Lechmere validity

[Fisherman]

Right, Jeff! I first note that you - of course - cannot rule out that one of the carmen DID duck into an adjacent street. You just find it unlikely. Good! We agree. On both counts.

Next: You claim that in company means in close company. It does not. They are different things and it is not proven that the two were in close company. Sorry.

Next: You confess to thinking that once you find something unlikely, it will not have happened. Which is interesting. But bonkers. You claim that the carmen simply MUST have walked and arrived in close company, and thereby you make yourself guilty of mishandling the evidence and stretching it way beyond its breaking point. Do you have any good explanation for why Mizen says that "a" man spoke to him? Why is it that he never says that "two men" spoke to him? You claim that my view that the two were possibly out of earshot of each other is a complete flight of fancy, but isn't it true that when we say that "a" person has spoken to us, then one person, not two, has done so? And isn't this consistent with how Paul may not have been in close company with Lechmere at all at that stage? Keep in mind that Baxter had to ask Mizen if there was not another man present in the street as Lechmere spoke to him. If the two HAD jointly approached Mizen and jointly told him that they had found a woman in Bucks Row, then why is it that Mizen speaks of one man only?
Do you have a coin in your pocket? Take it out and look at it. How many sides does it have, Jeff?
An aside: Why do you say that I claim that everything Paul said in his interview was false? Don't do it Steves way, please. Don't put words in my mouth that I have never uttered. We all know that Pauls entire interview and the testimony given at the inquest does not jibe on many points. Which means that we must make sense of it as best as we could.

The geography of Lechmere is and remains very compelling. Many people lived in the area, but one only was found standing close to it while it still bled. It is THAT person we must scrutinize, and he could have had reason to walk east, west, north or south from Bucks Row, meaning that many routes would not jibe with the murder sites in Spitalfields. There were innumerable such possibilities, but instead his logical trek took him right past the killing fields AND he had ties to the two other sites too. Any police force would be extremely interested in that combination - being found by one victims side and having a geography that offers connections to all the other sites. If you think that is not so, then you must think again. It is TNT information to any investigator. And that is BEFORE we addd the name, the times, how Paul did not hear Lechmere and - not least - how he disagreed with the police about what was said, and the version of the police paints a picture of a tailor-made excuse to pass by the police!

Paul did not know that Lechmere had been there for a longer time than he suggested, no. He had absolutely no idea what Lechmere had been up to in the minutes preceding his arrival at Browns. I agree with that. But it is not a point for Lechmere´s innocence, I'm afraid. It is one that allows him opportunity to have killed Nichols.

"That's not how I see it", you say, and that is fine. Just don't go claiming that your version is factually more likely to be correct on grounds of treating it as a fact that the carmen were in close company throughout, because that is fabricating evidence that we do not have.

This spills over onto your claim that you have explanations for Lechmere´s behavior that are more likely to be true than my explanations. Nope. That is again fabricating things that are not established. I think that it is more likely that Mizen heard Lechmere correctly than not, and I base it on how the overwhelming majority of spoke messages are heard and interpreted correctly. If we accept that Mizen did hear what he said he heard, I think it is more likely than not that Lechmere killed Nichols. Saying that most people are not killers is a lame defense in that context.
I'm happy to hear, though, that you want it taken to the protocol that you did NOT mean that it is a fact that Lechmere´s words were innocent. Good!

I am less happy about how you finish off by saying, for example, that I claim that "walking together doesn't mean what it says". That is not a very clever way to argue, is it? It should be quite apparent that what I am saying is not that walking together does not mean walking together, but that walking together should not be looked upon as an assertion of the two parts always being close together.
I would have very much liked if you stayed away from putting words in my mouth that have never been there. It is about common decency. But before I leave, I´d like to go over this particular issue once more.
What do we have? We have a number of papers reporting what happened. They all vary do a smaller or less degree, unless they drew on the same press agency reports. So they will not all the the truth in detail. But let's look at a number of examples!
Daily News: Police constable Mizen said that about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, when a carman passing by in company with another man said...

This tells us that Mizen was of the meaning that the two men were trekking in company with each other. It does not specify how close they were. Mizen could have grounded his take on how he noticed the men speaking to each other, whereafter Lechmere veered off to speak to him (which is why he always says "a" man spoke to him)

Further, Lechmere´s testimony: He and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's row they saw the last witness whom they told that a woman was lying in Buck's row.

Where does it say that they left in close company? Does that go without saying? Personally, I think they left together, be that a yard, three yards or five yards apart, but together nevertheless. But no distance can be given, no certainty had.

This is the archetypical version, more or less. But there are other versions that call upon us to be VERY cautious about trying to determine that the two were always close together. The ad verbatim reporting Morning Advertiser has the meeting between Mizen and Lechmere like this, Mizen testifying:

On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four, 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). The man appeared to be a carman.

Now, WHERE IS PAUL? Gone with the wind! And regardless if you don't find this interesting, I sure do - there WILL be a reason why Mizen did not say that two carmen spoke to him. Let's look at the whole exchange, though, before we move on:

Police constable George Maizen (sic), 55 H, said - On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four, 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). The man appeared to be a carman. (The man, whose name is George Cross, was brought in and witness identified him as the man who spoke to him on the morning in question). I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.

The Coroner - There was another man in company with Cross?

The Witness - Yes. I think he was also a carman.

