Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PC Jonas Mizen

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

    You can't win.

    Lechmere did everything expected of an innocent witness. He approached the first passer-by, he searched for a policeman, he attended the inquest, he volunteered his name, address & place of business.

    That's because he was GUILTY and had to do everything an innocent man would.

    You're never going to win against this kind of fallacious, ass-backwards logic.
    Of course, you're right, Harry. But... Damned if I cannot stop myself from trying...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Patrick S View Post

      Thanks, Sam. This has been published here before. Perhaps by you (apologies for not recalling). I also did not recall if his name was given as Lechmere or Cross in news reports. This is yet another giant crack in the Lechmere the Ripper facade.
      Of course it's not Patrick.
      I have been told by Lechmere theorists that if it is him, it merely shows that when Involved in any incident, he used the name "Cross".

      You may not believe it, but apparently of he used the name Cross, at Pickfords, it actually strengths the case against Him.

      It's truly unbelievable.


      Steve

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

        Of course it's not Patrick.
        I have been told by Lechmere theorists that if it is him, it merely shows that when Involved in any incident, he used the name "Cross".

        You may not believe it, but apparently of he used the name Cross, at Pickfords, it actually strengths the case against Him.

        It's truly unbelievable.


        Steve
        I don't even want to try and understand the logic behind that, Steve.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Patrick S View Post

          I don't even want to try and understand the logic behind that, Steve.

          Logic is hardly the word to use.
          It's the inevitable result of being convinced that one man is guilty. Everything must point towards guilt, even when I does not.
          It's a form of intellectual bankruptcy .

          And just so it's clear, I am NOT saying it was Christer who argued this point.


          Steve

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

            And just so it's clear, I am NOT saying it was Christer who argued this point.
            I bet Fish was annoyed he didn't think of it first, though
            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

            Comment


            • >>Actually its not. I had brought this up before and was reminded that lech hadnt seen the killer or even heard him walking away. The killer had nothing to fear from lech and so vice versus.<<

              Actually it is, because in that scenario it would be Lechmere's fear of what the killer might do, not what the killer would actually do.
              dustymiller
              aka drstrange

              Comment


              • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                >>Actually its not. I had brought this up before and was reminded that lech hadnt seen the killer or even heard him walking away. The killer had nothing to fear from lech and so vice versus.<<

                Actually it is, because in that scenario it would be Lechmere's fear of what the killer might do, not what the killer would actually do.
                Precisely
                G U T

                There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                  >>Actually its not. I had brought this up before and was reminded that lech hadnt seen the killer or even heard him walking away. The killer had nothing to fear from lech and so vice versus.<<

                  Actually it is, because in that scenario it would be Lechmere's fear of what the killer might do, not what the killer would actually do.
                  And how would the killer know if the police were holding back information.
                  G U T

                  There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by GUT View Post

                    And how would the killer know if the police were holding back information.
                    hi gut and strange

                    more than likely if innocent, and lech not wanting any kind of recognition, it had to do with not getting involved or his family involved and the hassles that went with it.

                    the killer obviously knew he gotten away without being seen and lech only confirms it. whats lech got to fear from the killer-reprisal for not seeing or hearing anything? cmon.
                    "Is all that we see or seem
                    but a dream within a dream?"

                    -Edgar Allan Poe


                    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                    -Frederick G. Abberline

                    Comment


                    • >>whats lech got to fear from the killer-reprisal for not seeing or hearing anything? cmon.<<

                      Well, first of all, I don't believe Lechmere was trying to hide anything, but if we are talking about fear, then unemotional reasoning doesn't come into it, fear drives irrational behaviour. This was an early murder nobody could profile the killer's reasoning or actions at that stage.

                      >>more than likely if innocent, and lech not wanting any kind of recognition, it had to do with not getting involved or his family involved and the hassles that went with it.<<

                      I'd tend to agree with that option.

                      On the other hand creating a false name, if guilty, serves no real purpose other than drawing attention to oneself.
                      Last edited by drstrange169; 05-09-2019, 10:06 PM.
                      dustymiller
                      aka drstrange

                      Comment


                      • Also, it's just occurred to me, Lechmere had a wife and several daughters, under those circumstances, I'd be worried about attracting attention to my family.
                        dustymiller
                        aka drstrange

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                          hi gut and strange

                          more than likely if innocent, and lech not wanting any kind of recognition, it had to do with not getting involved or his family involved and the hassles that went with it.

                          the killer obviously knew he gotten away without being seen and lech only confirms it. whats lech got to fear from the killer-reprisal for not seeing or hearing anything? cmon.
                          Whilst I agree it was more likely about involvement, if it was fear, it’s not a question of what the killer though, it knew, but what Cross feared, rightly or not.
                          G U T

                          There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X