Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: I was not going to comment but I really must.

Despite what you have been saying and posting the witness sources are very clear.

No, they are not very clear, Steve. If they were, we would not be having this discussion. The sources open up for more than just the one solution, and that is the equivalent of not being very clear.

I do not dispute that most of them describe the event as if Paul and Lechmere were always more or less close to each other, but it is by no means any certainty. Other details speak for another interpretation.

And nowhere is there data that guarantees us that Paul must have overheard Lechmereīs conversation with Mizen. Nowhere! The mere suggestion is a falsification.

Lechmere says Paul also spoke during the conversation with Mizen.
Paul claims to have taken part and at the very least to have known what was said . Agreeing with Lechmere.
Now I will point out as you often do that it is not me suggesting this, it is what is recorded.

It is not enough and it is in no way conclusive, though.

The second you say that Lechmere said that Paul spoke to Mizen, I can say that Mizen never recognized this, instead he told us that ONE man spoke to him.

That very effectively puts Lechmereīs statement into doubt. Anyone can see that.

And there is absolutely no need to believe that Paul knew what was said. What he says himself is that "they" told Mizen what they had seen, and he may simply have worked from an assumption that Lechmere told the PC this. They may even have aggreed about what was to be said and who was to say it, after which Lechmere violated the agreement. Anyone can see that too.

So you see, you are left with nothing in the end. There is not a thing that can tell us that your way of looking upon it is the correct way. It may be and it may not be. My guess is that you are dead wrong.

You don't believe this fine, and we now know that is because you believe that Paul lied and one must assume you hold the same view of Lechmere.
In addition you interpret Mizen as saying they were not in close proximity and you believe Mizen was truthful.
Again that's fine.

I KNOW Paul lied in his paper interview, unless the journalist lied. He was nt the one who solely managaged the discussion with Mizen. I donīt know why you otherwise say that I beleive that Paul lied, if it does not emanate from this?
I do not interpret Mizen as saying that the two men were not n close proximity. I interpret him as opening up for the possibility, though.

And yes, I think Mizen told the truth. It is in line with the lie about the PC that Mizen never corrected Neils statement of being the finder of the body, and it is line with it that he let Lechmere and Paul go, unquestioned.

However we are left with 3 sets of Witness statements and any views on what occurred need to be based on those. To suggest that pointing out that two of those 3 sets specifically say that both Lechmere and Paul were involved in the conversation with Mizen is unhelpful, is a somewhat strange approach,if one seeks a full and true picture of the events.

To reach your verdict, you have to believe a man that is under suspicion of murder, who would have all the reason in the world to lie and who seemingly did so about his name.
If you have ten convicted killers awaiting their death penalties on a prison island, being accued of trying to flee by a prison guard but denying it, then in your world the prison guard was probably wrong since he was in the minority.

Once we look at a possible culprit, his word must be taken with a large grain of salt, thatīs what I am saying. Much as we should listen to him, we should ALSO picture the possibility that he may be lying to get out of trouble. Both perspectives must be used, least we want to be called naive.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Personally, I think it would be careless not to include what we know about psychopaty, on account of it being so very common with psychopathy among serialists.
But everybody must make his own choice!

One small matter: You write that as far as we know, Lechmere was a happily married family man. I agree with that as long as we strike out the "happily". We do not know that it was a happy marriage at all. A divorce was not an everyday occurence in these days, and the marriage could well have been unhappy. Nothong points in either way.

I am always wary about these matters, when Lechmeres status as a family man is somehow portrayed as part of a guarantee that he would not have done it. Moreover, a number of serialists have been happily married, like for example Ridgway. To me, cottoning onto these matters as if they were some sort of approval of being a good guy is not a productive way forward. Once more, Robert Ressler described the typical serialist as being in his late thirties and upholding a steady job and having a wife and family. This must not be overlooked!

Fair point

[John Wheat]

The title of this thread should be Lechmere the Family Man

[Fisherman]

Fair point

Thanks, Herlock!

[Patrick S]

Which is just an opinion, and nothing else - speaking about being "down to the possible/impossible argument".