Now, let's make the assumption that this is what was said at the inquest. I don't think it can be questioned whether Baxter asked that question. or not - when it is explicitly pointed out, then he WILL have pout this question to Mizen. Note, though, that the other papers do NOT mention Baxters question! What we can learn from the exchange is that it was not Mizen who suggested the wording "in company with" - it was Baxter. Ergo, it seems that all the papers speaking about "a carman passing by in company with another man - like The Daily News - constructed that meaning from the exchange where THE CORONER suggested this wordin. Apparently, Mizen never said such a thing - but it nevertheless looks that way in paper after paper.
Now, if Mizen had not seen any sign of the two being acquainted, and if Paul had not arrived in the street at the approximate same time as Lechmere but instead half a minute later, passing by without commenting in any way, then Mizen would have had no reason to conclude that the two were in each others company. So it is apparent that there was reason to believe they were. But that does not equate to the two necessarily being in close company throughout, and if they HAD been, then Mizen would not have said that he was approached by a man, looking like a carman, who spoke to him. He would reasonably have said that TWO men came up to him, and spoke to him if that ever happened. But-he-never-does-do-that!!!
Imagine that the two turned the Bakers Row corner jointly. Imagine that they were talking as they did. Imagine that Mizen noticed them: "There's two guys walking to work together and chatting as they go". Imagine that Lechmere veered off as the only person to speak to Mizen (extremely well reinforced by how Mizen says that one man, not two men, spoke to him). Imagine that Mizen was at the northern side of the corner of Hanbury Street and Bakers Row, and that Paul rounded that corner on the southern side while Lechmere went up to Mizen and spoke to him. Further imagine that the conversation took all of ten seconds , and that Lechmere then joined up with Paul again.
If that was so, why would not Mizen answer the question "there was another man in company with Cross?" with a "Yes"...? What were his alternatives? To say that they were not in company at the very instance when Lechmere spoke to him?

The information given by Mizen is vital in how it points out that he considers the conversation that was had was one of two men interacting. Not three. Paul is excluded, and the coroner has to bring his presence up, which is where he uses the term "in company with".

Can you NOW see how elevating that suggestion on the coroners behalf into ironclad proof that the two carmen were always in very close company, not least when Mizen was spoken to, is something that the evidence does in no way allow for?

[harry]

When the information that Cross was found in the vicinity of Nichol's body,came to the attention of the police,he (Cross) would have,as Fisherman stated,been a person of interest.The police would then assess any information given by Cross as to his (Cross)reasons for being there.Only if sufficient cause for suspicion against Cross had ensued,would the police consider him suspect.This doesn't seem to have happened.He was never a suspect then,there is no cause to consider him suspect now,no matter how many guesses Fisherman,or others ,make.

[Fisherman]

When the information that Cross was found in the vicinity of Nichol's body,came to the attention of the police,he (Cross) would have,as Fisherman stated,been a person of interest.The police would then assess any information given by Cross as to his (Cross)reasons for being there.Only if sufficient cause for suspicion against Cross had ensued,would the police consider him suspect.This doesn't seem to have happened.He was never a suspect then,there is no cause to consider him suspect now,no matter how many guesses Fisherman,or others ,make.

And the police would of course - had they really scrutinized him - found out that Lechmere, not Cross, was his real name. And that would have gone into their protocols. But it never did.

Have a look in the suspects section on these boards Harry, under "L". Guess who is very rightfully there?

The 1888 police was not up to the kind of standards todays police is. Today, Lechmere would have been a person of interest for having been found by the victims side, and he would have become a prime suspect when further information was added.

And that remains, regardless of how many uniformed posts you, or others, make. Thank you for your time.

[Harry D]

Have a look in the suspects section on these boards Harry, under "L". Guess who is very rightfully there?

Rubbing shoulders with Arbie La Bruckman and Charles Le Grand - whoever tf they are?

[Elamarna]

Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

Back here again I see.

Sorry, but I believe the boards ARE public.

Indeed they are, and i was within my rights to say we are having the same old debates,

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.

I care not for the anecdotal stories of you and Mr "Stow". What I do care for is the historical sources, which say, more than once, that both Carmen spoke to Mizen, therefore they are within earshot of each other, that is not Speculation that is information from historical sources. it must be so hard to have to accept this sort of thing.

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"?

No worded correctly, that (he) Mizen, did not engage with him (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!

Paul and Lechmere both say they spoke to Mizen, they are therefore both within earshot, to argue that is incorrect requires proving that not one, but both lied. It is your argument that is sadly still a waste of space.

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.

It is not about connections or speculated distance or semantics; It is simply down to the Sources. That you ignore these ,where both Carmen claimed they spoke to Mizen is the telling point in your reply. Mizen never says Paul did not speak, that is he did not affirmatively state such, he simply does not mention talking to Paul, that is very different.

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.

Sorry, it's not, learn how research works. Hammer home till the cows come home, it makes no difference, The onus of proof is Always on those arguing against the established facts.

In this case those are sources which say both Carmen spoke to Mizen, therefore they are within earshot.
To successfully argue that they are not within earshot, one must first disprove the accounts of BOTH Carmen.
There is Nothing to suggest such can be accomplished, and certainly it has not been yet.

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?

A semantic argument, used when all else fail, as it does by ignoring the statements saying both men spoke to Mizen.
Go ahead quote the Echo, it also said :

"The other man then said, "I believe she is dead.""

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.

Because, we have Two saying they Both spoke to Mizen rather than Mizen simply not mentioning Paul, which is not the same has saying he did not speak.
While one can argue reasons for Both Lechmere and Mizen to lie in some circumstances, as I explore fully in "Inside Bucks Row"; there is far less to support that Paul would tell a deliberate lie, rather than simply exaggerating and taking the lead, as he does in the Lloyds account.

I do not fail to take into account that Baxter had to ask Mizen about Paul
Baxter had to ask, because Mizen was excising Paul from the account, the whole incident as related by Mizen on the 3rd is in direct consequence of The Lloyds account of the 2nd, and Neil's evidence on the 1st. The tail is damage limitation.

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.

It will do very well, because it is based on the sources, not on endless speculation, which has to ignore or discount those sources, without argument for such being made.

