Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

Steve!

That was a long and spacious way of avoiding answering my very simple question: Exactly where does the maximum line go for what "together" and "in company with" means in this context?

You say that I can only believe Mizen if I interpret him the way I "wish". If it all boils down to wishing (which it of course doesnīt, the suggestion is faulty) I want you to tell me how close Paul must have been to Mizen in order for you to have YOUR "wish" fulfilled.

I will even provide you with a wording, and you can just fill in the correct number:

Since the wordings "together" and "in company" were used, it applies that Robert Paul cannot possibly have been any further removed from PC Mizen than ....... feet when Lechmere spoke to the PC.

It should be very easy to clear this up once and for all. Go ahead.

[Fisherman]

I have neither the health, time nor energy to think about that right now.

It would be simpler if you told us exactly what information he was given.

I have given as exact an account as I can, Gareth - like I said, I do not have the material in my possession anymore. Consequently, I cannot list the plethora of articles and the many reports. But that should not mean that you cannot present one single example of how something left out could result in Griffiths opting for the killer not being willing to run. On the contrary - you can pick and choose whatever you want, as long as I cannot tell you which the articles and reports were in extenso.

I do note, however, that you mention health as a reason for not making the effort. If you are in bad health, I will not pressurize you about it, but instead wish you as quick and full a recovery as can be found.

[Fisherman]

Mizen was incompetent.

But nobody accused him of any sort of incompetence in combination with the inquest, and he was given a very good grading after his service years, going on to very successfully managing the family farm for many years.

So it seems there is incompetence involved - but not on account of a 19:th century PC but instead it rests with a 21:st century poster on these very boards.

One really has to be a bit more discerning before posting, Varqm.

[Fisherman]

Anyone, who has in any way involved themselves,directly or indirectly,in the Nicholls murder,has a right to express themselves on these boards.If Griffiths or Payne-Stewart or any other expert believes they are being unfairly treated,let them post.I for one would welcome a direct opinion of theirs,as opposed to the,references of Fisherman.

Payne-James.

[Fisherman]

One point varqm, it wasn't the first known murder in the series, news reports of the day made it abundantly clear that it was considered the second or third.

Yes - and it seems that Halse did not frisk the two men he met after the Eddowes murder. It sufficed to give Halse a reason for being in place: "I myself went by way of Middlesex-street into Wentworth-street, where I stopped two men, who, however, gave a satisfactory account of themselves." And Lechmere HAD a reason to be in Bucks Row.
So was Halse incompetent? I think not.
Plus, of course, if Mizen was told that the carman had been sent by another PC to fetch help, then he could rely on that fellow PC having established that Lechmere was not involved.

Nothing has changed in that department. And it does not make Mizen incompetent.

[Fisherman]

Pcdunn: This is a logical explanation, and one I agree with, Harry. I just can't see Lechmere leaving in enough time to locate a victim on Whitechapel Road, bring her to Buck's Row (on his usual route to work!), and do her in just before another carman comes along.

I can. And I can see him stumbling over a sleeping Nichols in Bucks Row. I can see no obstacle at all for neither thing.

Remember, too, the police at one time thought Nichols was murdered elsewhere and dumped where she was found, due to an apparent "blood trail" that seemed to be related (but failed to amount to anything).

There was no blood trail. And I fail to see what impact this would have had on the overall question if Lechmere could have killed her. Could you help out?

[harry]

Fisherman,
Payne-James.Him too.

[Elamarna]

Steve!

That was a long and spacious way of avoiding answering my very simple question: Exactly where does the maximum line go for what "together" and "in company with" means in this context?

You say that I can only believe Mizen if I interpret him the way I "wish". If it all boils down to wishing (which it of course doesnīt, the suggestion is faulty) I want you to tell me how close Paul must have been to Mizen in order for you to have YOUR "wish" fulfilled.

I will even provide you with a wording, and you can just fill in the correct number:

Since the wordings "together" and "in company" were used, it applies that Robert Paul cannot possibly have been any further removed from PC Mizen than ....... feet when Lechmere spoke to the PC.

It should be very easy to clear this up once and for all. Go ahead.

I am not going to play this game of pure guess work. One cannot give a figure as you well know, there is no data available.
However I am quite prepared to give a reasoned estimate that is not an actual figure.
That is close enough together to allow normal conversation and close enough to allow Paul to hear the conversation with Mizen and to possibly join in himself.
Such a conclusion is drawn from the contents of the witness data sources and is fully in keeping with all 3.

