Lechmere validity

[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.

[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.

[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%.

[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.

[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 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]

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'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.

[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.

[Patrick S]

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

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

Thanks!

[Fisherman]

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

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



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


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

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



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



Three



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



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



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



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

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



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




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

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

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

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



- Jeff

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

[Fisherman]

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




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





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



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



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




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

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



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

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



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

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




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

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

I came as far as your wording about Mr "Stow", which I find distasteful and will not discuss any further here - and to the passus where you say that "historical sources" say that both carmen spoke to Mizen as if the sources do not allow for the opposite interpretation.

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

Goodbye for now.

[Fisherman]

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

Don´t say that when Tom Wescott listens!

[Patrick S]

I have been called a bad journalist, I have been made fun of for being Swedish, I have had my relationship to my children commented on, as well as my working ethics, I have been accused of making money from relatives of war time casualties - and that's off the top of my head. I have furthermore been called a liar, a misleader and so on. If you think that is hilarious, I can only disagree. I find it sad and telling in equal amounts.

Don´t misunderstand me - I am not whining about this, I am saying that those who descend into such behavior are unfit to partake in public discussions.

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

[APerno]

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