It is you who are nailed, nailed to the Lechmere theory, by denying the joint accounts of Lechmere andPaul,

[Elamarna]

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.

It is the argument that is intellectually dishonest, the semantic argument over "together" is secondary, but still an attempt at misrepresenting and misleading, to the point that Paul says He spoke to Mizen, Lechmere also says Paul spoke to Mizen.

The argument that you cannot prove they were within earshot, despite the fact that both Carmen claimed to speak to Mizen, therefore it is possible they were not.
It is a very similar argument to, that because we cannot prove the exact method for the construction of the pyramids; nor can we Prove that advanced aliens did not build them, it remains possible that they did. Which of course, ignores the evidence we do have.

That is intellectual dishonesty, just like the argument used to say Paul was not within earshot, which ignores the claims of BOTH Carmen that they BOTH spoke to Mizen.

I am more than happy to repeat the debate, once again exposing the illegitimacy of the argument.


Steve

[JeffHamm]

Right, Jeff! I first note that you - of course - cannot rule out that one of the carmen DID duck into an adjacent street. You just find it unlikely. Good! We agree. On both counts.

No, you didn't understand my closing statement where I clearly said it is safe to conclude they did not take any undocumented side trips. However, we do not have to agree on that. However, you clearly believe they did. You also clearly stated that Lechmere/Cross arrive at PC Mizen together, so please clarify your belief. It doesn't matter that I don't think this side trip happened, what matters here is that you do, and I'm interested in hearing what you believe on this.

So, I'll list my questions on separate lines to make it easier for you to respond to them because I'm genuinely curious as to your thinking on this:
1) which of the two (Lechmere/Cross or Paul) do you think took the side trip?
2) Why did the other wait for them (as you believe they arrive at PC Mizen together, the other must have waited since you also believe they left the body together)?
3) How long was this delay (a range of times would be fine since, as we know, it's not documented anywhere so we don't have testimony to point to but I just want to get an idea of what you believe the duration of this side trip by one of them lasted)?
4) Do you have an idea as to what street or area this side trip went along?

Next: You claim that in company means in close company. It does not. They are different things and it is not proven that the two were in close company. Sorry.

No, that's what it means. I'm afraid you're interpretation of that is against the semantics of the sentence. When people say they left together to find a PC, it means they walked together in company. Arguing they were not in close proximity given that testimony is to argue against the testimony. Sorry.

Next: You confess to thinking that once you find something unlikely, it will not have happened. Which is interesting. But bonkers. You claim that the carmen simply MUST have walked and arrived in close company, and thereby you make yourself guilty of mishandling the evidence and stretching it way beyond its breaking point.

No, I'm saying that their testimony is that they walked together, which means they walked together, that is describing two people in close proximity. You are trying to argue that when they say A that not A is the reasonable interpretation, and it is not. It is possible only in the same sense that it is possible that Lechmere/Cross was, in fact, a 3 foot dyed purple retired circus clown, and all descriptions of him to the contrary are intended to mean that he was just that. Sorry Fisherman, walking together means just that, walking in close proximity together.

And no, when I say something is unlikely to have happened, I mean exactly that, it was unlikely to have happened. I wasn't there, so of course I cannot be 100% positive, nor can you. But from all the evidence we have, the evidence clearly indicates that Lechmere/Cross and Paul were in close proximity to each other, and barring both of them and PC Mizen mis-stating that fact (which is so unlikely that in this case yes, I would conclude the probability of it being anything other than what they stated, which is they were "together", which means in close proximity, as having such a low probability that it is effectively 0, even if in the strictest sense it is not exactly 0%. If you wish to take that as agreeing with you, so be it, but my intention is to convey I do not agree with your interpretation. My intention is not, however, to accuse you of telling a lie, because I believe you believe your interpretation. I just don't agree with it.

Do you have any good explanation for why Mizen says that "a" man spoke to him? Why is it that he never says that "two men" spoke to him?
You claim that my view that the two were possibly out of earshot of each other is a complete flight of fancy, but isn't it true that when we say that "a" person has spoken to us, then one person, not two, has done so? And isn't this consistent with how Paul may not have been in close company with Lechmere at all at that stage? Keep in mind that Baxter had to ask Mizen if there was not another man present in the street as Lechmere spoke to him. If the two HAD jointly approached Mizen and jointly told him that they had found a woman in Bucks Row, then why is it that Mizen speaks of one man only?

So are you saying only Lechmere/Cross spoke to PC Mizen? That Paul never spoke to him because PC Mizen indicates that after he spoke to the man, who was in the company of another man, the two left together. My interpretation is that Lechmere/Cross probably initiated the conversation with PC Mizen and Paul agreed, that there was a woman laying in the road and he too thought she might be dead. But ok, I see you are arguing that only Cross/Lechmere spoke to PC Mizen, and you are claiming he did so out of earshot of Paul, who did not interact with PC Mizen, since PC Mizen testifies the two left together and he went off to Buck's Row. Is that what you're saying?

Do you have a coin in your pocket? Take it out and look at it. How many sides does it have, Jeff?

Three

An aside: Why do you say that I claim that everything Paul said in his interview was false? Don't do it Steves way, please. Don't put words in my mouth that I have never uttered. We all know that Pauls entire interview and the testimony given at the inquest does not jibe on many points. Which means that we must make sense of it as best as we could.

The geography of Lechmere is and remains very compelling. Many people lived in the area, but one only was found standing close to it while it still bled.

Ummm, Diemshutz is a bit off topic here. The only possible reference to bleeding is PC Neil's description of blood "oozing", which isn't really bleeding, but rather describing a fresh wound, but his patrol was only 30 minutes, so even if she was killed immediately after he passed the previous time, the wound could still be "fresh and oozing". Bleeding would be used to describe a more "active" blood flow, which there is some aspects of Stride's crime scene that could fit that description (but let's not get side tracked there).