And you have still not provided any data (which is not asking for guess work; but rather research ) to support your idea they were not in close proximity.

I hoped for better.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: I am not going to play this game of pure guess work. One cannot give a figure as you well know, there is no data available.

Yes, I know that quite well. I have known it for years and I have always pointed it out: it cannot be established where Paul was, and the semantic implications cannot be taken as any guarantee that he was within earshot.

This is why I am having no trouble at all understanding that you will not offer any suggestion about the distance. How could you? You realize this too, and instead opt for calling it "playing games" - thatīs the one little damage you can do, you can point to me as somebody who suggest playing games instead of doing factbased ripperology.
But it is no game. It is a surefire way to prove that no distance can be established and that Paul as a consequence may have been way out of earshot.

However I am quite prepared to give a reasoned estimate that is not an actual figure.

Give it a try, and weīll see!

That is close enough together to allow normal conversation and close enough to allow Paul to hear the conversation with Mizen and to possibly join in himself.

No, it is not. There can be no distance established, as you well know, and that means that we cannot say that he was within audible distance.
Hereīs what you get for trying this angle: Answer me these questions:

Is there any chance that Paul can have been more than a yard away from Mizen?

Is there any chance that he could have been more than three yards away?

Five yards?

Ten?

Fifteen?

Each and every one of these suggestions are not only viable, but also EQUALLY viable. And that owes to how the two terms "together" and "in company with" are not, and have never been, any exact terms. They acknowledge one thing only and that thing is a companionship between two parts. That is why one man can call from Buenos Aires to Stockholm and say "we are together in this", "we are in each others company on this deal".

Of course, that was not what Mizen meant - but it is totally viable to suggest that he simply meant that he had accepted that the two men did their trek that morning in companionship, meaning solely that they had joined up. That does not mean that there was an established distance inbetween them where their being together or in company with each other seized to be a fact. But letīs introduce such a distance anyway, and letīs make it three yards.
Are we to think that if they were at times three yards and an inch from each other, they were no longer in company? Did they float in and out of being in company with each other if the three-yard limit was overstepped at times?

No, the one and only thing that could stop them being together would be if one of them left the other with no intention to join up again directly. Then, and only then, does the togetherness seize to be.

What you are trying to do here is crystal clear: You are trying to say that since they were claimed to have been together, Paul must have been within earshot of Mizen. Regardless of the accousic properties and surrounding, ambient sounds, and regardless of the volume of speech used by Lechmere, he must have been close enough to enable you to claim that you are correct in saying that Paul would have heard what was said.

That is it, is it not? It is all that matters to you, you soooo want it to be a proven thing. But you cannot get there, try as you might.

Not gonna work in a million years, Steve. And to think this suggestion comes from somebody who has the nerve to call my statement that it was the coroner who introduced the phrase "in company" laughable...?

Itīs quite a rot.

Now, answer my questions above, please! If Paul was fifteen yards away, he would likely not have heard what was said. If he was one yard away, he arguably must have heard. So you are looking for a distance inbetween the two when you look for the maximum distance you are prepared to allow for. Or do you deny that? Just tell me which distance we are looking at, Steve. What is it you know that I donīt know about the placement of Paul, and how can you prove it?

Such a conclusion is drawn from the contents of the witness data sources and is fully in keeping with all 3.

The idea that they were too far away to hear each other is also in keeping with the given evidence, Steve. And there goes your certainty. Poof! Swosh! Gone with the wind! There was a backside to the medal you tried to pin to your now very deflated chest.

And you have still not provided any data (which is not asking for guess work; but rather research ) to support your idea they were not in close proximity.

I donīt have to provide any data at all in that respect. Not a iot. Since it cannot be established what "together" and "in company with" means in terms of any established distance, I am freed of any demands to put any of the persons on any spot at all. Whatever may have been out of earshot is good enough, be that ten, twelve or twenty yards. Neither distance is excluded from possibility by what was said.

YOU on the other hand, Steve - you MUST provide data telling us that Paul was at a place where he would have heard what Lechmere said to Mizen. You MUST provide a given maximal distance that ensures that Paul must have heard the discussion, otherwise you are just wasting peopleīs time out here. If you cannot prove your point, you are toast, gone, wasted ... you name it.
And that just happened, did it not? Or CAN you provide conclusive proof that Paul must have heard?

Well, can you? Or is it just a case of how you "think" that the parts involved must have spoken of a very close proximity?

