Lechmere validity

[Fisherman]

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?

Cutting it short: no.

[Fisherman]

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!

If it can be proven that the scam CAN NOT have been a lie fashioned to take a killer past the police you have a point.

Putting it differently, you have no point.

[Patrick S]

If it can be proven that the scam CAN NOT have been a lie fashioned to take a killer past the police you have a point.

Putting it differently, you have no point.

I see. So it's incumbent upon those who don't support your little theory to prove the Mizen Scam DID NOT happen. There's no reason at all to believe that it, or anything like it, occured, but in order to "clear the carman" we must "prove" that the "scam CAN NOT have been a lie fashioned to take a killer past the police"... the police he sought out... right after he sought out Paul.... a few days before he sought out the inquest... so he could pull "The Inquest Scam". You know.... you're right. Who in their right mind would call this Mizen Scam of your "laughable". It's just good common sense.

[Fisherman]

I see. So it's incumbent upon those who don't support your little theory to prove the Mizen Scam DID NOT happen. There's no reason at all to believe that it, or anything like it, occured, but in order to "clear the carman" we must "prove" that the "scam CAN NOT have been a lie fashioned to take a killer past the police"... the police he sought out... right after he sought out Paul.... a few days before he sought out the inquest... so he could like again. You know.... you're right. Who in their right mind would call this Mizen Scam of your "laughable". It's just good common sense.

To be able to say that the Mizen scam is laughable, you have to prove that it was never a scam. If you cannot do that, then calling it laughable becomes nothing but a prime exercise in lacking judgment, reflecting VERY badly on yourself.

Then again, lacking judgment is of course exactly what it is all about.

[Patrick S]

To be able to say that the Mizen scam is laughable, you have to prove that it was never a scam. If you cannot do that, then calling it laughable becomes nothing but a prime exercise in lacking judgment, reflecting VERY badly on yourself.

Then again, lacking judgment is of course exactly what it is all about.

I'm having a hard time following. You're saying "what it's about" is my "lacking judgement"? Because telling me I lack judgement feels like a personal attack. And I just read a treatise by you whining, Sorry....I mean NOT whining, about all the personal attacks you suffer. But, that's okay. I don't mind. I lack judgement. And that's what it's about. Moving on.....

Anyway, you're suggesting that in order for me to find the Mizen Scam laughable I have to prove it was never a scam? I mean, I thought I was allowed say things I find laughable are, you know, laughable, regardless of any rules you put in place allowing me to do so. Obviously, I can't prove it was never a scam because I wasn't there and I lack the ability to time travel. Still, I find your suggestion that Lechemere pulled this Mizen Scam laughable. I mean, I find the Cornewell-Sickert business laughable, as well. Yet, I cannot prove he wasn't Jack the Ripper. Is it out of bounds for me to find that laughable? If Cornwell tells me I'm not allowed to find it laughable unless I can prove he wasn't a serial killer am I not allowed to find it laughable? How about the Royal Conspiracy? I can't prove that wasn't a conspiracy. Can that be laughable? Or am I not allowed to find laughable only things you invented?

[Fisherman]

I'm having a hard time following. You're saying "what it's about" is my "lacking judgement"? Because telling me I lack judgement feels like a personal attack. And I just read a treatise by you whining, Sorry....I mean NOT whining, about all the personal attacks you suffer. But, that's okay. I don't mind. I lack judgement. And that's what it's about. Moving on.....

Anyway, you're suggesting that in order for me to find the Mizen Scam laughable I have to prove it was never a scam? I mean, I thought I was allowed say things I find laughable are, you know, laughable, regardless of any rules you put in place allowing me to do so. Obviously, I can't prove it was never a scam because I wasn't there and I lack the ability to time travel. Still, I find your suggestion that Lechemere pulled this Mizen Scam laughable. I mean, I find the Cornewell-Sickert business laughable, as well. Yet, I cannot prove he wasn't Jack the Ripper. Is it out of bounds for me to find that laughable? If Cornwell tells me I'm not allowed to find it laughable unless I can prove he wasn't a serial killer am I not allowed to find it laughable? How about the Royal Conspiracy? I can't prove that wasn't a conspiracy. Can that be laughable? Or am I not allowed to find laughable only things you invented?

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

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

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

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

I really don´t want to discuss this any more with you, Patrick, so I´d be happy to leave it there.

[rjpalmer]

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Patrick S]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;n709484]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I really don´t want to discuss this any more with you, Patrick, so I´d be happy to leave it there.[/QUOT

Okay. We can stop discussing it. Thanks.

[Patrick S]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Fisherman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Patrick S;n709493]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I really don´t want to discuss this any more with you, Patrick, so I´d be happy to leave it there.[/QUOT

Okay. We can stop discussing it. Thanks.

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

Glad we cleared that up!

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

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

Do many find the suggestion "laughable"?

[Fisherman]

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

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

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

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

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

[Patrick S]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;n709505]

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

Glad we cleared that up!

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

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

Do many find the suggestion "laughable"?

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

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

[rjpalmer]

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

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

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

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

Surely they must have a reason for asking it?

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

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

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

With all good wishes. RP

[Elamarna]

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

No one was discussing anything distasteful..

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

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

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

Goodbye for now.

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

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

It just won't do.


Steve