It is THAT person we must scrutinize, and he could have had reason to walk east, west, north or south from Bucks Row, meaning that many routes would not jibe with the murder sites in Spitalfields. There were innumerable such possibilities, but instead his logical trek took him right past the killing fields AND he had ties to the two other sites too. Any police force would be extremely interested in that combination - being found by one victims side and having a geography that offers connections to all the other sites. If you think that is not so, then you must think again. It is TNT information to any investigator. And that is BEFORE we addd the name, the times, how Paul did not hear Lechmere and - not least - how he disagreed with the police about what was said, and the version of the police paints a picture of a tailor-made excuse to pass by the police!

Again, you think it remarkable that a local individual has connections with the local area. I don't see that as incriminating. I suspect, if one were to pick any of the local suspects, say Hutchinson for example, and were to examine his life over the previous 20 years, one could also find connections to many or all of the areas too. I'm not suspect oriented, so no, I'm not going to do that, but I've presented it as a testable hypothesis. Anyone who has a local named suspect (I'm thinking Kosminski, Hutchinson, Barnett, for example), could, and should, present such information. Those would be the experts to compare notes with. But as an argument used to suggest that a suspect is a good one because they were local and had local connections, well, sorry, that's not going to convince me of anything because it's hardly surprising whether they are guilty or not.

Paul did not know that Lechmere had been there for a longer time than he suggested, no. He had absolutely no idea what Lechmere had been up to in the minutes preceding his arrival at Browns. I agree with that. But it is not a point for Lechmere´s innocence, I'm afraid. It is one that allows him opportunity to have killed Nichols.

How do you know Paul couldn't see Lechmere walking ahead of him in Buck's Row and saw him stop? He never says "I didn't see him until out of nowhere he appeared ...", he just claims he saw him "standing in the middle of the street" (or something like that), but I have never seen anything where he categorically rules out having seen him earlier walking ahead of him. Can you show me the quote where he does that?

"That's not how I see it", you say, and that is fine. Just don't go claiming that your version is factually more likely to be correct on grounds of treating it as a fact that the carmen were in close company throughout, because that is fabricating evidence that we do not have.

I'm simply not dismissing what they described them as doing, and what PC Mizen describes them as being. You are ignoring the meaning of the words by claiming they were not in close proximity, becuase to make that claim is to go against the meaning of the words. Leaving and walking together means, as a pair of people. And that is two people in close proximity to each other. They said that, PC Mizen describes them as being in company with each other, so they were, by all accounts, in close proximity.

Now, you have said above that you believe that PC Mizen may have spoken with Lechmere/Cross alone, and that Paul did not speak with him. So you are claiming that PC Mizen took Cross/Lechmere aside and spoke only with him, is that what you mean? Is that the point at which you are saying they are not longer in close proximity?

This spills over onto your claim that you have explanations for Lechmere´s behavior that are more likely to be true than my explanations. Nope. That is again fabricating things that are not established. I think that it is more likely that Mizen heard Lechmere correctly than not, and I base it on how the overwhelming majority of spoke messages are heard and interpreted correctly. If we accept that Mizen did hear what he said he heard, I think it is more likely than not that Lechmere killed Nichols. Saying that most people are not killers is a lame defense in that context.
I'm happy to hear, though, that you want it taken to the protocol that you did NOT mean that it is a fact that Lechmere´s words were innocent. Good!

Of course I can't say they must have been innocent, the case hasn't been solved. I just think the weight of evidence leans strongly in favour of that. You seem to misinterpret the notion that my saying one explanation is more likely than the other to either mean I'm stating it as a 100% fact, which I'm not, or that I'm somehow saying it's 50/50, which it doesn't mean either. We look at evidence, and we look at the explanations for that evidence, and we evaluate the "fit", if you will. Something that is proven impossible gets a 0% exactly, but if something is not entirely impossible, that means it has some possibility of being right (even extremely low probability events do occur sometimes). Trying to assign exact probabilities to complicated theories, like JtR, would be a nightmare. But one still can speak in terms of probabilities to give an idea of how strongly one believes option A relative to option B or C or D. Basically, having read the various presentations, and having looked at what evidence I have available, and the time, to go over, I see the probability of innocence for Lechmere/Cross to be much higher than the probability for his guilt. You see it the other way. Hardly surprising given you believe very different things than I do, despite us looking at and going over the same basic evidence. You believe in side trips (and I do want to know what you believe about that, because I can't imagine any, so I'm curious to hear your views above). But again, back to what I'm saying, because the case hasn't been solved, that means JtR could be anyone who was in the area, and Lechmere/Cross and Paul were both in the area, so it could, I suppose, be either one, but I think we both would agree that the probability of it being Paul is lower than the probability of it being Lechmere/Cross though neither of us can say for certain it couldn't have been Paul (he slipped behind Cross, through the shadows, or went around, or whatever it takes to get him behind Cross/Lechmere, so that he could set up the perfect alibi of having someone find the body ahead of him, he's willing to move the body just to cover the possiblity he's still got blood on his hands, he's dropped the knife during his circling back to the top of Buck's Row - I can make anything up - and no, I don't believe any of this nonsense cause I'm making it up as I type it, I'm just showing what one can do if one simply ignores the data. There's nothing but Paul's word, after all, that he left the house shortly before 3:45. He could have left at 3:00 and was waiting for a victim, then waiting for someone to set up. He worked right next to 29 Hanbury street too, and ...

