Lechmere validity

[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,

[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.

[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]

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]

>>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.

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[Fisherman]

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.

Wordplay? To a degree, yes - and led on by how Dr Strange - and a few other characters, guess who? - out here say that we know that Paul was in close proximity to Lechmere as the latter spoke to Mizen. Of course, we have no such knowledge at all, but since the wording "in company with" is used to try and set in stone that Paul was always within earshot of Lechmere, then Dr Stranges joy in finding out that Lechmere can be said not to have been alone with Nichols (supposedly because Mrs Green and the Purkisses were "there" :dunce"), I thought I may just as well show him - and a few others - that such a game can be played by more than one poster.
Regardless of whether we lookout it as wordplay or not, it nevertheless applies that we don't know that Paul was close to Lechmere as the latter informed Mizen. The "undeniable wealth of evidence" you claim has been posted to make sure that Paul was within earshot never existed. That "undeniable wealth" is nothing but an undeniable wealth of echoing how the papers (not all of them, though) say that the carmen were together. But Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were together on the moon - were they always within earshot of each other? We can be together and nevertheless be a long way apart. "Together" is not a word that signals any given distance, it is a term that tells us that two or more people are connected. We are all together on this planet. Once we use it the way it was used in the papers "A man who passed in company with another man", the same thing applies with the difference that we now get a confined space (they walked the same street at the same time and were apparently connected). But they can nevertheless have been five, ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty yards apart.
Who are you to say that you know which distance applied? We simply cannot, Herlock. Sit yourself comfortably down, read the paper reports and try to place Paul at any exact spot. It cannot be done.

[Fisherman]

Back here again I see.

Sorry, but I believe the boards ARE public.

The argument that Paul did not hear the conversation is one of speculation, not backed by the sources, which say the men were together.

The argument that Paul must have been able to hear what Lechmere said is ALSO one of speculation, given that we do not know where Pul was and that the term "together" is no specification of it. When we shot the docu, Edward and I were in place at the shooting sites TOGETHER - but we were many times a hundred yards apart nevertheless. And still, I was in company with him.
Its bummer that you cannot prove where Paul was or that he was within earshot of Mizen, but its bummer you must learn to live with.


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.

A bit wrongly worded - I take ot the last "Mizen" should be a "Paul"?
Regardless, no, Mizen does not say that Paul was out of earshot, very, very, very, VERY true! Bravo!
Next question: does Mizen say that Paul was WITHIN earshot? Oops!

You see, that kind of argument is amber waste of space, and you should know that. Really! We cannot tell whee Paul was and we cannot tell whether he was within earshot. If we accept that "together" denotes a distance of no more than 4 feet, you would be right. But since when has that been a fact? Never!
Once again, together speaks of a connection, not of a distance. Once it speaks of a distance (albeit not a factually measured one), we have terms like "very close together" and so on. But once those terms are not used, its adios to any suggestion of a close distance. It is possible, but any other distance, be that 3,13,26 or 40 yards, is ALSO possible as long as we accept that Mizen had identified the men as being connected to each other, or, in other words, as being together.

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.

And the onus of proof that Paul heard is on those who aim THAT! We are on equal footing on this, full stop. And I WILL hammer that point home the next year too, until you get it.

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.

Then again, who says it is incriminating? I say it is deeply suspicious. But of course, you are more interested in moving the goalposts and putting words in my mouth than in getting this factually correct. And I need no other "counter evidence" to dismiss your claim than the very clear fact that "together" does n ot denote distance but connection. Why would I look for any other evidence (like how the Echo speaks of Paul as "the other man, who went down the street), when I don't need it?
Raising your voice was never a clever thing to do if you have nothing useful to say. The papers wrote "together", and you like that a lot. But the fact that Mizen NEVER says that Paul spoke to him, the fact that he says that "a carman", not "two carmen" informed him, and the fact that the coroner had to ask about Paul before Mizen verified his presence in Bakers Row are all parameters that you are much less inclined to mention.
And my, how I wonder why.
Not.