The statements we have do not give data that Paul heard the conversation. That is false, simple as that.

There is nothing to discount that he COULD have heard it and nothing to discount that he may NOT have.

Any other interpretation is untrue, and I prefer the truth in this case too.

I think it would have been remarkable had Paul been excluded from a private conversation between Paul and Cross. Meaning that had that occurred it would likely have been mentioned by either Paul or Mizen at the inquest. Further, Paul discusses in some detail his encounter with Mizen in Lloyd's:

"I saw one (a PC, Mizen) in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head. "

The above bold verbiage has Paul describing HIS interaction with Mizen. He tells Mizen what HE has seen. HE asks Mizen to come. HE tells Mizen the woman was dead.

If you're correct in assuming that Cross was able to get Mizen out of Paul's earshot for a private conversation then I'd ask you why Paul didn't mention that and instead described his own interaction with Mizen, with no mention of Cross at all?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just an exercise

Finding myself with a little spare time today I started to think about interpreting evidence and how easy it could be to fall into the trap of finding something sinister in an alternative interpretation. Especially when statements differ; even slightly. I'm definately not saying that we shouldn't look into these alternatives (Fish) or even propose possible scenarios to fit the known facts. All I wanted to do in this small exercise was to highlight the pitfalls of doing this.

In my hypothetical scenario I'm someone who believes that Louis Diemschutz killed Liz Stride (and any of the other victims, apart from Catherine Eddowes.) It has been suggested after all that there could have been more than one 'ripper.' I'm not aware that anyone has ever proposed Diemschutz and I want to stress that I'm not either (under any circumstance.)

So..... I see that Diemschutz 'discovered' the body of Liz Stride in Dutfield's Yard. I think that there 'must' have been 'some' light in that yard (from the club itself, the surrounding cottages and the street itself.) How then could a man not recognise that a body was not that of his wife? I might, therefore, think how he might 'benefit' from this? Well, he would be establishing the 'fact' that he had no knowledge of the woman. He would also give him the opportunity to display to the club members how 'distraught' he was (unlike a killer). He did this when he could have just gone into the street and called for a Constable or at least got a passerby to go and look for one. We've discussed in this thread about a killer being 'brazen.' How much more brazen or taunting to get away with murder outside your own club?
Then there's the grapes. Diemschutz told the press that he saw grapes in Strides hand when Dr. Blackwell opened her hands. Blackwell didn't mention grapes at the inquest. Couldn't we 'deduce' from this that Diemschutz wasn't actually present when Strides hands were opened? Why would he lie? Maybe he'd ducked back into the club to wash and hide the knife and check himself over for blood spots? Then later he just parroted the rumour about grapes, even saying that he watched Blackwell opening Strides hands to add that extra bit of authenticity and to give himself, in police eyes, no time to despose of the knife or clean up.
We've debated on here the notion of Lechmere killing on the way to work. Well Diemschutz had license to be almost anywhere even at the strangest of hours in his cart going to various markets. To push it further, 'maybe', on his way home, he'd written the grafitto in Goulston Street as a taunt to the police. 'The jews won't even get the blame when a body is found right next to a Jewish club!'
Didn't he also get into trouble with the police at a later date? I can't recall the details. Doesn't this show that he had a 'bit of a temper?'

So, what do I have. A lower class Jew who was 'alone' with the body of Liz Stride. A man who made a 'questionable decision,' and made a 'probably' false statement to the press. A man with a temper who had local knowledge and, through his business, had 'legitimate reasons for being all over the east end at all manor of strange hours. Mmmm 'no English man could have committed these crimes.'

This was just an exercise; a product of having nothing to do really. I'm not accusing anyone of anything here (Fish). What I've tried to show is that, with a little effort ( and I made very little effort here ) we can find suspicion in any series of events or against almost anyone.

Regards

Herlock

[Pierre]

Finding myself with a little spare time today I started to think about interpreting evidence and how easy it could be to fall into the trap of finding something sinister in an alternative interpretation. Especially when statements differ; even slightly. I'm definately not saying that we shouldn't look into these alternatives (Fish) or even propose possible scenarios to fit the known facts. All I wanted to do in this small exercise was to highlight the pitfalls of doing this.

