Lechmere validity

[drstrange169]

>>Once a post begins with stating as a fact that Mizen misled the jury,<<

Since the jury had no idea another man was involved until Baxter had to step in and clarify the matter, it is a fact that Mizen misled the jury. It is not disputable. What we do not know, is whether he deliberately or accidentally misled led them, as I wrote in my post.

Next?

[drstrange169]

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

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

Mizen did not tell the jury there where two men there until Baxter forced the issue. That is a verifiable fact.

On the converse, there is NO evidence that a guilty Lechmere needed to lie to pass Mizen. If you want to advance that speculation you need to provide data, as I did with Mizen, that your speculation has value.

By the way, since you claimed a not to have read the rest of my post, how do you know I raised the issue later on?

Oh dear Christer!

[Elamarna]

I am doing ever so well. The point I made was a general one - murderers normally do not work on pairs or gangs, they are generally lone wolfs. This is so today and it was the exact same back then. So anybody who killed anybody else would do wisely to hook up with somebody else afterwards.


Can you see how this works, Steve? People trekking in each others company, looking like two carmen en route to work, would have looked like somebody who were quite unlikely to have been involved in any crime. Therefore Mizen will have had very little reason to suspect any would play on behalf of the carman - he seemed to be somebody who was walking to work with a fellow carman. If he had been alone, Lechmere would not have had the implicit kosher stamp on himself that Paul provided.
And this works regardless of what Mizen know or suspected. The innocent apparition of two carmen in company would do Lechmere no harm whatsoever. It also works regardless if Lechmere planned it to work or not.

I would have thought that this was basic, but perhaps it isn't to you?

Once again, not addressing the post in question. if you cannot bring yourself to answer the specific points made, rather than bland generalization then why bother answering at all

Steve.

[Fisherman]

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

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

Mizen did not tell the jury there where two men there until Baxter forced the issue. That is a verifiable fact.

On the converse, there is NO evidence that a guilty Lechmere needed to lie to pass Mizen. If you want to advance that speculation you need to provide data, as I did with Mizen, that your speculation has value.

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

"Data" is not something that can prove a case. You may be unaware of this? The "data" you suggest we use is how papers reported about the case, but no paper pointed out Mizen as having done anything wrong, no jury and no coroner did that either. Your personal interpretation says he did, but personal interpretations carry no more weight that what is afforded by the overall credit slitty the originator of that interpretation has amassed over the years.

The "data" - and this time we are dealing with a fact - that Lechmere was found standing alone, close by a still bleeding murder victim, is quite enough to allow for an interpretation of him having lied his way past the police.

As an aside, I am quite content speaking about how this is my interpretation, and not something that is proven. Only really unreliable and untrustworthy posters would claim such a thing.

[Fisherman]

>>The point I made was a general one - murderers normally do not work on pairs or gangs, they are generally lone wolfs.<<

Unfortunately for you, Mizen wasn't looking for a killer and a "gang theory" was under consideration for Mrs Nichols murder when it was finally discovered to be a murder. So your point is irrelevant in this instance.

I know it can be hard to read and understand things at times, especially if we don't like them. My point was a general one, and so it stands to reason that Lechmere could have hooked up with Paul in order to look as innocent as possible regardless of whether the murder was known by those he met or not. Once the information about the murder leaked out, it would likely serve him well to have been in Pauls company just as it will have made him look inconspicuous before that fact too.

[Fisherman]

>>Once a post begins with stating as a fact that Mizen misled the jury,<<

Since the jury had no idea another man was involved until Baxter had to step in and clarify the matter, it is a fact that Mizen misled the jury. It is not disputable. What we do not know, is whether he deliberately or accidentally misled led them, as I wrote in my post.

Next?

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. It as not as if not mentioning all the details involved is the same thing as misleading. Therefore, claiming that Mizen misled is the one and only misleading there is around.

Its pityful, but expected.

[Elamarna]

Originally posted by Elamarna View Post


Yes it is shameful, for we were not talking about which route was fastest, and you attempt to divert the discussion.

We were not discussing which route was more likely, nor have I accused you of saying a particular route is, that is the issue under debate.

So let me see it I get this right: You are allowed to point out that there were alternative routes, but I am not allowed to point out that would be illogical to use them? When you say that there were alternative routes, that is commendable and an important conbtribution to our understanding of the case, but when I say that he would not have been likely to use them, it is shameful.
Its good to get to know these things, so that I get a better understanding of how an honest debate should be conducted. Thank you!

Are you actually reading the posts?
The question was not would he have used any other route, BUT if he wanted to avoid Bucks Row, point you are strenuously ignoring, were there routes he could have used.

That you do not grasp this point or rather as i suspect are simply trying to divert, is most enlightening

Again, missing or maybe not actually understanding what we were talking about.

It was not which route he took? Or even why? The question was if he wanted to avoid Bucks Row, for a reason, which ROUTE could he have taken?

This is getting beyond a joke, and is actually very sad.

