Lechmere validity

[drstrange169]

>>Baxter KNEW about Robert Paul. He had that material on hand ...<<

But we are not talking about Baxter are we? We are talking about the jury.



>>He could rely with full certainty on how Lechmere would tell the jury and coroner about how he had trekked from Browns to Mizen in company of another carman.<<

Except we don't know whether Mizen knew Lechmere was going to testify as he had already made his comment before Cross was brought into the court.

[drstrange169]

>>I now realize that you said lied or MISLED, and so you have sort of a point for once.<<

Thank you.

Although, once again, "lied or misled" were your words not mine.



>>Not that it means anything much. Because the newspaper reports do not prove that Mizen either lied or misled at all.<<

Mizen did not tell the jury there was an independent witness, one who could clarify the disputes. That is a significant oversight in anybody's book. Therefore, I repeat, "Mizen intentionally or unintentionally misled the jury."



>>They prove that he did not mention Paul before Baxter asked about him, that's all.<<

Precisely!



>>And if Paul did not partake in the discussion at all ... <<

But, Paul and Cross say Paul DID partake in the discussion and Mizen doesn't mention whether Paul partook in the discussion one way or the other, just like he didn't mention Paul was there AT ALL, until Baxter had to correct him.

Again, that's the point. Had he given an accurate account this discussion would not be happening.



>> and if he was not even close at it took place ...<<

But when Baxter finally forced it out of him Mizen DID admit Paul was there when the discussion took place.

" When Cross spoke to the witness he was accompanied by another man."

If Paul was not there then it would have said,

" When Cross spoke to the witness he was NOT accompanied by another man."



>> ... then why should Mizen mention him? <<

Because he was meant to be a professional witness not a novice or a daydreaming member of the public, he should have been able to accurately inform the jury what exactly happened that night.



>>More pertinently, how do we know that he would not mention hem later in his testimony? We will never find out, since Baxter got ahead of any such measure.<<

Because Mizen had finished his testimony and was only answering questions from Baxter and the jury. Who were obviously not satisfied he had given either enough or clear information.



>>The REAL focus should not lie on any speculative idea that Mizen must have lied or misled about it ...<<

There is no speculation. It is fact Mizen did not give an accurate account about meeting two men that night .

Mizen did not recount important information he witnessed that night that would resolve any disputes.
That was a major oversight on his part which led to the jury and all future researchers getting a confused account of what happened.



>> ... it should lie ion exactly WHY he did not mention Paul before he was asked about him.<<

"Why" IS speculation.

We don't know whether he fudged his answers, made mistakes or answered truthfully as he remembered it.

And that is the point. Mizen's testimony is questionable and must be approached with caution.



>> Now DO try and employ a less foul way of addressing your opponents - it will make for a better atmosphere and maybe somebody will actually listen to you. If you don't shape up, I won't be one of them, though.<<

I'll stand by the facts that can read by anyone following this thread. Coming back to this thread (post #274) I made made no "foul addresses".

However your first reply (post #284) was purely abusive, not discussing actual issues at all, Your follow up post (#284 and 291) were equally abusive.

If you want to keep it civil I would suggest YOU stop instigating abusive posts, stick to the issues and apologise the the readers of this thread for the tone of your replies.

[Elamarna]

Here we go again, you claim that I ignored what is debated and instead divert.

And then you take pride in being so clever an ex-politician as not to fall into the "journalistic traps" I set for you. That is to say, you will not answer questions put to you.

The funny thing is how you cannot see how hypocritical that is. You celebrate it as wisdom.

The point of course is that I DID answer the questions, That you did not like the answers is irrelevant

And of course you are diverting, it is what you always do, the point was that being 1 or 2 men there was no reason for Mizen to stop the Carmen, he was not aware a crime had been committed.



Steve

[JeffHamm]

No, I was not. And it was not claimed in the docu either. It happened years before I became interested in Lechmere.

Ah, ok. I misheard that bit then. My mistake.

Oh by the way, I really liked the presentation of the beats and and journeys between Nichols and PC Mizen (but I like that sort of thing). Years ago I wrote a simulation for the Eddowes case to look at relative positions, but the graphic presentation was far more simplistic.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

>> If he had answered Baxters question with a "no", he would have misled them.<<

No, he would have committed perjury. A sackable offense and a possible custodial offense, for a lie that would almost certainly be exposed. Massive difference.