In my hypothetical scenario I'm someone who believes that Louis Diemschutz killed Liz Stride (and any of the other victims, apart from Catherine Eddowes.) It has been suggested after all that there could have been more than one 'ripper.' I'm not aware that anyone has ever proposed Diemschutz and I want to stress that I'm not either (under any circumstance.)

So..... I see that Diemschutz 'discovered' the body of Liz Stride in Dutfield's Yard. I think that there 'must' have been 'some' light in that yard (from the club itself, the surrounding cottages and the street itself.) How then could a man not recognise that a body was not that of his wife? I might, therefore, think how he might 'benefit' from this? Well, he would be establishing the 'fact' that he had no knowledge of the woman. He would also give him the opportunity to display to the club members how 'distraught' he was (unlike a killer). He did this when he could have just gone into the street and called for a Constable or at least got a passerby to go and look for one. We've discussed in this thread about a killer being 'brazen.' How much more brazen or taunting to get away with murder outside your own club?
Then there's the grapes. Diemschutz told the press that he saw grapes in Strides hand when Dr. Blackwell opened her hands. Blackwell didn't mention grapes at the inquest. Couldn't we 'deduce' from this that Diemschutz wasn't actually present when Strides hands were opened? Why would he lie? Maybe he'd ducked back into the club to wash and hide the knife and check himself over for blood spots? Then later he just parroted the rumour about grapes, even saying that he watched Blackwell opening Strides hands to add that extra bit of authenticity and to give himself, in police eyes, no time to despose of the knife or clean up.
We've debated on here the notion of Lechmere killing on the way to work. Well Diemschutz had license to be almost anywhere even at the strangest of hours in his cart going to various markets. To push it further, 'maybe', on his way home, he'd written the grafitto in Goulston Street as a taunt to the police. 'The jews won't even get the blame when a body is found right next to a Jewish club!'
Didn't he also get into trouble with the police at a later date? I can't recall the details. Doesn't this show that he had a 'bit of a temper?'

So, what do I have. A lower class Jew who was 'alone' with the body of Liz Stride. A man who made a 'questionable decision,' and made a 'probably' false statement to the press. A man with a temper who had local knowledge and, through his business, had 'legitimate reasons for being all over the east end at all manor of strange hours. Mmmm 'no English man could have committed these crimes.'

This was just an exercise; a product of having nothing to do really. I'm not accusing anyone of anything here (Fish). What I've tried to show is that, with a little effort ( and I made very little effort here ) we can find suspicion in any series of events or against almost anyone.

Regards

Herlock

Also a good example for what journalists are capable of doing with sources.

Cheers, Pierre

[Patrick S]

I think it would have been remarkable had Paul been excluded from a private conversation between Paul and Cross. Meaning that had that occurred it would likely have been mentioned by either Paul or Mizen at the inquest. Further, Paul discusses in some detail his encounter with Mizen in Lloyd's:

"I saw one (a PC, Mizen) in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head. "

The above bold verbiage has Paul describing HIS interaction with Mizen. He tells Mizen what HE has seen. HE asks Mizen to come. HE tells Mizen the woman was dead.

If you're correct in assuming that Cross was able to get Mizen out of Paul's earshot for a private conversation then I'd ask you why Paul didn't mention that and instead described his own interaction with Mizen, with no mention of Cross at all?

To expand on this, I think it's important to examine what Cross testified to at the inquest:

"He and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's-row they met the last witness, whom they informed that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row. Witness said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on. The other man left witness soon after. Witness had never seen him before. Replying to the coroner, witness denied having seen Police-constable Neil in Buck's-row. There was nobody there when he and the other man left. In his opinion deceased looked as if she had been outraged and gone off in a swoon; but he had no idea that there were any serious injuries.
The Coroner: Did the other man tell you who he was?
Witness: No, sir; he merely said that he would have fetched a policeman, only he was behind time. I was behind time myself.
A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?
Witness: No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row."

