Lechmere validity

[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.

[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]

>>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]

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]

>> 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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

>>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.<<

Is this the type of "foul addressing" you were talking out?

Just apologize to the readers and attempt to lift your game a bit.

[Elamarna]

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.

That is why the results are weak and meaningless, what ifs based on other what ifs are not reasoned debate, they are not the way to advance the truth, although they may be an acceptable method in some forms of journalism

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.

I said it would not achieve an honest outcome, which it cannot has it is not based on fact, it is therefore unproductive in the search for the truth.
Its very much like "Alternative History", enjoyable to read, but not actually true, or helpful from the perspective of studying past events.

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?

Insults again, how tedious, but predictable

With regard to being Dishonest, one could mention the thread "Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed" where inaccurate information about some Press reports was posted. But i won't, sorry i just did


Steve

[drstrange169]

>>Where is it stated that truthful witnesses cannot be confused?<<

So was Mizen was confused about the time, even though his specific job was to tell the time?
Is that your claim?



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

First and importantly, I would emphasize that we have no evidence that Cross lied to the inquest. Second, you have yet to show that he needed to lie to Mizen to get passed him.



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

confused

/kənˈfjuːzd/
adjective adjective: confused

• 1.
  (of a person) unable to think clearly; bewildered.
  "she was utterly confused about what had happened"

  synonyms:

  demented, bewildered, muddled, addled, befuddled, disoriented, disorientated, (all) at sea, unbalanced, unhinged, senile, with Alzheimer's disease

If Mizen was confused as you are now suggesting then we DEFINITELY should approach his testimony with extreme caution.



>>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"!!!<<

Off hand? Every time you've claimed there was a nine (or what ever length) minute gap in Cross's timing.

If Paul, as you constantly claim, knew the exact time he entered Buck's Row, Mizen could not have met the two men at 3:45.

And if Mizen didn't know the time all his customers would have been late for work, something I'm sure that they would have been vocal about.



>>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?<<

But your previous posts on the matter have not been about a second or a minute have they? You say Paul entered Bucks Row at EXACTLY 3:45, The two men could not have possibly met, checked the body and walked to Mizen in one second! Nor could they have done it in one minute.



>>So first you imply that a truthful person cannot be confused.<<

No, I've implied no such thing, those are your words.

I would suggest a confused person would be unlikely to be accurate, a very different thing.

[Elamarna]

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.

Unfortunately it is habitual in your case, I did answer your questions, I just did not give the answers you were hoping for.

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.

That was not your original reply, in post 241 you said

"Which means that if we accept that the carman wanted to get to work along the quickest routes possible, he would use Bucks Row.

There will probably be scenic routes too, but the gist of the matter is that Bucks Row was, is and remains the logical choice, and not only that - the only time we can check which route he took, we KNOW that he took Bucks Row.

Is that proof that he always did? No, it is only proof that it is the obvious choice.

I am all for looking at innocent alternatives. And all against presenting them as equally matched bids when they are not."

That appears to be claiming that although there are other routes he would probably still have taken the Bucks Row route even if he was guilty and had not come forward.
That is fair enough, however it was in response to the question was there away he could have avoided Bucks Row if he wanted?
Such of course is very different.

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 question was NOT WOULD he? But COULD HE?

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.

Ah I see, because it is possible that Paul or Mizen may have seen him on the other route(a possibility, yes) that he would not have considered that route if he wanted to avoid detection in Bucks Row.
We are back in the realms of anything is possible, in which case serious research is excluded in favour of fantasy.

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.

Pure Speculation, possible I agree, but its not fact, and unprovable.


None of those points address or exclude the possibility that he COULD have taken the northern route if he wanted. Which, was all the original post was about.

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.

It cannot, just as the speculation that he could walk a northern route does not give an honest, true outcome, just a possibility.

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...!

Its perfectly OK to speculate, so long as it is not proposed as fact, and one accepts it is only a possibility, not all possibilities are equal.

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.

The big problem with the last section is that I have no desire to dismiss Lechmere, only to have a fair case made, not one that is loaded, by half-truths and imagination.


Steve

[drstrange169]

>>And how would he NOT have misled them by committing that perjury? Do you EVER think before typing?<<

Yet again, you've taken a portion of what I wrote, edited out the rest and taken it out of context.

Here's what I wrote and I've underlined the point of my post which you chose not to mention.

"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."



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

More "foul addressing", particularly obnoxious in this case as you chose to edit what I wrote to create a controversy that wasn't there.

That apology is well and truly due.

[Elamarna]

Hi,

I've done a quick calculation of the distance from Polly's murder location to the police station (using one of the high detail maps that labels it specifically) and ended up with a distance of 1034 yards. At the walking pace that I've been using (104 yards/min) that's about a 10 minute trip at an above average walking speed. Assuming the return trip with the ambulance would be a bit slower due to having to push it, we're probably looking at PC Mizen being away from the scene for a minimum of 20 minutes, and say up to 25 minutes (as I'm assuming it wouldn't take him long to get the ambulance and start the return journey). Now, if we have a good idea of when Polly was loaded on to the ambulance and removed to the mortuary, we can use that to put some limits on when PC Mizen had to have returned to the scene with the ambulance, and start getting some estimates about his arrival time at the scene. Obviously, there will be quite a bit of play around these estimates as he could have returned well before they decided to move her, but at least we can start trying to estimate the latest he could have returned, etc. I have some memory about reading she was removed from the scene at 4:15, but I'm not sure where I get that from and it also feels a bit like it could be a false memory.

- Jeff

jeff, i made it 1023 yard, which is close enough, but there is a route which is only 957 yards, have walked these routes myself, quickly, and both under ten minutes, however i can happily live with around 10minutes, so around 20 at least for the return, and possibly longer .



Steve