I am less happy about how you finish off by saying, for example, that I claim that "walking together doesn't mean what it says". That is not a very clever way to argue, is it? It should be quite apparent that what I am saying is not that walking together does not mean walking together, but that walking together should not be looked upon as an assertion of the two parts always being close together.
I would have very much liked if you stayed away from putting words in my mouth that have never been there. It is about common decency. But before I leave, I´d like to go over this particular issue once more.

I will if you will. I did not agree with you above, yet you present my clear disagreement as if I'm agreeing with you. You present my presentation of "more likely" as if I'm stating certainty and facts at times, and at other times you use it to claim I'm in agreement with you despite your conclusion being the one I label the less likely.

And, I listed the testimony of them leaving together, walking together, etc, as the evidence for them being in close proximity, and you keep saying they weren't. Apparently, above, you finally present what I think you mean, that they were separated after they met PC Mizen, and that only Cross/Lechmere spoke to PC Mizen. You buried that so that it was unrecognizable in your previous posts as you spent all your time focusing on saying that leaving and walking together don't mean in close proximity, when all you had to say was "yes, of course they were in close proximity when travelling, but given this evidence (the testimony of PC Mizen that "a man spoke to hime", evidence that you have only just mentioned as the reference point to what you were working from, which makes all the hubbub about whether walking together means in close proximity or not a complete distraction and made it impossible to know what you're getting at)

So no, I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was arguing based upon what you presented, and you presented an argument against close proximity and walking together. You didn't, until now, clarify what you meant. As the presenter of a line of reasoning, you are responsible for making it clear what you intend. And if someone misunderstands you, you are responsible for clarifying. I am asking you here, to clarify that for the third time in this post (because it's been an important point up to now),

When you are saying they were not in close proximity, do you mean they were when they left the body, walked together, found PC Mizen was when they were in close proximity to each other, but once they met PC Mizen, then they separated, with Cross/Lechmere only speaking with PC Mizen (because PC Mizen's testimony is that "a man spoke to him", and then the two of them left together (as PC Mizen's testimony concludes with the two mean walking off together down Hanbury Street)? Are you only saying they were not in close proximity during that discussion?

What do we have? We have a number of papers reporting what happened. They all vary do a smaller or less degree, unless they drew on the same press agency reports. So they will not all the the truth in detail. But let's look at a number of examples!
Daily News: Police constable Mizen said that about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, when a carman passing by in company with another man said...

This tells us that Mizen was of the meaning that the two men were trekking in company with each other. It does not specify how close they were. Mizen could have grounded his take on how he noticed the men speaking to each other, whereafter Lechmere veered off to speak to him (which is why he always says "a" man spoke to him)

Further, Lechmere´s testimony: He and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's row they saw the last witness whom they told that a woman was lying in Buck's row.

Where does it say that they left in close company? Does that go without saying? Personally, I think they left together, be that a yard, three yards or five yards apart, but together nevertheless. But no distance can be given, no certainty had.

This is the archetypical version, more or less. But there are other versions that call upon us to be VERY cautious about trying to determine that the two were always close together. The ad verbatim reporting Morning Advertiser has the meeting between Mizen and Lechmere like this, Mizen testifying:

On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four, 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). The man appeared to be a carman.

Now, WHERE IS PAUL? Gone with the wind! And regardless if you don't find this interesting, I sure do - there WILL be a reason why Mizen did not say that two carmen spoke to him. Let's look at the whole exchange, though, before we move on:

Police constable George Maizen (sic), 55 H, said - On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four, 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). The man appeared to be a carman. (The man, whose name is George Cross, was brought in and witness identified him as the man who spoke to him on the morning in question). I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.

The Coroner - There was another man in company with Cross?

The Witness - Yes. I think he was also a carman.

Now, let's make the assumption that this is what was said at the inquest. I don't think it can be questioned whether Baxter asked that question. or not - when it is explicitly pointed out, then he WILL have pout this question to Mizen. Note, though, that the other papers do NOT mention Baxters question! What we can learn from the exchange is that it was not Mizen who suggested the wording "in company with" - it was Baxter. Ergo, it seems that all the papers speaking about "a carman passing by in company with another man - like The Daily News - constructed that meaning from the exchange where THE CORONER suggested this wordin. Apparently, Mizen never said such a thing - but it nevertheless looks that way in paper after paper.
Now, if Mizen had not seen any sign of the two being acquainted, and if Paul had not arrived in the street at the approximate same time as Lechmere but instead half a minute later, passing by without commenting in any way, then Mizen would have had no reason to conclude that the two were in each others company. So it is apparent that there was reason to believe they were. But that does not equate to the two necessarily being in close company throughout, and if they HAD been, then Mizen would not have said that he was approached by a man, looking like a carman, who spoke to him. He would reasonably have said that TWO men came up to him, and spoke to him if that ever happened. But-he-never-does-do-that!!!
Imagine that the two turned the Bakers Row corner jointly. Imagine that they were talking as they did. Imagine that Mizen noticed them: "There's two guys walking to work together and chatting as they go". Imagine that Lechmere veered off as the only person to speak to Mizen (extremely well reinforced by how Mizen says that one man, not two men, spoke to him). Imagine that Mizen was at the northern side of the corner of Hanbury Street and Bakers Row, and that Paul rounded that corner on the southern side while Lechmere went up to Mizen and spoke to him. Further imagine that the conversation took all of ten seconds , and that Lechmere then joined up with Paul again.
If that was so, why would not Mizen answer the question "there was another man in company with Cross?" with a "Yes"...? What were his alternatives? To say that they were not in company at the very instance when Lechmere spoke to him?

The information given by Mizen is vital in how it points out that he considers the conversation that was had was one of two men interacting. Not three. Paul is excluded, and the coroner has to bring his presence up, which is where he uses the term "in company with".

Can you NOW see how elevating that suggestion on the coroners behalf into ironclad proof that the two carmen were always in very close company, not least when Mizen was spoken to, is something that the evidence does in no way allow for?