And how would he NOT have misled them by committing that perjury?

Do you EVER think before typing?

I really cannot keep this up, I am feeling nauseated. Maybe tomorrow. But maybe not you.

[Fisherman]

The problem for Christer is, he's tripped up by his own theories.

Mizen is a paragon of truth and accuracy when it suits him in one argument, but Mizen's a confused witness when Christer argues a different point.

According to Christer, Mizen had no idea of the time, despite the fact he was actually engaged in knocking people up and giving them the time when Cross and Paul met him. In that case, unreliable Mizen is trumped by the highly reliable Lloyd's article.

And so, we have an example of the quality of of Christer thoeries and research acumen.

Where is it stated that truthful witnesses cannot be confused?

You see, this is the kind of arguments you like to use, falsely pitting two matters against each other and implying that they are not compatible, when they are very much so.

If Mizen was lied to by Lechmere, how could he NOT be confused by the developments at the inquest?

I would not touch that kind of arguments with a ten foot pole. Then again, I will never get my hands of any of them - you have grabbed them all for yourself.

Now explain to us how being honest and getting confused are incompatible!

And since you are so dead set on nitpicking yourself, please show me EXACTLY where I say that Mizen "had no idea of the time"!!! Of course he had an idea of the time, generally speaking. Whether it was second or minute perfect and correct - isn't that another matter?

So first you imply that a truthful person cannot be confused. Then you misrepresent me about Mizen. And then you sigh of by saying that you have presented an example of how I argue my case wrongfully...?

That is priceless. Thank you.

[Fisherman]

>>Disagreeing PCs who are telling the truth isn't an indicator of anything, GENERALLY speaking, other than the fact that one is disagreeing with the other, of course. Disagreeing with a PC who's clearly not being honest is an indicator of something else, though.<<

And, of course, disagreeing with a policeman in the presence of another witness who also disagrees with that policeman tends to help clarify matters some what.

And when said policeman just happens to forget mentioning that the other person was there doesn't bode too well for the PC's cause either!

Now all you have to do is to prove that Paul was close enough to hear what was said and to prove that he commented on the matter of the extra PC, showing us his take on that particular matter.

You speak of Mizen misleading. But your own posts are masterpieces of misleading, propaganda, cherry picking and obfuscation. It is the underbelly of Ripperology, it is twisting and distorting the evidence into something that does not even remotely look like it did before you mishandled it. It should make any truthful debater shiver, I'm afraid.

[Fisherman]

Oh, I may have misunderstood or misremembered how it was presented in the documentary, but I thought he was involved in tracing those links down.

- Jeff

No, I was not. And it was not claimed in the docu either. It happened years before I became interested in Lechmere.

[Fisherman]

>>No, it is not a fact that Mizen misled the jury. If he had answered Baxters question with a "no", he would have misled them.<<

If he had not misled the jury up to that point, why did Baxter ask the question?

Why do YOU think that coroners ask witnesses questions? To get the full picture or to stop them misleading?

Baxter KNEW about Robert Paul. He had that material on hand, and so there was no way Mizen was ever going to be able to impress upon the inquest that Lechmere had been the only man in the street apart from himself. He could rely with full certainty on how Lechmere would tell the jury and coroner about how he had trekked from Browns to Mizen in company of another carman.

Ergo, if Mizen wanted to mislead or lie, then he stood no chance at all to succeed on that score - he would be found out and he would quite possibly get in trouble for it.

So that leaves us with the possibility that Mizen "unintentionally misled", which is an option you mentioned together with the two unsavoury ones that have now been dispelled as completely illogical.

Can the matter be looked upon as any misleading at all, intentional OR unintentional? No, it cannot. There was of course never any chance that any such "misleading" would stand, since Lechmere would spill the beans, but that does of course not mean that it could not have happened anyway. But since Baxter intervened, we do not know that Mizen would not have mentioned Paul and it is not until a persons entire statement has been delivered that we can tell what was meant to go into it. And at the end of the day, all we can say is that perhaps Mizen would not have mentioned Paul if he had not been asked about him, and if that was the case, all it would amount to would be Mizen FORGETTING to mention him. To mislead, he would have to OMMITT mentioning Paul.

