it could point to guilt on Lechmere´s part?

Or is it too late for you to discuss that...?

Getting late, but yes, I do agree

[Fisherman]

Getting late, but yes, I do agree

It is indeed getting very late, that's obvious.

A PC says that a man who was subsequently found to have been alone with a murder victim for an unknown period of time had told him that there was another PC in place in Bucks Row when there was not. The same PC says that nothing was said about murder or suicide. And he makes it clear that the man he spoke to did not tell him that he was the one who had found the body himself.

And you find it laughable to say that this points to a possible guilt of that man.

Let´s let that sink in while we go to bed, Kattrup. Goodnight.

[drstrange169]

>>I put it to you that the theory as such cannot be evaluated by speculating about me.<<

The "Lechmere as a suspect" theory in general, I agree.



>>The two are not linked in any shape or form. <<

Of course they are!

Your TV show specifically credits you with the "missing time" story, ergo that subject and its credibility is expressly linked directly to you. It is you that pushes various other aspects such as the so called "Mizen scam".

Many, if not most people except that Charles Allen Lechmere is a person of interest, as people have already expressed in posts here and elsewhere. It is the convoluted stories that, you specifically, are promoting that people have "issues" with, ergo you are inextricably linked to the more controversial aspects of the Lechmere theory.



>>In this case, it predisposes that the suggestion that suspicion must adhere to Lechmere, who is involved in a murder case, and who is recorded as having disagreed with a serving PC in a manner that is entirely consistent with having served a tailor-made lie to take him past the police, must be in some way totally wrong. Do we know that the suggestion is in any way totally wrong? No, we don't.<<

In anyway? Yes, in the way Paul never supports Mizen's version. You know, the story he tells the Lloyd's Newspaper. The article that you have been promoting as highly accurate when it says something you like.



>>Regardless of which "truth" applies; that Lechmere lied to Mizen, that the PC misheard or that he made the story up himself, this one item is of a character that immediately must sound the alarm bells with anybody who has any sort of insight.<<

Since Cross, Paul and Mizen all agree that Paul was there and Paul casts no suspicion on Cross, there is no fact based reason not to believe Cross's version. Because of that, an imaginative story has to created about Paul not being there, even though ALL THREE agree he was.

It is a fact that both Cross AND Paul claimed to have told Mizen the prone figure they saw might be dead.



>>I would propose that as factually based evidence goes, no other suspect has anything at all as damning pointing to guilt as this one matter, <<

And of course, every other suspect theorist claims exactly the same thing.

[drstrange169]

Hello Kattrup,

>>"those responsible" - who exactly are you referring to? Could you point to the posters, plural, who have chosen to discuss your personal life?<<

The same "those" who Christer claimed said Cross was 150 yards from the body no doubt. It is what Christer does in his posts, exaggerates and/or invents.

[drstrange169]

>>Don´t misunderstand me - I am not whining about this, I am saying that those who descend into such behavior are unfit to partake in public discussions.<<

It is certainly coming across as whining and, since you are guilty of the crimes you accuse others of (would you like me to post specific examples?), very hypocritical.

[drstrange169]

>> A PC says that a man who was subsequently found to have been alone with a murder victim for an unknown period of time had told him that there was another PC in place in Bucks Row when there was not. The same PC says that nothing was said about murder or suicide. And he makes it clear that the man he spoke to did not tell him that he was the one who had found the body himself.<<

Three unconnected people, two tell the same story, no real surprise that any unbiased view would err on the side of the two over the one. Particularly as there is an obvious glaring reason the one might be wrong.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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.