- Jeff

[Patrick S]

I only have to point out how Patrick begins his post - he claims it is "absolutely ridiculous and arrogant" of me to point out that I do not think that it is a good idea to scrutinize my person instead of discussing the value of the Lechmere theory.
Personally, I disagree. Discussing posters instead of what they post is an intellectual low-wear mark, regardless if it is about that posters care about his children or about how it is perceived that he only can discuss amiably with people who fully agree with his views and avoid to criticize him in any way - which is a picture that Patrick enjoys painting.

I will not go much further into the rest of his post, but for one thing: we can all see that he actually insists that it is laughable to regard the Mizen scam as suspicious. And he motivates that take on things like this: "Absolutely. Yes. It is laughable. It did not happen." To cement how he cannot be wrong, he for example insists on knowing where Robert Paul was during the meeting with Mizen.

So maybe he is right to point out how deeply he has studied the case, not least since he has been able to find facts that have eluded the rest - or perhaps I should say the more discerning - of us.

I have two kinds of discussions out on Casebook. One is the kind that Patrick and a few others offer. The other type is conducted in the company of serious and discerning posters like, say, Cris Malone, Gary Barnett, Debra Arif, Jon Smythe and Frank van Oploo (who do not agree with me about Lechmere, any of them, but who are amazingly able to partake in amiable discussions with me nevertheless). To imagine them descending into discussing whether I am a caring father or not instead of commenting on the aspects of the case I am discussing, and into calling the Mizen scam laughable, is something I find very hard to do.

That is, I would suggest, because they are out here on account of a genuine interest in the case and not in me - and much less in themselves.

That, I believe, covers all I want to say.

All I can say is that you see things in your own unique way. Thanks for your response.

[APerno]

Rubbing shoulders with Arbie La Bruckman and Charles Le Grand - whoever tf they are?

A PI or something like that, La Grand is an interesting cat worth checking out; not because he is the Ripper but because some historians have fun trying to associate him with the Dear Boss letter. It is a pretty stupid theory but fun.

[APerno]

In regards to the presence of a second PC at the scene and who told whom what, isn't the most likely liar Mizen? After his encounter with Cross and Paul he continued to knock people up and needed at the inquest to explain/excuse why he didn't go straight away to the scene?

[Patrick S]

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.

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.

I'd just like to point out that I've never accused of you being a bad journalist. I've never made fun a Swedish person, you included. And I had no idea that you were a father until I read this post. I have said that proposing Lechemere as the Ripper is fair game. After all, naming suspects isn't new. I've said your documentary is above board. I've even called it "very well done". I've not called you a liar or "misleader" but I do think the documentary is - in parts - misleading, even though I don't think that YOU mislead people because I think you genuinely believe the things you say. I don't find any of this "hilarious" but I do find it uninteresting. You've written myriad less than wonderful thing about me, far worse than I've written about you, and I simply don't care. Have at it. I won't respond with personal attacks. I would only remind that you calling the Mizen Scam "laughable" is not the same as calling YOU "laughable". Others are free to call it brilliant, awesome, and the best thing since pleated pants. I call it "laughable". And I'd debate anyone on the topic and some may judge me wrong. Other's may agree. And the band plays on.

[Fisherman]

Rubbing shoulders with Arbie La Bruckman and Charles Le Grand - whoever tf they are?

Don´t say that when Tom Wescott listens!

[Fisherman]

Indeed they are, and i was within my rights to say we are having the same old debates,




I care not for the anecdotal stories of you and Mr "Stow". What I do care for is the historical sources, which say, more than once, that both Carmen spoke to Mizen, therefore they are within earshot of each other, that is not Speculation that is information from historical sources. it must be so hard to have to accept this sort of thing.





No worded correctly, that (he) Mizen, did not engage with him (Paul).



Paul and Lechmere both say they spoke to Mizen, they are therefore both within earshot, to argue that is incorrect requires proving that not one, but both lied. It is your argument that is sadly still a waste of space.



It is not about connections or speculated distance or semantics; It is simply down to the Sources. That you ignore these ,where both Carmen claimed they spoke to Mizen is the telling point in your reply. Mizen never says Paul did not speak, that is he did not affirmatively state such, he simply does not mention talking to Paul, that is very different.




Sorry, it's not, learn how research works. Hammer home till the cows come home, it makes no difference, The onus of proof is Always on those arguing against the established facts.

In this case those are sources which say both Carmen spoke to Mizen, therefore they are within earshot.
To successfully argue that they are not within earshot, one must first disprove the accounts of BOTH Carmen.
There is Nothing to suggest such can be accomplished, and certainly it has not been yet.



A semantic argument, used when all else fail, as it does by ignoring the statements saying both men spoke to Mizen.
Go ahead quote the Echo, it also said :

"The other man then said, "I believe she is dead.""



Because, we have Two saying they Both spoke to Mizen rather than Mizen simply not mentioning Paul, which is not the same has saying he did not speak.
While one can argue reasons for Both Lechmere and Mizen to lie in some circumstances, as I explore fully in "Inside Bucks Row"; there is far less to support that Paul would tell a deliberate lie, rather than simply exaggerating and taking the lead, as he does in the Lloyds account.

I do not fail to take into account that Baxter had to ask Mizen about Paul
Baxter had to ask, because Mizen was excising Paul from the account, the whole incident as related by Mizen on the 3rd is in direct consequence of The Lloyds account of the 2nd, and Neil's evidence on the 1st. The tail is damage limitation.




It will do very well, because it is based on the sources, not on endless speculation, which has to ignore or discount those sources, without argument for such being made.