You see itīs either an acknowledgement of that or conclusive proof that is called for. You are on that spot now, Steve, I put you there and I am not letting you off.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Surely Fisherman this is a very logical conclusion to arrive at.

From the DTs transcript:

Mizen: '...carman who passed in company with another man.'

Cross: 'in Bakers Row they met the last witness (Mizen).'

Paul : 'The man walked with him.'

They left the body together. Surely it's reasonable to believe that they walked together and therefore arrived together. I can't see what we have to lead us to believe then that Paul, for some reason, stood apart and out of earshot?

Surely Fisherman if you can pick apart circumstances such as this one then absolute every aspect of the case would require constant re-interpretation. If Paul walked on then that would have been pretty strange behaviour seeing as they arrived together with one purpose. Wouldn't Mizen have said 'don't go yet,' or some such words. Then he would have let them both walk on.

I can't think any other interpretation logical?

Regards
Herlock

[Elamarna]

No, it is not. There can be no distance established, as you well know, and that means that we cannot say that he was within audible distance.


The evidence supplied by the 3 witnesses says different. You don't like it but there it is.


Hereīs what you get for trying this angle: Answer me these questions:

Is there any chance that Paul can have been more than a yard away from Mizen?
Is there any chance that he could have been more than three yards away?

Five yards?
Ten?
Fifteen?


Completely pointless posts. I have given an answer. You don't like it. Unfortunate.


Each and every one of these suggestions are not only viable, but also EQUALLY viable. And that owes to how the two terms "together" and "in company with" are not, and have never been, any exact terms. They acknowledge one thing only and that thing is a companionship between two parts. That is why one man can call from Buenos Aires to Stockholm and say "we are together in this", "we are in each others company on this deal".

The witness statements are clear. Paul heard what was said and claims to have spoken himself. There is NO DATA which disagrees with this.
No matter how much you argue, without data it does not counter the witness sources.


Of course, that was not what Mizen meant - but it is totally viable to suggest that he simply meant that he had accepted that the two men did their trek that morning in companionship, meaning solely that they had joined up. That does not mean that there was an established distance inbetween them where their being together or in company with each other seizes to be a fact. But letīs introduce such a distance anyway, and letīs make it three yards.

So now you have the power of clairvoyance ? You have no idea of what Mizen meant other than what is reported. My view is based on the witness statements yours appear to be on not accepting them.


Are we to think that if they were at times three yards from each other, they were no longer in company? Did they float in and out of being in company with each other if the three-yard limit was overstepped?

Pointless no fact based argument.
All statements say arrived as a pair.
Lechmere and Paul both say spoke to and heard Mizen's reply.
No statement says what you claim. No statement supports your view.

No, the one and only thing that could stop them being together would be if one of them left the other with no intention to join up again directly. Then, and only then, does the togetherness seize to be.


Yes of which you have no proof, not even a suggestion of proof, just an unsupported idea.



What you are trying to do here is crystal clear: You are trying to say that since they were claimed to have been together, Paul must have been within earshot of Mizen. Regardless of the accousic properties and surrounding, ambient sounds, and regardless of the volume of speech used by Lechmere, he must have been close enough to enable you to claim that you are correct in saying that Paul would have heard what was said.

No I am using what is in the witness statements, the sources. You know what we base history on.
You are rejecting them and putting forward an idea which is supported by no historical sources at all. That really is crystal clear as you say.

Not gonna work in a million years, Steve. And to think this suggestion comes from somebody who has the nerve to call my statement that it was the coroner who introduced the phrase "in company" laughable...?

But it does work because it is derived from the witness statements. Anything not based on those will not work that is sure.

Now, answer my questions above. If Paul was fifteen yards away, he would not have heard what was said. If he was one yard away, he must have heard. So you are looking for a distance inbetween. Or do you deny that? Just tell me which distance we are looking at.

We are looking at a distance where both could hear the conversation and both take part in it. Such is in the witness statements.
You do not agree fine. Produce the data to support your idea.

The idea that they were too far away to hear each other is also in keeping with the given evidence, Steve. And there goes your certainty. Poof! Swosh! Gone with the wind!


It is not, show me where there is any indication of such in those statements?

I donīt have to provide any data at all in that respect. Since it cannot be established what "together" and "in company with" means in terms of any established distance, I am freed of any demands to put any of the persons on any spot at all. Whatever may have been out of earshot is good enough, be that ten, twelve or twenty yards. Beither distance is excluded from possibility by what was said.