The first passage I've bolded shows that Cross essentially agrees with Paul with respect to what Mizen was told, and in describing how Mizen responded. He was told the woman was dead and he said, "Allright" and walked on. The bold italics is important, I think in that Cross testifies that Paul left is company after their interaction with Mizen in Baker's Row. So, clearly Cross didn't tell Paul he'd take it from here, run along and be on time for work. I'll tell the PC what he needs to know. Thus, if - as you contend - Cross related (misleading or false) information (about a PC in Buck's Row) to Mizen away from Pau's hearing then he had to have orchestrated that, leaving Paul standing on the pavement - away from Cross and Mizen - doing nothing. There was no else for him to talk to, nothing to take his attention away from the discussion, nothing to amuse him. He'd have simply been left to stand in Baker's Row, alone, as Cross pulled Mizen aside for a private chat. And if that DID happen, both he and Mizen found it so unremarkable that they never mentioned it.

[Fisherman]

I think it would have been remarkable had Paul been excluded from a private conversation between Paul and Cross. Meaning that had that occurred it would likely have been mentioned by either Paul or Mizen at the inquest. Further, Paul discusses in some detail his encounter with Mizen in Lloyd's:

"I saw one (a PC, Mizen) in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head. "

The above bold verbiage has Paul describing HIS interaction with Mizen. He tells Mizen what HE has seen. HE asks Mizen to come. HE tells Mizen the woman was dead.

If you're correct in assuming that Cross was able to get Mizen out of Paul's earshot for a private conversation then I'd ask you why Paul didn't mention that and instead described his own interaction with Mizen, with no mention of Cross at all?

Well, the first thing to notice is that what Paul told the Loyds Weekly reporter - or what the Lloyds Weekly reporter made up on his behalf - was something that was not in accordance woth what was said at the inquest. There, it was abundantly clear that the discussion in Bakers Row was between PC Mizen and Lechmere.

Why did not Paul, in the paper interview, mention that he was out of earshot? Because that wouod n ot have made a very good article, basically. Whether this was realized by Paul himself or by the reporter is something I canīt tell. But one must admit that the story as told in Lloyds is better reading than it woud have been with "The other man spoke to a PC, but I didnīt hear what was said".

In essence, I think this is what it was all about. Perhaps Paul just bigged himself up and perhaps the reporter did it for him. Either way, it sold more papers, Iīm sure.

Can I ask you, Patrick: Do you believe in the LLoyds article? To what extent do you think it may reflect what happened?

[Fisherman]

Finding myself with a little spare time today I started to think about interpreting evidence and how easy it could be to fall into the trap of finding something sinister in an alternative interpretation. Especially when statements differ; even slightly. I'm definately not saying that we shouldn't look into these alternatives (Fish) or even propose possible scenarios to fit the known facts. All I wanted to do in this small exercise was to highlight the pitfalls of doing this.

In my hypothetical scenario I'm someone who believes that Louis Diemschutz killed Liz Stride (and any of the other victims, apart from Catherine Eddowes.) It has been suggested after all that there could have been more than one 'ripper.' I'm not aware that anyone has ever proposed Diemschutz and I want to stress that I'm not either (under any circumstance.)

So..... I see that Diemschutz 'discovered' the body of Liz Stride in Dutfield's Yard. I think that there 'must' have been 'some' light in that yard (from the club itself, the surrounding cottages and the street itself.) How then could a man not recognise that a body was not that of his wife? I might, therefore, think how he might 'benefit' from this? Well, he would be establishing the 'fact' that he had no knowledge of the woman. He would also give him the opportunity to display to the club members how 'distraught' he was (unlike a killer). He did this when he could have just gone into the street and called for a Constable or at least got a passerby to go and look for one. We've discussed in this thread about a killer being 'brazen.' How much more brazen or taunting to get away with murder outside your own club?
Then there's the grapes. Diemschutz told the press that he saw grapes in Strides hand when Dr. Blackwell opened her hands. Blackwell didn't mention grapes at the inquest. Couldn't we 'deduce' from this that Diemschutz wasn't actually present when Strides hands were opened? Why would he lie? Maybe he'd ducked back into the club to wash and hide the knife and check himself over for blood spots? Then later he just parroted the rumour about grapes, even saying that he watched Blackwell opening Strides hands to add that extra bit of authenticity and to give himself, in police eyes, no time to despose of the knife or clean up.
We've debated on here the notion of Lechmere killing on the way to work. Well Diemschutz had license to be almost anywhere even at the strangest of hours in his cart going to various markets. To push it further, 'maybe', on his way home, he'd written the grafitto in Goulston Street as a taunt to the police. 'The jews won't even get the blame when a body is found right next to a Jewish club!'
Didn't he also get into trouble with the police at a later date? I can't recall the details. Doesn't this show that he had a 'bit of a temper?'

