Originally posted by Fisherman
View Post
I only ignore the facts you invent, Steve. The rest of them, I look closely at.
No invention it's there.
A. It does not say that Paul was within earshot when Lechmere told fibs to Mizen, though, does it?
It says Paul also commented to Mizen, commenting on Lechmere's comments to Mizen. By definition he must be within earshot to do that. To suggest otherwise just portrays the intransigent view you insist on holding.
B. I am convinced that killers who want to get cleared will sometimes lie to enhance peopleīs picture of them. It is a major problem to claim that we must accept the testimony of a man who is under suspicion of murder. His testimony must be regarded as uncertain. Therefore, we must move on to the other sources, and we immediately find that Mizen says not a iot about any statement from Paul on the night.
And that is the problem. He is only under serious consideration to a few.
You believe he is the killer therefore is testimony is suspect. Because his testimony is suspect in you view, it is disregarded. To a great degree that is a position of wish fufulfilment.
These two testimonies cannot be joined together - either Lechmere and Paul both walked up to Mizen and spoke to him (in which case Lechmere is telling the truth), or it was just Lechmere who did so (in which case Mizen is telling the truth).
If the first option applies, can you offer any idea at all why Mizen would say that ONE man approached and spoke to him, if it was in fact TWO men who did so?
Firstly they can be joined up. The content of the conversation is consistent.
Why did he say one man?
Two options :
A.he saw no point in reporting the brief comment Lechmere says Paul made.
B. He lied. The same as you claim others did. His reason for such ? To cover up his behaviour.
But it directly contradicts Lechmeres and Mizens version of who did the talking. Does that not bother you in the least? Can you see what it does to your data? It puts it in grave doubt, Steve.
It does bring Paul's testimony in to question you are correct. Particularly his role. However and it is a big however the content of what was actually said to Mizen and his reply is consistent in both the Lloyds report and Lechmere's sworn statement. They corroborate each other. Can you not see that?
Plus, of course, the paper interview does not on any way exclude the possibility that Lechmere spoke to Mizen with Paul out of earshot. It never touches on the subject.
And therefore it cannot be used to suggest it occurred. There is no such suggestionin the source just pure speculation on your part.
It does of course give a consistent account of the conversation with Mizen, when compared to that of Lechmere.
I donīt claim that what was said was not said.
Actually you did.
What you posted was:
"THERE-IS-NO-DATA-FOR-PAUL-HAVING-OVERHEARD-WHAT-LECHMERE-TOLD-MIZEN!"
That seems a clear denial of the statements to me.
I claim it makes for an imposible scenario where both Paul and Lechmere played the leading role. But most of all, I claim that we cannot exclude that Lechmere spoke to Mizen with Paul out of earshot. Even if Paul DID tell Mizen that the woman was dead - whereafter the PC supposedly disguised this fact and perjured himself at the inquest - he may well have walked off afterwards, leaving Lechmere to dupe Mizen with Paul out of earshot.
Yes that is your position. You see no reason to doubt Mizen. Your idea that Paul walked off is NOT ACTUALLY SUPPORTED BY AN SOURCE. It's just your view.
Correct on the latter score!
Why a simple sorry, could not be given rather than that response, I fail to understand.
It may have something to do with then overall tone of this discussion - of course, I realize that I alone are to blame for it, but nevertheless.
No invention it's there.
A. It does not say that Paul was within earshot when Lechmere told fibs to Mizen, though, does it?
It says Paul also commented to Mizen, commenting on Lechmere's comments to Mizen. By definition he must be within earshot to do that. To suggest otherwise just portrays the intransigent view you insist on holding.
B. I am convinced that killers who want to get cleared will sometimes lie to enhance peopleīs picture of them. It is a major problem to claim that we must accept the testimony of a man who is under suspicion of murder. His testimony must be regarded as uncertain. Therefore, we must move on to the other sources, and we immediately find that Mizen says not a iot about any statement from Paul on the night.
And that is the problem. He is only under serious consideration to a few.
You believe he is the killer therefore is testimony is suspect. Because his testimony is suspect in you view, it is disregarded. To a great degree that is a position of wish fufulfilment.
These two testimonies cannot be joined together - either Lechmere and Paul both walked up to Mizen and spoke to him (in which case Lechmere is telling the truth), or it was just Lechmere who did so (in which case Mizen is telling the truth).
If the first option applies, can you offer any idea at all why Mizen would say that ONE man approached and spoke to him, if it was in fact TWO men who did so?
Firstly they can be joined up. The content of the conversation is consistent.
Why did he say one man?
Two options :
A.he saw no point in reporting the brief comment Lechmere says Paul made.
B. He lied. The same as you claim others did. His reason for such ? To cover up his behaviour.
But it directly contradicts Lechmeres and Mizens version of who did the talking. Does that not bother you in the least? Can you see what it does to your data? It puts it in grave doubt, Steve.
It does bring Paul's testimony in to question you are correct. Particularly his role. However and it is a big however the content of what was actually said to Mizen and his reply is consistent in both the Lloyds report and Lechmere's sworn statement. They corroborate each other. Can you not see that?
Plus, of course, the paper interview does not on any way exclude the possibility that Lechmere spoke to Mizen with Paul out of earshot. It never touches on the subject.
And therefore it cannot be used to suggest it occurred. There is no such suggestionin the source just pure speculation on your part.
It does of course give a consistent account of the conversation with Mizen, when compared to that of Lechmere.
I donīt claim that what was said was not said.
Actually you did.
What you posted was:
"THERE-IS-NO-DATA-FOR-PAUL-HAVING-OVERHEARD-WHAT-LECHMERE-TOLD-MIZEN!"
That seems a clear denial of the statements to me.
I claim it makes for an imposible scenario where both Paul and Lechmere played the leading role. But most of all, I claim that we cannot exclude that Lechmere spoke to Mizen with Paul out of earshot. Even if Paul DID tell Mizen that the woman was dead - whereafter the PC supposedly disguised this fact and perjured himself at the inquest - he may well have walked off afterwards, leaving Lechmere to dupe Mizen with Paul out of earshot.
Yes that is your position. You see no reason to doubt Mizen. Your idea that Paul walked off is NOT ACTUALLY SUPPORTED BY AN SOURCE. It's just your view.
Correct on the latter score!
Why a simple sorry, could not be given rather than that response, I fail to understand.
It may have something to do with then overall tone of this discussion - of course, I realize that I alone are to blame for it, but nevertheless.
Steve
Comment