One could, I guess, semantically construct a situation where somebody forgetting to mention something at an inquest may lead the inquest wrong, but to take it to a lever where we speak of misleading is to mislead ourselves. it is to use a vocabulary that is very negatively laden with no factual basis for it at all. Least of all since the claimed "misleading" in this case would be dissolved minutes afterwards.

No, Dr Strange, it is true that there may be much relevance in how Paul was not spoken about by Mizen until he was asked about him - but that relevance is much different from the one you suggest.

[JeffHamm]

Yes, a side trip would not be expected, just as you say. And just as you say, that is because we have information telling us that Paul was late (and Lechmere also claimed to be late, although I am less inclined to take his words as gospel for obvious reasons).

But just because we don't expect a thing to happen, that does not mean that it could not have!

You speculate about a two minute side trip, but I'm afraid I never speculated along such a line at all. I spoke about somebody quickly ducking into a street to throw a glance there and see if there was a PC down it. In my world, that could have been done in ten seconds flat.

But I don't think we should go into the technicalities of what constitutes a side trip in terms of seconds! What is of importance to me is what led on the whole issue from the start: I said that we cannot know that the two carmen were always in close company, and then I went on to say that we cannot even know if one of them ducked into a side street to look for a PC.

At the time, I thought that this was a perfectly possible thing and a totally uncontroversial matter. But you were of a very different mindset, and that has - so far - resulted in a flurry of lengthy posts on the subject.

You are welcome to your view, but less welcome to state as a fact that you must be right and I must be wrong on the matter, and that is why I have repeatedly answered your posts and will do so forthwith if you insist on how the carmen cannot possibly have been some way apart at some stage/s along their trek from Browns to Mizen.

We both agree that the most logical thing is to expect that they did not veer off into adjacent streets. What has told us apart so far is that you have insisted that we can rule it out, whereas I have said that we certainly cannot.

I will stand by that and I hope you are able to join me. You can deny that Lechmere is a good candidate for the killerīs role just the same, the two matters are not mutually dependent of each other to any discernible degree.

Thank you, finally, for answering my question. You had never indicated you were talking a 10 second walk which is why I was asking you to explain yourself to clarify, but you refused to do so and just resorted to insults. I would argue those would serve no purpose as they can see down the streets and 10 seconds would be pointless, and serve only to delay their journeys to work, which is their primary purpose, and if one of them wanted to do so, I can't see the other waiting for them either. And given they arrive at PC Mizen in company, they can't be separated by 20 or so seconds to be so described. You could argue the other ran to catch up. But, if you want to allow such things, then ok you can, but those are not what I took side trips to mean. But now we're quibbling over definitions, and that serves no purpose now that you've clarified and added the necessary detail, and I thank you for doing so.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

>>No, the newspaper reports do not confirm that Mizen lied at all, I'm afraid.<<

Could you quote the post number and exact wording, in context, where I claimed the newspaper reports "confirm that Mizen lied"?

Sadly, you have this well recognized habit of either inventing comments from people or, as in this case, editing out relevant parts to alter the meaning.

So, tell where was it written?

That would be in post 287, where you quoted me and replied like this:

(my words) >> ... Dr Strange must prove that Mizen lied and/or misled for his view to be considered?<<

(your answer) The newspaper reports prove that that was the case, I don't need to prove anything, it's there for all to read.

I now realize that you said lied or MISLED, and so you have sort of a point for once.

Not that it means anything much. Because the newspaper reports do not prove that Mizen either lied or misled at all.

They prove that he did not mention Paul before Baxter asked about him, that's all. And if Paul did not partake in the discussion at all, and if he was not even close at it took place, then why should Mizen mention him? More pertinently, how do we know that he would not mention hem later in his testimony? We will never find out, since Baxter got ahead of any such measure.

The REAL focus should not lie on any speculative idea that Mizen must have lied or misled about it, it should lie ion exactly WHY he did not mention Paul before he was asked about him. And on that score, my suggestion that Paul was not partaking verbally or physically in the discussion becomes a very useful bid.

Now DO try and employ a less foul way of addressing your opponents - it will make for a better atmosphere and maybe somebody will actually listen to you. If you don't shape up, I won't be one of them, though.