So, what do I have. A lower class Jew who was 'alone' with the body of Liz Stride. A man who made a 'questionable decision,' and made a 'probably' false statement to the press. A man with a temper who had local knowledge and, through his business, had 'legitimate reasons for being all over the east end at all manor of strange hours. Mmmm 'no English man could have committed these crimes.'

This was just an exercise; a product of having nothing to do really. I'm not accusing anyone of anything here (Fish). What I've tried to show is that, with a little effort ( and I made very little effort here ) we can find suspicion in any series of events or against almost anyone.

Regards

Herlock

You can level an accusation against very many men of the East End. But there will be more or less stock in it.

In Diemschitzī case, Mortimer heard him arrive, and so we know that he had very little time to be the killer, seconds only in all probability.

We also have an altercation fifteen minutes before that involved violence, and that seems more likely to involve the murder.

We have Johnston arriving at around 1.12 or something like that, at which time the blood had all run away and congealed. How likely is that with just the one major vessel cut, if Diemschitz was the cutter at 1.00?

We have Blackwell saying that to his mind, Stride died between 12.46 and 12.56 (he said that she had been dead for between twenty and thirty minutes as he arrived, and he did so at 1.16)

We would get a situation where the killer otherwise used other venues but suddenly used a place tied to himself when killing Stride.

Plus you canīt prove that Diemschitz was a psychopath, can you!

Nah, just kiddinī there, but overall, Diemschitz does not make for as good a bid as Lechmere. He told his real name and he did not disagree with the police about what was said and done, and Mortimers information does a lot to keep him in the clear.

But he can nevertheless be accused, should one feel like it. However, I donīt think it would generate the kind of interest Lechmere generates, and for a reason.

I could pick Emma Green out and form a scenario where she was the killer. We can all do that, but when it boils down to overall credibility, we will have very varying outcomes.

[Fisherman]

To expand on this, I think it's important to examine what Cross testified to at the inquest:

"He and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's-row they met the last witness, whom they informed that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row. Witness said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on. The other man left witness soon after. Witness had never seen him before. Replying to the coroner, witness denied having seen Police-constable Neil in Buck's-row. There was nobody there when he and the other man left. In his opinion deceased looked as if she had been outraged and gone off in a swoon; but he had no idea that there were any serious injuries.
The Coroner: Did the other man tell you who he was?
Witness: No, sir; he merely said that he would have fetched a policeman, only he was behind time. I was behind time myself.
A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?
Witness: No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row."

The first passage I've bolded shows that Cross essentially agrees with Paul with respect to what Mizen was told, and in describing how Mizen responded. He was told the woman was dead and he said, "Allright" and walked on. The bold italics is important, I think in that Cross testifies that Paul left is company after their interaction with Mizen in Baker's Row. So, clearly Cross didn't tell Paul he'd take it from here, run along and be on time for work. I'll tell the PC what he needs to know. Thus, if - as you contend - Cross related (misleading or false) information (about a PC in Buck's Row) to Mizen away from Pau's hearing then he had to have orchestrated that, leaving Paul standing on the pavement - away from Cross and Mizen - doing nothing. There was no else for him to talk to, nothing to take his attention away from the discussion, nothing to amuse him. He'd have simply been left to stand in Baker's Row, alone, as Cross pulled Mizen aside for a private chat. And if that DID happen, both he and Mizen found it so unremarkable that they never mentioned it.