Steve

This really won't do, Steve. There is a semantic possibility (our certainty that "together" does not establish any given distance at all) to explain how Lechmere could have gotten away with murder - and you have the bad taste to try and flat out deny this fact. Well, let me tell you that you will not have Lechmere´s luck - you just got nailed.

[Fisherman]

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

Just a small matter - you don't get to call me intellectually dishonest. To be able to do that, you must prove that "together" involves a distinction that factually establishes a distance. Otherwise, you are wrong. Nota bene, I am not saying that you are a rotten liar, only that you are wrong. If you can extend me the same decency, that would be great.

And if you think that I would in any way be disinclined to have "last years debate" again, then think again; the more often you misrepresent the facts, the better. These ARE public boards, you know.

[Fisherman]

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

No, Jeff, all of the recorded testimony does not say that that the carmen were together when they searched for a PC. But that aside, can YOU provide a measurement that establishes what "together" means? If Paul veered off into a side street to see if there was a PC, while Lechmere proceeded down Bucks Row, would that denote that there was an instance when they were NOT together? If so, when did they stop being together and when was the togetherness resurrected in terms of feet and yards?

Don´t tell me that I regard what Mizen said he was told as evidence of a confidence game. I see it as POSSIBLE evidence of such a thing, and it would be very strange if I did not, given the wording Mizen speaks of - it is the EXACT kind of thing that would allow a killer to pass the police by. And once we have such a wording, we have an intellectual duty to ask ourselves how this came about, and whether it COULD point to a scam. Once we ask ourselves this, we take into account if there were OTHER strange things involved:
Did Lechmere happen to be alone with the victim, giving him opportunity its to be the killer?
Did he give his correct name at the inquest?
Did he have paths that seems consistent with him being the killer? Was he connected to the murder sites and -areas?
Can Paul verify Lechmere´s story about how he only had seconds alone with the body?
Is Lechmere´s timings spot on?
Such things, you know. The kind of things that made Scobie say "a jury would not like him!"

Simply claiming as a fact that the communication was not a lie is a pitiful way to address the issue.Just as I have the guts to admit that it MUST not have been a lie, I expect my opponents to muster the same courage and admit that it MAY have been a lie, told by a killer. Spouting out alternative innocent explanations will not do the trick.

We need to get real about all of this, the sooner the better.

[Fisherman]

Once more, from the web about what "together REALLY means:

1. with or in proximity to another person or people.
   "together they climbed the dark stairs"

   synonyms:

   with each other, in conjunction, jointly, conjointly, in cooperation, cooperatively, in collaboration, in partnership, in combination, as one, in unison, in concert, concertedly, with one accord, in league, in alliance, in collusion, side by side, hand in hand, hand in glove, shoulder to shoulder, cheek by jowl; informalin cahoots "friends who work together"
2. into companionship or close association.
   "the experience has brought us together"

With OR in proximity to another person! WHAT proximity? It does not say. And it CAN`T be established other than by measuring whatever specific case you are looking at. Did any of the papers or the involved parties establish any such distance?

Look at the phrase offered: "Together they climbed the dark stairs". If there were a hundred steps and if one person was at the top and another at the bottom - would they not have been climbing the stairs together in such a case? And - as always - if you disagree, then exactly how many steps do we allow inbetween the climbers?
The whole idea of an establishable distance is futile in the extreme!

It is an unshakeable FACT that NO distance was given. Accordingly, we can NOT tell whether Paul was within earshot of Lechmere and Mizen or not, just as we cannot say how loud the conversation between the two was and whether there was any ambient sound disenabling Paul to hear what was said. These are totally unknown factors, and that is effectively the end to the discussion.

Since people out here are so keen to say that there is not evidence enough to convict Lechmere, try the same methodology on this issue - if it had been a capital crime to be within earshot of Lechmere and Mizen, would any half decent defense lawyer have a walk in the park freeing Paul of any such proven guilt?

Indeed he would.

[John Wheat]

Lechmeres validity is non existent.