[Fisherman]

Ok, we're working on different definitions of story then. I was meaning something specific, who went up a side street, one of them or both of them, if one why does the other wait for them? I can't see either of them taking side trips since both are in a hurry to get to work on time and given PC's on beats were not uncommon, their route to work would (and did) provide a PC for them to find. So a side trip conflicts with that evidence we have, it postulates behaviors inconsistent with their known situations. If only one of them went on a side trip, why would the other wait and not continue on to work, for the same reason. We also have the testimony that from the time of seeing the body until finding PC Mizen was no more than 4 minutes. Time estimation is error prone, of course, so some variation in this could be included and not "break" the evidence (let's say we allow for that to be up to 6 minutes, a 1 minute side trip and 1 minute back) to make temporal room for this side trip. But, we know the distance from Nichols to where PC Mizen was spotted, and based upon your estimation of walking speed to cover the distance from Cross/Lechmere's residence to Nichols (which, by the way, I think sounds perfectly reasonable) we know that from Nichols to PC Mizen would take about 3 minutes, or shortly less. The interactions at the body between Cross/Lechmere and Paul have been argued to require 1 to 1.5 minutes, and so that ends up with our 4 minutes between Paul seeing the body and arriving at PC Mizen. Now, if we expand that time to 6 minutes, allowing for errors in estimation, and we know that PC Mizen testifies that he met Cross/Lechmere at 3:45, that means they left the body at 3:39, and Paul arrived and saw the body at 3:38, and since Lechmere had to wait for Paul to cover the 30-40 yards, that would mean Cross/Lechmere arrived at the scene at 3:37 and change, and now everything does still fit with the time evidence, but it still conflicts with the choices people would make when their late for work and know they will find a PC on route. And I know you're not going to like how the times work there.

So, the evidence, combined, means there's no time left available for them to make a side trip unless we take an extreme value for the Nichols-PC Mizen journey time to give us room, and we need for Cross/Lechmere to get to work by 4:00, and we know they're both running late which means they have a strong motivation not to make a side trips since we know PC can be found on their regular route and finally, there is nothing in the testimony to suggest a side trip, the whole side trip notion is just a hypothesis plucked from thin air. That's the evidence, and the evidence constrains us with regards to the time available for a side trip and whether or not the two of them have a motivation to make one and the testimony of what they did indicates they went direct from Nichols to PC Mizen.

So, if you think side trips are still possible, you're ignoring the constraints put on what is possible by the evidence we have.

- Jeff

Yes, a side trip would not be expected, just as you say. And just as you say, that is because we have information telling us that Paul was late (and Lechmere also claimed to be late, although I am less inclined to take his words as gospel for obvious reasons).

But just because we don't expect a thing to happen, that does not mean that it could not have!

You speculate about a two minute side trip, but I'm afraid I never speculated along such a line at all. I spoke about somebody quickly ducking into a street to throw a glance there and see if there was a PC down it. In my world, that could have been done in ten seconds flat.

But I don't think we should go into the technicalities of what constitutes a side trip in terms of seconds! What is of importance to me is what led on the whole issue from the start: I said that we cannot know that the two carmen were always in close company, and then I went on to say that we cannot even know if one of them ducked into a side street to look for a PC.

At the time, I thought that this was a perfectly possible thing and a totally uncontroversial matter. But you were of a very different mindset, and that has - so far - resulted in a flurry of lengthy posts on the subject.

You are welcome to your view, but less welcome to state as a fact that you must be right and I must be wrong on the matter, and that is why I have repeatedly answered your posts and will do so forthwith if you insist on how the carmen cannot possibly have been some way apart at some stage/s along their trek from Browns to Mizen.

We both agree that the most logical thing is to expect that they did not veer off into adjacent streets. What has told us apart so far is that you have insisted that we can rule it out, whereas I have said that we certainly cannot.

I will stand by that and I hope you are able to join me. You can deny that Lechmere is a good candidate for the killerīs role just the same, the two matters are not mutually dependent of each other to any discernible degree.

[Fisherman]

I didn’t say it was a good indicator of innocence, I said it was consistent wth innocence,

Anything that is consistent with innocence is a good indicator of innocence. That was the exact thing you were trying to lead on, remember?

And no, it was not and could never be consistent with innocence to disagree with a PC the way Lechmere did.