The data says they could hear each other and the conversation with Mizen.
To say you do not need to have evidence to counter that data is simply unreal. You are saying the statements cannot be taken as being true when they say they heard the conversations.
I concluded that you have no evidence.

YOU on the other hand, Steve - you MUST provide data telling us that Paul was at a place where he would have heard what Lechmere said to Mizen. You MUST provide a given maximal distance that ensures that Paul must have heard the discussion, otherwise you are just wasting peopleīs time out here. If you cannot prove your point, you are toast, gone, wasted ... you name it.


No I need only show that the witness statements say that they both heard the conversation. It is you who needs to provide evidence to counter those statements. Those are basic research rules.

And that just happened, did it not? Or CAN you provide conclusive proof that Paul must have heard?

Paul and Lechmere say Paul spoke.
Paul reports what Mizen said. It's in the statements if you wish to contest those do so but you must have evidence to do that.

Well, can you?

I have done repeatedly. By presenting the available historical source, the witness statements. You appear to not to wish to accept them. So prove they are wrong or they continue to stand.

Steve

[Fisherman]

I have done repeatedly. By presenting the available historical source, the witness statements. You appear to not to wish to accept them. So prove they are wrong or they continue to stand.

Steve

They never stood in the first place. And as I keep telling you, what I have to prove is that "together" and "in company with" is not any laid down measurement of a proximity. I can prove that the terms have been used abut people who have been very, very far apart.

The one and only person who has to prove something and make something stand is therefore you.

Do you admit that you cannot establish an exact distance between Paul and Mizen?

Do you admit that you cannot prove that Paul was within hearing distance?

Those are the only pertinent questions. Answer then and we can all go home.

[Fisherman]

Herlock Sholmes: Surely Fisherman this is a very logical conclusion to arrive at.

Yes! And therein lies the rub. It is logical - but is it correct?

From the DTs transcript:

Mizen: '...carman who passed in company with another man.'

Cross: 'in Bakers Row they met the last witness (Mizen).'

Paul : 'The man walked with him.'

We need to look separately at these three excerpts:

"In company" only tells us that the two were on a joint mission. It says nothing about the distance between the two. They arrived up at Bakers Row more or less together, so much so that Mizen recognized (and perhaps heard) that they were doing the trek jointly. After that, there can be no knowing how close they were when Lechmere spoke to Mizen. It could have been two yards and it could have been twenty.

"They" met the last witness - well, obviously both men had to pass the PC! Ergo both of them met him. But how close to a person does your meeting him put you...?

The last one, "the man walked with him" depicts how Lechmere walked with Paul TO BAKERS ROW, and not what happened up there. Plus "walking with" does not mean that we are dealing with a fixed distance. I do think the two walked close together up to Bakers Row, and that this was how Mizen knew they were "in company" with each other. But as I keep saying, it seems that Lechmere broke free from the companionship distancewise at that stage and approached Mizen alone - which is reflected in how Mizen says that ONE man came up to him and spoke about the woman in Bucks Row.

I have no problems realizing that the obvious implication is that they were close together, Herlock. And I think that may have helped to shield Lechmere. Before he was under suspicion, there was no logical reason not to read it the way it seems to read. But once we put him under scrutiny, all the little bits and pieces must be looked at from all angles, and suddenly we can see that there is an opening here. It may be that the less obvious solution is the correct one.

They left the body together. Surely it's reasonable to believe that they walked together and therefore arrived together. I can't see what we have to lead us to believe then that Paul, for some reason, stood apart and out of earshot?

[B]It IS reasonable to beleive they walked in tandem throughout, yes - but it is in no way any certainty. What speaks against it? Well, partly the wording from one paper: "The other man, who went down Hanbury Street", but mainly how Mizen does not say anything at all about Paul approaching him or speaking to him. And in his inquest testimony, Paul only says that they told a PC about what had happened. I have no problems accepting that he may be recounting how Lechmere spoke to Mizen - it would to Pauls mind be a result of the carmens joint decision to tell a PC. Itīs like saying "we won the game" when Man U wins, or like a couple withdrawing money, obviously just the one does that, but both can say afterwards "we withdrew money".

On this issue, I am not claiming that my suggestion is the more obvious one or the "better one" - I am saying that on account of there being a more obvious and simple solution, we may have missed out on the fact that there is another solution available which is in no way unviable as such.