It is you who are nailed, nailed to the Lechmere theory, by denying the joint accounts of Lechmere andPaul,

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

[Fisherman]

No, you didn't understand my closing statement where I clearly said it is safe to conclude they did not take any undocumented side trips. However, we do not have to agree on that. However, you clearly believe they did. You also clearly stated that Lechmere/Cross arrive at PC Mizen together, so please clarify your belief. It doesn't matter that I don't think this side trip happened, what matters here is that you do, and I'm interested in hearing what you believe on this.

So, I'll list my questions on separate lines to make it easier for you to respond to them because I'm genuinely curious as to your thinking on this:
1) which of the two (Lechmere/Cross or Paul) do you think took the side trip?
2) Why did the other wait for them (as you believe they arrive at PC Mizen together, the other must have waited since you also believe they left the body together)?
3) How long was this delay (a range of times would be fine since, as we know, it's not documented anywhere so we don't have testimony to point to but I just want to get an idea of what you believe the duration of this side trip by one of them lasted)?
4) Do you have an idea as to what street or area this side trip went along?



No, that's what it means. I'm afraid you're interpretation of that is against the semantics of the sentence. When people say they left together to find a PC, it means they walked together in company. Arguing they were not in close proximity given that testimony is to argue against the testimony. Sorry.


No, I'm saying that their testimony is that they walked together, which means they walked together, that is describing two people in close proximity. You are trying to argue that when they say A that not A is the reasonable interpretation, and it is not. It is possible only in the same sense that it is possible that Lechmere/Cross was, in fact, a 3 foot dyed purple retired circus clown, and all descriptions of him to the contrary are intended to mean that he was just that. Sorry Fisherman, walking together means just that, walking in close proximity together.

And no, when I say something is unlikely to have happened, I mean exactly that, it was unlikely to have happened. I wasn't there, so of course I cannot be 100% positive, nor can you. But from all the evidence we have, the evidence clearly indicates that Lechmere/Cross and Paul were in close proximity to each other, and barring both of them and PC Mizen mis-stating that fact (which is so unlikely that in this case yes, I would conclude the probability of it being anything other than what they stated, which is they were "together", which means in close proximity, as having such a low probability that it is effectively 0, even if in the strictest sense it is not exactly 0%. If you wish to take that as agreeing with you, so be it, but my intention is to convey I do not agree with your interpretation. My intention is not, however, to accuse you of telling a lie, because I believe you believe your interpretation. I just don't agree with it.



So are you saying only Lechmere/Cross spoke to PC Mizen? That Paul never spoke to him because PC Mizen indicates that after he spoke to the man, who was in the company of another man, the two left together. My interpretation is that Lechmere/Cross probably initiated the conversation with PC Mizen and Paul agreed, that there was a woman laying in the road and he too thought she might be dead. But ok, I see you are arguing that only Cross/Lechmere spoke to PC Mizen, and you are claiming he did so out of earshot of Paul, who did not interact with PC Mizen, since PC Mizen testifies the two left together and he went off to Buck's Row. Is that what you're saying?



Three



Ummm, Diemshutz is a bit off topic here. The only possible reference to bleeding is PC Neil's description of blood "oozing", which isn't really bleeding, but rather describing a fresh wound, but his patrol was only 30 minutes, so even if she was killed immediately after he passed the previous time, the wound could still be "fresh and oozing". Bleeding would be used to describe a more "active" blood flow, which there is some aspects of Stride's crime scene that could fit that description (but let's not get side tracked there).



Again, you think it remarkable that a local individual has connections with the local area. I don't see that as incriminating. I suspect, if one were to pick any of the local suspects, say Hutchinson for example, and were to examine his life over the previous 20 years, one could also find connections to many or all of the areas too. I'm not suspect oriented, so no, I'm not going to do that, but I've presented it as a testable hypothesis. Anyone who has a local named suspect (I'm thinking Kosminski, Hutchinson, Barnett, for example), could, and should, present such information. Those would be the experts to compare notes with. But as an argument used to suggest that a suspect is a good one because they were local and had local connections, well, sorry, that's not going to convince me of anything because it's hardly surprising whether they are guilty or not.



How do you know Paul couldn't see Lechmere walking ahead of him in Buck's Row and saw him stop? He never says "I didn't see him until out of nowhere he appeared ...", he just claims he saw him "standing in the middle of the street" (or something like that), but I have never seen anything where he categorically rules out having seen him earlier walking ahead of him. Can you show me the quote where he does that?



I'm simply not dismissing what they described them as doing, and what PC Mizen describes them as being. You are ignoring the meaning of the words by claiming they were not in close proximity, becuase to make that claim is to go against the meaning of the words. Leaving and walking together means, as a pair of people. And that is two people in close proximity to each other. They said that, PC Mizen describes them as being in company with each other, so they were, by all accounts, in close proximity.

Now, you have said above that you believe that PC Mizen may have spoken with Lechmere/Cross alone, and that Paul did not speak with him. So you are claiming that PC Mizen took Cross/Lechmere aside and spoke only with him, is that what you mean? Is that the point at which you are saying they are not longer in close proximity?