[Fisherman]

Still ignoring the question Patrick asked, and arguing something completely different.

Why?

Well that's simplythat you cannot countenance the possibility that Lechmere could have just disappeared after the 31st if he had wanted.
No one knew his name, home address or work place, and if he had taken the route i speculated on, it is highly unlikely he would have been found.


And that cannot be allowed to stand, as it shoots serious holes in the idea that he was forced to appear at the inquest.


It is not Proven Mizen lied, it never can be just as it can never be proven Lechmere lied. However, the weight of evidence in my opinion strongly suggests that mizen told an untruth.


Steve

Still falsely claiming that I am ignoring a question.

I never have to ignore any question at all. You do, and brag about how seasoned a politician you are in doing it.

That's how we differ.

So you want me to repeat my answer for the - let's see - third time, is it? Okay:

Anybody knows that anyone who does not want to walk a street on account of not wanting to be found in that street can choose ANOTHER street.

See?

That is is, plain and simple.

Does that automatically mean that this anybody can easily avoid the police if he chooses to employ another street than his usual one, and that this would have safeguarded Lechmere if he did just that?

Well, the long and the short of it is that we simply do not know. We do not know, for example, if Lechmere had any distinguishing physical traits that would have been noticed by Paul and/or Mizen. If he DID have such a trait or traits, then if the police decided to search for him, then logically, they would have used that trait/s to pick him up: "We are looking for a man with two noses", sort of.

That is one thing that needs to be weighed in.

The next thing that needs to be taken into account is how there was - so far as I can tell - never any law stipulating that Robert Paul and/or Jonaas Mizen could not walk whatever streets they wanted to, meaning that regardless if Lechmere chose another working route, he could STILL run into either of these men by accident.

That is another thing that needs to be weighed in.

Finally, there is also the option that Lechmere may actually have liked the idea to go to the inquest and fool the police and the jury and coroner, just for fun.

That is a Thord thing that needs to be weighed in.

Then again, all of these three things are speculation on my part, and if I then suggest that Lechmere may have acted along any of them, that is perhaps basing speculation on more speculation, and that is - as somebody has wisely told us - not something that is going to result in an honest outcome.

Gee, it IS hard to promote a suspect out here.

Anyways, I think that I have answered your question (again) now.

You see, if Lechmere was the killer, and if he did not want a full scale murder hunt for his person to get launched - and yes, I speculate that this could well have happened if he stayed away - then he may have chosen to report into the cop shop and try to dissolve that picture before it had been fully formed.

Then again, here I go again, basing one speculation on another speculation, and being all dishonest again.

Can you help me, Steve? How should I go about arguing any case? You have made it so hard...!

Nah, just kidding. I even speculate that you didn't know what you were talking about and that this was what led you to get all tangled up about all that speculation stuff, misguided by a burning wish to be able to dismiss the Lechmere theory. And yes, that is basing speculation on speculation again. You should try it sometime - oh, but you already have: you speculate that I am dishonest and that this is what drives me to defend the theory about Lechmere.

So you are partly correct - speculation based on speculation may lead horribly wrong. But it is nevertheless something that must be employed. Its all about being able to distinguish between when it is called for and when it is not.

[Fisherman]

Well that could be fixed by dropping the Bias and working based on the evidence, not on assumption and speculation.

Basing speculation on other speculation is no way to achieve an honest outcome.


Steve

What?

We are dealing with theoretical discussions about the identity of a killer, and of course speculation based on speculation SHOULD be employed in such a discussion, otherwise we will not be able to see the possibilities.

For example, if I speculate that the killer was a psychopath ( a very reasonable speculation, given the ratio of psychopaths within the serial killer ranks and the character of the Ripper deeds), then of course further speculation about how a psychopath could act in a given situation is something that is extremely useful to explore different paths that our man could have chosen.

But this you look upon as dishonest....? The plain truth is that it is nothing of the sort at all - it is exploring the case from an angle that must be explored.

Can you provide a single example where I have been dishonest when speculating about the case? If you are going to call me dishonest, I think that is something that you must do. Or perhaps you never meant to call me dishonest, you just wanted to say that you were pondering these matters while visiting the toilet and it suddenly hit you that speculation based on speculation may lead you wrong?

Which is it?