The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Elamarna]

So Elerama,let me ask you one question.
When w as the last time a reporter was able to stand in court,and have a reporting of a criminal matter,accepted as evidence?
The rest of your garbage I have already answered.Seems you have a problem understanding.
At least Fisherman can understand the meaning behind my mention of dying.
It is perfectly reasonable,should have least been considered by Mizen,if the word dead w as mentioned to him.

So Harry, no sensible, reasoned reply to anything, I am not surprised.


Court reporting is not "hearsay evidence", it is direct reporting, with no opinion added, It is a primary source.

We should it seems not accept any of the reported inquests as being reliable then? They are just hearsay!


The fact that you obviously have a limited grasp of how one studies history, which this is, should be evident to all.


Of course you write off the rest as what was it.....? Gargage, yes that’s it.

When one cannot answer the issues another raises that is the normal response, say its rubbish without saying why.
The truth Harry is that you appear to have a closed mind on the issue of Mizen. For whatever reason you believe he was at fault.

I on the othe rhand, believe he while being far from perfect responded in a reasonable manner at the junction of Bakers row and Hanbury street,given that he saw no reason to consider it an emergency,
However his later testimony from the scene is to me either wrongly interpreted or just unreliable, as I do not believe it can be viable from a scientific point of view, and that does lead me to question all of his testimony.

Let me be clear, if Lechmere or Paul had said he carried on knocking up and they saw him do more than one more, I would be inclined to accept it; they however do not, and there is therefore nothing to suggest he did.


Steve

[Fisherman]

At least Fisherman can understand the meaning behind my mention of dying.
It is perfectly reasonable,should have least been considered by Mizen,if the word dead w as mentioned to him.

It is not often we agree, so maybe we should celebrate, Harry?
Yes, mentioning dead or drunk will leave the door of "dying" wide open, and so Mizen should have set off double quick if he was told what Lechmere claimed he was told. He should not answer "Alright" and proceed with his knocking somebody up.
Mizens behaviour as such is much more in line with him NOT having been told anything at all about the potential gravity of the errand.

[harry]

So Elerama,let me ask you one question.
When w as the last time a reporter was able to stand in court,and have a reporting of a criminal matter,accepted as evidence?
The rest of your garbage I have already answered.Seems you have a problem understanding.
At least Fisherman can understand the meaning behind my mention of dying.
It is perfectly reasonable,should have least been considered by Mizen,if the word dead w as mentioned to him.

[John G]

So it follows that because he was initially confused as to whether it was a woman or a tarpaulin he can't remember what he said to Mizen?

I fail to see any connection between him being puzzled as to what had happened to the woman lying on the ground in the dark and him not later being able to recall what he said to PC Mizen.

It's understandable that he was initially confused about whether the object in front of him was a woman or tarpaulin given the poor lighting conditions: Louis D initially mistook Stride's body for a bundle of rags.

Similarly, his responses at the inquest indicate that he was highly uncertain about Nichols physical state, with his observations ranging from "dead" to "not seriously injured". On that basis-and given the fact that he may have had "twenty different thoughts in that situation even contradictory ones"-I cannot see how he could be at all certain as to what he may or may not have told PC Mizen.

[Fisherman]

I literally do not know what you mean by the "possible implications of Mizen's evidence" nor why you would think I would want to sweep it under the carpet, whatever it is.

The short point here is that if Cross was Jack the Ripper then, of course, all his evidence can and should be discounted in its entirety but that's true of every witness and, as I've already stated, it would be ridiculous to expect posters to caveat discussions about the evidence of every single witness in this case with the statement that "their evidence cannot be considered to be true or reliable if they were Jack the Ripper".

The most telling comment was the one I quoted at the start of this discussion this evening: "And if Lechmere was the killer, it makes perfect sense..." You seem to view everything through the prism of Lechmere being the killer. Fine. But please don't try and impose this view of the world upon me, thank you very much.