Of course I can't say they must have been innocent, the case hasn't been solved. I just think the weight of evidence leans strongly in favour of that. You seem to misinterpret the notion that my saying one explanation is more likely than the other to either mean I'm stating it as a 100% fact, which I'm not, or that I'm somehow saying it's 50/50, which it doesn't mean either. We look at evidence, and we look at the explanations for that evidence, and we evaluate the "fit", if you will. Something that is proven impossible gets a 0% exactly, but if something is not entirely impossible, that means it has some possibility of being right (even extremely low probability events do occur sometimes). Trying to assign exact probabilities to complicated theories, like JtR, would be a nightmare. But one still can speak in terms of probabilities to give an idea of how strongly one believes option A relative to option B or C or D. Basically, having read the various presentations, and having looked at what evidence I have available, and the time, to go over, I see the probability of innocence for Lechmere/Cross to be much higher than the probability for his guilt. You see it the other way. Hardly surprising given you believe very different things than I do, despite us looking at and going over the same basic evidence. You believe in side trips (and I do want to know what you believe about that, because I can't imagine any, so I'm curious to hear your views above). But again, back to what I'm saying, because the case hasn't been solved, that means JtR could be anyone who was in the area, and Lechmere/Cross and Paul were both in the area, so it could, I suppose, be either one, but I think we both would agree that the probability of it being Paul is lower than the probability of it being Lechmere/Cross though neither of us can say for certain it couldn't have been Paul (he slipped behind Cross, through the shadows, or went around, or whatever it takes to get him behind Cross/Lechmere, so that he could set up the perfect alibi of having someone find the body ahead of him, he's willing to move the body just to cover the possiblity he's still got blood on his hands, he's dropped the knife during his circling back to the top of Buck's Row - I can make anything up - and no, I don't believe any of this nonsense cause I'm making it up as I type it, I'm just showing what one can do if one simply ignores the data. There's nothing but Paul's word, after all, that he left the house shortly before 3:45. He could have left at 3:00 and was waiting for a victim, then waiting for someone to set up. He worked right next to 29 Hanbury street too, and ...




I will if you will. I did not agree with you above, yet you present my clear disagreement as if I'm agreeing with you. You present my presentation of "more likely" as if I'm stating certainty and facts at times, and at other times you use it to claim I'm in agreement with you despite your conclusion being the one I label the less likely.

And, I listed the testimony of them leaving together, walking together, etc, as the evidence for them being in close proximity, and you keep saying they weren't. Apparently, above, you finally present what I think you mean, that they were separated after they met PC Mizen, and that only Cross/Lechmere spoke to PC Mizen. You buried that so that it was unrecognizable in your previous posts as you spent all your time focusing on saying that leaving and walking together don't mean in close proximity, when all you had to say was "yes, of course they were in close proximity when travelling, but given this evidence (the testimony of PC Mizen that "a man spoke to hime", evidence that you have only just mentioned as the reference point to what you were working from, which makes all the hubbub about whether walking together means in close proximity or not a complete distraction and made it impossible to know what you're getting at)

So no, I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was arguing based upon what you presented, and you presented an argument against close proximity and walking together. You didn't, until now, clarify what you meant. As the presenter of a line of reasoning, you are responsible for making it clear what you intend. And if someone misunderstands you, you are responsible for clarifying. I am asking you here, to clarify that for the third time in this post (because it's been an important point up to now),

When you are saying they were not in close proximity, do you mean they were when they left the body, walked together, found PC Mizen was when they were in close proximity to each other, but once they met PC Mizen, then they separated, with Cross/Lechmere only speaking with PC Mizen (because PC Mizen's testimony is that "a man spoke to him", and then the two of them left together (as PC Mizen's testimony concludes with the two mean walking off together down Hanbury Street)? Are you only saying they were not in close proximity during that discussion?



- Jeff

I really cannot bring myself to take any interest in this post. I got to the two initial statements where you say that it is clear that I think that the carmen ducked into adjaent streets - which is not true, and which I have told you before that I don´t believe. You then go on to say that I stated that Lechmere and Paul arrived at Mizen together, and that is not true either. I was not there, and so all I can do is to make as good a guess as possible.
I find it hard to discuss with somebody who turns what I say into a mockery that has little or nothing to do with my take on things.
The rest is along the same lines. You say that I find it remarkable that a local resident has connections with the local area...! If you really want to discuss the case, then don´t try to get fresh with me. It will have the exact opposite effect.
Like now.

[Patrick S]

I'm sorry. I missed this question earlier, Christer: "Is it laughable to suggest that the Mizen scam can be a pointer to guilt on Lechmere´s behalf, and that if Mizen heard correctly and told the truth, it seemingly spells disaster for the carman?"

I know you're going to bristle at this, Christer, but here goes: You made up the Mizen Scam. You invented it in order to make Mizen truthful and Lechmere a liar... and, not incidentally, the killer of Nichols, Jack the Ripper, The Torso Killer, et al. There is nothing at all to suggest that Lechmere is lying other than your idea that he was Jack the Ripper. Thus, the answer is, unfortunately, yes, it is laughable because there's nothing in what we know of his behavior to suggest he was about anything other than what he and Paul said he was about: He found a woman lying on the pavement. He shared that information with the first person he saw. He went looking for a PC and told him what he'd found. I think it's laughable that a man would do all this on to tell a lie he needn't have ever told to a PC he needn't ever have met. Then he showed up at the inquest of his own accord when he needn't have done that in order to lie again. Yes, I find this laughable. Especially in light of what you require of Robert Paul in order for your Mizen Scam to have happened. That is to say that Lechmere must tell his lie in front of Paul and, having just met him and knowing nothing about him, rely upon his "anti-police" bias and his not telling anyone, not Lloyd's, not the coroner, not the police, that Lechmere lied and told him he was wanted by another PC in Buck's Row. OR Lechemere must have a conversation with Mizen, out of Paul's hearing, tell him this lie, and not only have Paul allow this suspicious conversation to take place, but say nothing of it at the inquest. It defies belief. It's fairly plain to me that Mizen wasn't truthful. It's fairly plain to me why he wasn't truthful. And I find the scenario you've created to defy these things in order to support your theory that Lechmere was a serial killer laughable. I don't know how many times you want to me to say that. But, I'll keep saying it of you insist. I don't begrudge you believing it. I don't begrudge others from thinking it's true and exactly what happened. But, yes. To answer your question it IS laughable to suggest the Mizen Scam even happened much less that it's a "pointer of guilt" at Lechmere.

Thanks!