You must gauge how long time it takes for a man to say:

"Excuse me officer, but there is a woman lying flat on her back up there, in Bucks Row. Thereīs a PC up there who sent us to fetch help."

Timing it, it takes less than ten seconds, Mizens answer included.

I know that the men walked together after the discussion too. What I am suggesting is that Lechmere sent Paul ahead, spoke to Mizen and then caught up with Paul some small way down Hanbury Street. I never suggested they left each other in Bakers Row.

You imply that it would be strange if Mizen did not mention Paul being left out. But look at what happened - up until he was asked by the coroner about Paul, he said NOTHING about him. He said that a man - who he ID:d as Lechmere - came up to him and spoke to him, and he says not a iot about Paul.
So very clearly, he did not find the latters role in any way interesting or decisive enough to be worth mentioning!

When the coroner asked him if there was not another man in company with Lechmere, Mizen said yes, there was.

Speaking about remarkable, if Lechmere AND Paul BOTH walked up to Mizen and BOTH spoke to him, how is it not VERY remarkable that the PC left one of the two men out in his testimony...?

[Abby Normal]

You can level an accusation against very many men of the East End. But there will be more or less stock in it.

In Diemschitzī case, Mortimer heard him arrive, and so we know that he had very little time to be the killer, seconds only in all probability.

We also have an altercation fifteen minutes before that involved violence, and that seems more likely to involve the murder.

We have Johnston arriving at around 1.12 or something like that, at which time the blood had all run away and congealed. How likely is that with just the one major vessel cut, if Diemschitz was the cutter at 1.00?

We have Blackwell saying that to his mind, Stride died between 12.46 and 12.56 (he said that she had been dead for between twenty and thirty minutes as he arrived, and he did so at 1.16)

We would get a situation where the killer otherwise used other venues but suddenly used a place tied to himself when killing Stride.

Plus you canīt prove that Diemschitz was a psychopath, can you!

Nah, just kiddinī there, but overall, Diemschitz does not make for as good a bid as Lechmere. He told his real name and he did not disagree with the police about what was said and done, and Mortimers information does a lot to keep him in the clear.

But he can nevertheless be accused, should one feel like it. However, I donīt think it would generate the kind of interest Lechmere generates, and for a reason.

I could pick Emma Green out and form a scenario where she was the killer. We can all do that, but when it boils down to overall credibility, we will have very varying outcomes.

well he also went and got help immediately and wasn't seen by another witness near the body before he raised the alarm. Cant believe you left that one out! LOL.
but your other points are valid of course too.

[Patrick S]

Well, the first thing to notice is that what Paul told the Loyds Weekly reporter - or what the Lloyds Weekly reporter made up on his behalf - was something that was not in accordance woth what was said at the inquest. There, it was abundantly clear that the discussion in Bakers Row was between PC Mizen and Lechmere.

Why did not Paul, in the paper interview, mention that he was out of earshot? Because that wouod n ot have made a very good article, basically. Whether this was realized by Paul himself or by the reporter is something I canīt tell. But one must admit that the story as told in Lloyds is better reading than it woud have been with "The other man spoke to a PC, but I didnīt hear what was said".

In essence, I think this is what it was all about. Perhaps Paul just bigged himself up and perhaps the reporter did it for him. Either way, it sold more papers, Iīm sure.

Can I ask you, Patrick: Do you believe in the LLoyds article? To what extent do you think it may reflect what happened?

What I think of the Lloyd's article is irrelevant. I'll say that I think that it likely reflects Paul's perception of what happened accurately enough. Mizen was told Nichols was dead (or likely dead). Paul was upset by Mizen's reaction once told the information. What is relevant is that we must rely upon more assumptions and (sorry to use the term again) invention, in this case that Paul or the reporter spiced things up for better reading (I'd note this is something new as previously you have stated a belief that Paul was a self-promoter who likely held a grudge against the police, thus explaining his harsh criticism of Mizen).

[Elamarna]

I do not dispute that most of them describe the event as if Paul and Lechmere were always more or less close to each other, but it is by no means any certainty. Other details speak for another interpretation.