All very fine, I´m sure. The problem is that if you go around telling people that it is a fact that Mizen was told about death or drunkenness, it has a bearing on the case against Lechmere. And that sits very poorly with how you paint a picture of yourself as discerning and mindful about the facts.
For example, if you instead of writing a dozen posts where you flat out deny that you were wrong, had instead made one post where you said "That´s true, of course, Mizen could have been told only that there was a woman lying inn the street, whereas he may not have been told a iot about any death or drunkenness", you would have looked a lot better in my eyes. But no - David Orsam is never wrong, so the problem must lie elsewhere, right?

Welcome to the real world, David. This is where I leave you this time. But I will return if...

[Fisherman]

I asked you 'how could I answer "yes" or "no" to a question in two parts?'. The one thing you have NOT done is answer that question "yes" or "no". I count 25 words in your answer. A yes or no answer is, believe it or not, by definition, an answer consisting of one word.

Go on Fisherman try again. Here is your question:

"could the picture Mizen paints be a full and true one, meaning that there was never any mentioning of death or drunkenness, or is it an established fact that these matters were mentioned?"

Give me a "yes" or "no" answer. You told me it was "easy" so go ahead and do it...

Don´t excel in these things, David. It is unbecoming. Should I rephrase the question?
Is it possible that Mizen was never told anything about Nichols being potentially dead or drunk?

Maybe - just maybe - you knew that this was what I wanted you to answer? Crystal ball or no crystal ball?

[Fisherman]

You did read the word "fact" but did you read the phrase "established fact"? No!

All you have done here is quote me entirely out of context.

I was responding to Harry's post in which he had said:

"A woman lying dead or dying would have every relevance for a police officer."

I was correcting him and said:

"Possibly but Mizen's information was that if the woman was not dead she was drunk and that is the only fact you should be considering. No-one suggested to him that she was dying."

So my point was simply that Mizen was not told a woman was dying. And the fact to which I was drawing his attention was the fact of Cross' evidence.

Did this really upset you so much that you needed to intervene in the discussion?

Do you seriously think I should have said to Harry "Mizen's information as long as Cross was not Jack that Ripper was that if the woman was not dead she was drunk"???

There is no quoting out of context, I´m afraid. That´s just you trying to evade responsibility for what you write.

Read again, David:

"... Mizen's information was that if the woman was not dead she was drunk and that is the only fact you should be considering"

According to you it is a fact that Mizens information was that if the woman was not dead she was drunk. Whether you actually meant to write that spring is warm in Texas or that you prefer lack and white cows to brown ones is another matter. Maybe you did, maybe you didn´t. What you wrote is that the FACT Harry should be considering is that Mizens information was that if the woman was not dead she was drunk.

I suspect you will go on rambling about this, so let me just tell you that I will do my best to avoid such a prolonged discussion. You have admitted that Mizen may well only have been told that there was a woman lying in the street in Bucks Row, no deat or drunkenness mentioned, and that was what I came for and somehow managed to extract in the end. I´m pleased, as long as you don´t turn back to your old ways of claiming as a fact that Mizen WAS told about death/drunkenness.

I would also like to press the point that if you write "fact" instead of "established fact", I will hold you equally responsible in both cases, since a fact is not a fact if it has not been established. You may take that as an (established) fact.

[Fisherman]

This comment, Fisherman, shows just how much you have lost sight of what I have been arguing.

I am perfectly happy if all Mizen was told was that a woman was lying in the street (as he said in his evidence) because it gives far greater support to my argument with Harry that he would not have left his beat unless he had been told (or thought he had been told) that he was wanted by a policeman.

But I cannot ignore the evidence that Mizen was also told that a woman was lying dead or drunk in Bucks Row. To have done so in my argument with Harry would have been utterly perverse. And to have argued that Mizen probably was not told this because Cross might have been Jack the Ripper would have been bordering on madness.

That´s all fine, David. The one problem that arose was when you elevated it to a fact that Mizen was told that Nichols was dead or drunk. Now that you admit that no such thing can be postualted at all, I feel a lot better about things.

[Fisherman]

I have corrected the typo which you seem to have enjoyed.