Surely Fisherman if you can pick apart circumstances such as this one then absolute every aspect of the case would require constant re-interpretation.

Generally speaking, we would do well to establish all possible interpretations of every aspect of the case. We owe it to ourselves not to leave any stone unturned. It is not until we look from all angles that we can see all the possible solutions. I hope you follow me on that?
Of course, we should not resort to impossible interpretations, but as I have said before, I am looking at Lechmere as a suspect, and I am researching how he fits the bill. If there are alternative interpretations that keep him in the game in a sensible manner, then those interpretations must be listened to. In a sense, the interpretation that he used the name Cross because he used it at work is the exact same thing - all the information we have speak for him always calling himself Lechmere with the authorities, so believing that he called himself Cross with the police because it was his working name is not as likely as the suggestion hat he did not. But it is nevertheless viable and belongs to the discussion.

If Paul walked on then that would have been pretty strange behaviour seeing as they arrived together with one purpose. Wouldn't Mizen have said 'don't go yet,' or some such words. Then he would have let them both walk on.

If mizen was informed that another PC had the errand in hand, he woul have to suspect that this was a lie before he had any reason at all to detain either man or to try and stop Paul. As long as he accepted that another PC was in place and had sent the carmen to fetch help, he could only work from the assumption that they had done their part and should be allowed to go to work.

I can't think any other interpretation logical?

Well, I can. I can see a very clear opening, and I think it is much supported by how Mizen stated that he spoke to one man. If both men came up to him and spoke to him, why on earth would he not say so? Donīt you find such a suggestion illogical? I know I do. If you and Steve came up to me and if you said "I think you are wrong" and Steve said "I think that we must be correct on this", would I then relate that as if only you spoke to me? Would I have to be reminded that tehre was another man who ALSO spoke to me? That is not logical. I really should say "Two men came up to me and spoke to me. The first one said.... and then the second guy went.... "

Is that not true? And if you agree, what happens? Where does that put Paul? If Mizen did not speak to him, and if Mizen said "one man" spoke to him, what about Paul? Why wouod this be? What coud be the underlying explanation?

Well, one such explanation would be that Paul never walked up to Mizen and never spoke to him. Surely you must agree that this seems a logical enough explanation to Mizens testimony?

We need to command ourselves on our new, less aggressive take on debating techniques at any rate!

And now itīs lawnmowing time, BEFORE the missus returns home!

[Elamarna]

They never stood in the first place. And as I keep telling you, what I have to prove is that "together" and "in company with" is not any laid down measurement of a proximity. I can prove that the terms have been used abut people who have been very, very far apart.

The statements do not stand? Who says so?
Just because you chose not to accept them that does not mean they do not stand.
I hate to inform you but you as an individual do not say what is true and what is not. The basic rule of research be that medical or historical is that if one wishes to challenge something one MUST produce facts to support that challenge, just an opinion does not count.

Those terms wich you wish to argue tooth and nail about, do not negate the details in the statements. Those details say they spoke to Mizen and heard what he said. To do so they must be relatively close together.
To argue that is not what happened requires actual evidence!



The one and only person who has to prove something and make something stand is therefore you.

Certainly not. That is not how research works.
You are challenging the statements in the case. It is your place to provide data to do such.
The very fact that you are insisting it is beholden of me who is sticky with the give statements suggests that you have no such data.

No matter how much you say otherwise it is the duty of those who wish to challenge a given statement to provided data to do so.


Do you admit that you cannot establish an exact distance between Paul and Mizen?

Not even trying. It is not needed. The data sources say they were close enough for Paul to hear the conversation.

Do you admit that you cannot prove that Paul was within hearing distance?

Both Paul and Lechmere's statement point to the fact not only he could, but did hear. Again what evidence is there that those statements are wrong?

Those are the only pertinent questions. Answer then and we can all go home.

No my Dear Fish, that is not how it works.
Surely you realise that by now?
I stick by the statements given at the time which say Paul heard and took part in the conversation.
If you do not accept those statements please explain why? And provide the data which leads you to that view.

I can go on defending the statements all day unless you provide an alternative source to counter them. It's no problem.


Steve

[Pierre]

So if I say that your posts are the worst crap that has ever plagued Casebook, that they are mindless and stupid, worthless and embarrasing - I may still regard you as a very clever and good ripperologist, who I hold high in esteem? And who was just unlucky trying to think?

Is there a connection or is there not?

Is the binary option the only option for you?