And nowhere is there data that guarantees us that Paul must have overheard Lechmereīs conversation with Mizen. Nowhere! The mere suggestion is a falsification.


No it is not. Your refusal to accept what is actually recorded is astounding. I fully understand that you may not accept what is said but to deny it is interesting to say the least


Lechmere says Paul also spoke during the conversation with Mizen.
Paul claims to have taken part and at the very least to have known what was said . Agreeing with Lechmere.
Now I will point out as you often do that it is not me suggesting this, it is what is recorded.

It is not enough and it is in no way conclusive, though.

Not enough for you. Interestingly may one ask if the data saying they agree that Paul heard the conversation exist; how does your previous statement "the mere suggestion is a falsification " stand?

The second you say that Lechmere said that Paul spoke to Mizen, I can say that Mizen never recognized this, instead he told us that ONE man spoke to him.

That very effectively puts Lechmereīs statement into doubt. Anyone can see that.


And of course the fact that neither Lechmere or Paul agree with Mizen's statement must put that into doubt also.


And there is absolutely no need to believe that Paul knew what was said. What he says himself is that "they" told Mizen what they had seen, and he may simply have worked from an assumption that Lechmere told the PC this. They may even have aggreed about what was to be said and who was to say it, after which Lechmere violated the agreement. Anyone can see that too.

What evidence do you have for this agreement and conspiracy. Once again it all what If and maybe.

So you see, you are left with nothing in the end. There is not a thing that can tell us that your way of looking upon it is the correct way. It may be and it may not be. My guess is that you are dead wrong.

Sorry, just you saying there is nothing left is not enough. Others can and often do disagree with your take on things.


I KNOW Paul lied in his paper interview, unless the journalist lied. He was nt the one who solely managaged the discussion with Mizen. I donīt know why you otherwise say that I beleive that Paul lied, if it does not emanate from this?

You said he lied yesterday I was merely repeating what you had said.
At least we can agree that at the very least he grossly exaggerated his role.



I do not interpret Mizen as saying that the two men were not n close proximity. I interpret him as opening up for the possibility, though.

Ok correction accepted. So it is not a conclusive interpretation then; just another of the many maybe ones. I see.

And yes, I think Mizen told the truth. It is in line with the lie about the PC that Mizen never corrected Neils statement of being the finder of the body, and it is line with it that he let Lechmere and Paul go, unquestioned.

So you keep saying . Well there are other views on this.


However we are left with 3 sets of Witness statements and any views on what occurred need to be based on those. To suggest that pointing out that two of those 3 sets specifically say that both Lechmere and Paul were involved in the conversation with Mizen is unhelpful, is a somewhat strange approach,if one seeks a full and true picture of the events.

To reach your verdict, you have to believe a man that is under suspicion of murder, who would have all the reason in the world to lie and who seemingly did so about his name.

And that is the issue, you view of his statement is coloured by your overwhelming desire to prove he is the killer.

If you have ten convicted killers awaiting their death penalties on a prison island, being accued of trying to flee by a prison guard but denying it, then in your world the prison guard was probably wrong since he was in the minority.

Not so, because they are convicted murders. Lechmere in case you forget is not.
The situation is not comparable. This again just demonstrates far better than any of us ever could your bias.

Once we look at a possible culprit, his word must be taken with a large grain of salt, thatīs what I am saying. Much as we should listen to him, we should ALSO picture the possibility that he may be lying to get out of trouble. Both perspectives must be used, least we want to be called naive.

But you see most do not see him like that at all and so do not approach the subject the way you do. While this last paragraph attempts to paint you as using a fair approach it is clear that you do not.


Steve

[Harry D]

Absolutely.Mizen was incompetent.If Mizen was thorough,Lechmere and Paui's name,home/work address (at least for a visit and interview later that day) and full statement would have been known that day even within hours not days which possibly created a lot of misconceptions.

No, you can't be alleging that Mizen was remiss in his duties. Like you say, he only failed to take down the details of the two witnesses and continued knocking up while his presence was required elsewhere. Obviously, poor PC Mizen was yet another victim to the fiendish machinations of the sinister Lechmere!