Of course I enjoyed it, David! It had immense comical qualitites, and - not least - it followed upon your ranting about how I wrote in a tortured manner. I would like to point out that I am Swedish, not British, and so I find it a bit sad to choose complaining about my shortcomings in that department instead of giving short and comprehensible answers to my questions.
If we are to compare how gifted we are languagewise, I presume your Swedish may not be up to scratch? Den som gräver en grop åt andra faller ofta själv däri, David.

[David Orsam]

I wasn´t bored then, but I am now - by your efforts to sweep the possible implications of Mizens evidence under the carpet.

I literally do not know what you mean by the "possible implications of Mizen's evidence" nor why you would think I would want to sweep it under the carpet, whatever it is.

The short point here is that if Cross was Jack the Ripper then, of course, all his evidence can and should be discounted in its entirety but that's true of every witness and, as I've already stated, it would be ridiculous to expect posters to caveat discussions about the evidence of every single witness in this case with the statement that "their evidence cannot be considered to be true or reliable if they were Jack the Ripper".

The most telling comment was the one I quoted at the start of this discussion this evening: "And if Lechmere was the killer, it makes perfect sense..." You seem to view everything through the prism of Lechmere being the killer. Fine. But please don't try and impose this view of the world upon me, thank you very much.

[David Orsam]

Of course you have no idea why I did it, David. Let me enlighten you: Because it is implicitly conveyed by anybody speaking of a dead OR drunk woman that she MAY be dying.

Erm, no it isn't.

If a woman is dead she is dead. Not dying. Too late to save her.

If a woman is drunk she is alive. Not dying. Doesn't need saving, just sobering up.

[David Orsam]

I´ll show you: "Yes, it could be that Mizen gave a full and true picture of the facts, and that neither death or drunkenness was mentioned by Lechmere".

I asked you 'how could I answer "yes" or "no" to a question in two parts?'. The one thing you have NOT done is answer that question "yes" or "no". I count 25 words in your answer. A yes or no answer is, believe it or not, by definition, an answer consisting of one word.

Go on Fisherman try again. Here is your question:

"could the picture Mizen paints be a full and true one, meaning that there was never any mentioning of death or drunkenness, or is it an established fact that these matters were mentioned?"

Give me a "yes" or "no" answer. You told me it was "easy" so go ahead and do it...

[David Orsam]

Post 1213, by your hand:
Possibly but Mizen's information was that if the woman was not dead she was drunk and that is the only fact you should be considering.

Did I just read the word "fact", David? No? Who´s waffling now?

You did read the word "fact" but did you read the phrase "established fact"? No!

All you have done here is quote me entirely out of context.

I was responding to Harry's post in which he had said:

"A woman lying dead or dying would have every relevance for a police officer."

I was correcting him and said:

"Possibly but Mizen's information was that if the woman was not dead she was drunk and that is the only fact you should be considering. No-one suggested to him that she was dying."

So my point was simply that Mizen was not told a woman was dying. And the fact to which I was drawing his attention was the fact of Cross' evidence.

Did this really upset you so much that you needed to intervene in the discussion?

Do you seriously think I should have said to Harry "Mizen's information as long as Cross was not Jack that Ripper was that if the woman was not dead she was drunk"???

[David Orsam]

I agree - there is absolutely no evidence that Mizen was lying on Nichols´ back.

Tortured English, was it?

I have corrected the typo which you seem to have enjoyed.

[David Orsam]

Sadly for you, everybody knows what Mizen said too.

This comment, Fisherman, shows just how much you have lost sight of what I have been arguing.

I am perfectly happy if all Mizen was told was that a woman was lying in the street (as he said in his evidence) because it gives far greater support to my argument with Harry that he would not have left his beat unless he had been told (or thought he had been told) that he was wanted by a policeman.

But I cannot ignore the evidence that Mizen was also told that a woman was lying dead or drunk in Bucks Row. To have done so in my argument with Harry would have been utterly perverse. And to have argued that Mizen probably was not told this because Cross might have been Jack the Ripper would have been bordering on madness.