Once you present "alternative routes", the need to point out that they would not be any alternative to using Bucks Row on his everyday treks becomes urgent. It has nothing at all to do with any inability on my behalf to understand anything, and everything to do with a deep knowledge about how matters are argued out here.
Saying that you only meant to point out that he could have used alternative routes to avoid the police at a later stage is something that is totally unnecessary, we all know that this will have been so.



See the above in bold.

It was never suggested these were an everyday alternative, if you had read the OP which lead to the posting of this route you would understand.
However, that is not in question, the whole point of this POINTLESS exchange is to divert.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Why not read it? On account of the quality of your two preceding posts. I thought I said that?

The arrogance of that post is breath taking.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Once again, not addressing the post in question. if you cannot bring yourself to answer the specific points made, rather than bland generalization then why bother answering at all

Steve.

...and which point is it that you are going to claim I am "avoiding" now? Or cannot you think of any? Or are you going to say that we all know which point it is and that you don't feel like telling me?

Let's ask YOU a question or two:

Do you or do you not agree that murders are generally committed by one person only?

Do you or do you not agree that hooking up with somebody after having committed a murder makes sense if you want to stay undetected?

I know that Mizen knew of no murder (or suicide, he tells us that at the inquest, and he is seemingly flabbergasted, which is understandable), but that is beside the point I am making.

[Fisherman]

The arrogance of that post is breath taking.


Steve

No, it is not. Once a poster produces posts of very low quality, it is to be expected that the ones subjected to those posts will doubt the value of any forthcoming posts by the same poster.

It is anything BUT breath taking.

[Fisherman]

Are you actually reading the posts?
The question was not would he have used any other route, BUT if he wanted to avoid Bucks Row, point you are strenuously ignoring, were there routes he could have used.

That you do not grasp this point or rather as i suspect are simply trying to divert, is most enlightening[/B]



It was never suggested these were an everyday alternative, if you had read the OP which lead to the posting of this route you would understand.
However, that is not in question, the whole point of this POINTLESS exchange is to divert.


Steve

Only, I don't ignore anything. I am, however, saying - as you would have known if you read my post - that it is disingenuous to point out that there were alternative routes if he wanted to avoid Bucks Row after the murder. Of course there was, there always is in a city like London.

This, you do not acknowledge. Which is...., hmmm, what is the term for it....ahh, I know: diverting.

I am quite happy to agree about how the exchange is pointless, though. And was from the beginning. I don't disagree with you there!

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=JeffHamm;n710438]Hi All,

Just trying to update a map of the locations involved, as it helps, I think, when discussing the "to'ing and from'ing" of those involved to have an idea where they were "to'ing and from'ing". The red dot indicates the crime scene location, the blue dot around where PC Mizen was located when Cross/Lechmere and Paul spoke with him, the dark Green dot is roughly Cross/Lechmere's home location, and the light green dot is roughly Paul's home location. I hope I've got those all correct now.

What I've been trying to locate is Dr. Llewellyn's home location. I think I've found it based upon the address, but I'm not sure if the numbering has changed since 1888 (in which case I'm wrong - hardly a novel event). I've marked it as the question mark to the lower left. Can anyone confirm if that is the correct location? The only other location of interest would be where the ambulance was located that PC Mizen was sent to fetch. I can't seem to recall anything indicating where he went to get it (the mortuary perhaps? Or would it have been the hospital? a police station?).

Anyway, would greatly appreciate any input and/or corrections to what I've indicated.

- Jeff

Jeff,

the Dr's home was to the west of the junction with Brady strret, about 3 buildings along. the blue Dot.



The Ambulance came from Bethnal Green Police Station, off your map to the north. Gold dot is murder site, blue dot Police St.

[Elamarna]

And it still applies that the matters under discussion are not consistent with innocence, they are only not incompatible with it. Unless you claim that disagreeing with the police IS consistent with innocence? I would not rule out that you could do that.

I see we start from a position that the police are paragons of virtue, and to disagree with them is not allowed if you are innocent!
That alone shows the incredible level of BIAS constantly displayed in this theory.

Disagreeing with the police MAY be consistent with innocence, each case needs to be assessed on its individual merits, not by sweeping generalization. anyone who does rule out the possibility is demonstrating a closed way of thinking.

I am very sorry to tell you that the view you have is your opinion, not shared by a great many others.



Steve

[JeffHamm]

See the above in bold.

You can excise out tiny bits of the evidence and make complicated and improbable explanations seem ok for those little bits of data in isolation, but once those ideas get evaluated by the rest of the data, they are shown to be contradicted by the evidence.

- Jeff

[GUT]

...and which point is it that you are going to claim I am "avoiding" now? Or cannot you think of any? Or are you going to say that we all know which point it is and that you don't feel like telling me?

Let's ask YOU a question or two:

Do you or do you not agree that murders are generally committed by one person only?

Do you or do you not agree that hooking up with somebody after having committed a murder makes sense if you want to stay undetected?

I know that Mizen knew of no murder (or suicide, he tells us that at the inquest, and he is seemingly flabbergasted, which is understandable), but that is beside the point I am making.

If hooking up is such a great idea, why didn’t he do it in any other of the murders?