Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lechmere The Psychopath

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

  • 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.
    Like normal insults are the fault of those who are insulted.

    Steve

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      I trust my last post has taken you out of your misconceptions about the matter anyway?

      Not at all. Same old over and over.

      Steve

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        Patrick S: Let's discuss Mizen's ensuing actions, shall we?

        Yes, lets!

        You say they indicate he was told only that a woman was lying on the ground.

        No, I donīt. I say they indicate that he was told that another PC was in place in Bucks Row.

        Even though the other two men involved in the encounter disagree. One was a police hating liar out for publicity as you tell it. The other, well....you know who.

        I do, yes - a person who I think was the killer and whose word I would be very wary about. Not least since I know that he used an alias and since I know he disagreed with the police about what had been said.
        It is not a numerical exercise to me, therefore.

        So, we must discount their words and rely only upon Mizen.

        No, "we" must not. I do.

        Meanwhile, we know that Neil testified that he'd found the body.

        Yes.

        Alone.

        Yes.

        No mention of Paul and Cross.

        No mention of Paul and Lechmere, no.

        I think its reasonable to conclude that Mizen said nothing, to anyone, about his meeting with the two men, of being told that Nichols was lying in Buck's Row, dead or otherwise. He clearly kept that to himself.

        There is that "clearly" again. It is not clear at all, Iīm afraid. My own take on things is that he wrote in his report that he was summoned to Bucks Row by Neil, and the ones in charge would have known that Neil said that he summoned Mizen with his lamp, so there was no discrepancy. It all seems very uncontroversial to me.
        But hereīs the thing - you object to my interpretation of Lechmere, and you think I am wrong to expect the worst. But in Mizens case, YOU are expecting the worst, although a very simple explanation can be offered.

        Recall that Mizen did - eventually - make his way into Buck's Row. Yet, he still said nothing. He said nothing the entire day of the 30th. He said nothing on the 1st, before Neil gave his version. Which stood uncorrected by anyone until after Paul's words appeared in print on Sunday the 2nd.

        Yes, exactly. I recall that VERY well. Mizen did NOTHING at all about how Neil said that he was the finder. And he really SHOULD have done that - IF he knew that Neil was NOT the finder.
        According to you, he DID know this, and so it becomes inforgiveable that he didnīt tell his superiors that the body was found by a carman and not by Neil.
        However, Patrick! If Mizen had been told that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row - as he claimed - then look at how totally consistent with that information his behaviour becomes!
        He did not tell Neil about the carmen - but why would he, if he surmised that Neil already KNEW about them, and had sent them to fetch Mizen?
        He did not tell his superiors that a carman was the finder, and that Neil was lying through his teeth - and he should have done, IF he had not been told that another PC was in place in Bucks Row. If this was so, then it is perfectly understandable that he was working from the idea that Neil WAS the finder, that the carmen had arrived later and been sent by Neil to fetch him.

        So, Patrick, these are the options:

        1. Your version: For some reason, Mizen decided not to tell anybody about the carmen. I think the idea is that he had realized in retrospect that it would have been good if he took their names, and now he wanted to cover that up. And when Neil took the stand and witnessed about being the finder, Mizen let it pass, since he didnīt want to come clean on the topic. Then, when Paul and Lechmere surfaced, he was forced to admit their existence.
        Drawback: If this happened, then his superiors would have kicked him off the force for having lied to them. That, at least, is my suggestion.

        2. Mizen was lied to by Lechmere, and acted accordingly, always believing that Neil was the finder up until Paul and Lechmere re-surfaced, telling a different story. He did not offer a single lie, but instead he did his best and testified honestly.

        Take your pick.

        On the third Mizen takes the stand to tell his version, which has him being told that he was "wanted (by a PC) in Buck's Row". But, this isn't the only instance we have of the police perhaps bending the truth about what they did and said in Buck's Row, is it?

        Hold it. Why are you talking about it as an established case of the police bending the truth? That is not inly unestablished but also unlikely as per the above.

        We have Thain and his cloak, as well. We have the slaughtermen claiming Thain told them about the murder. But Thain denied it. But, the men clearly KNEW about the murder because they showed up at the scene. They testified that Thain told them about the murder. We know that Thain went to their place of work and retrieved his cloak. But, he claimed he didn't tell the men. They must have just guessed it.

        Neither man need be an awful human being to have told what amounted to self-serving white lies (both of which served the Met, as well).

        I am sorry, but that has nothing at all to do with Mizen and his veracity.
        We have a number of ridiculous posters out here. Does that make you ridiculous? Or me?
        It does not work like that.
        I shall let this post stand uncommented upon by me. I happy enough to simply have Christer's answers posted and available here. I encourage everyone who would like believe in this theory to read it, read it again, and then ask themselves if this is something they feel is worth believing in.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
          It seems to be the other way around with you? You are crying your eyes out abut poor Lechmere, but you donīt mind kicking Mizen in the butt?

          An important distinction here.....No one is accusing Mizen of murder, of being Jack the Ripper (among others). In fact, I've said many times that if Mizen misrepresented what he was told and what he did on the night of Nichols' murder that it doesn't diminish him to any great extent. He can still be a worthy officer, a Christian, a hero. Only one who acted to protect his career, his income, his family. Bending the truth, even outright lying to protect one's interests and livelihood is a far more common thing than seria murder after all.

          Maybe itīs time to grow up for the two of us, who knows? Or maybe we are allowed to make our own separate interpretations?

          As for that "clean criminal record", it only amounts to us not being familiar with what he was. Not that such a thing prevents you from thinking Mizen a perjurer, a worthless cop and a shame for the Met, but nevertheless, Harry.

          Again. This is hyperbole to advance your argument. Mizen can have outright LIED at the inquest and he can STILL be a wonderful guy. As well, I wouldn't be surprised he told his story with either the tacit or outright approval of his superiors, hoping to stem the tide of media attacks on the police that had come after Smith and Tabram and intensified after Nichols (likely fueled somewhat by Paul's "Remarkable Statement").

          So let's not equivocate, Christer. Saying Mizen testified to protect himself after Paul's attack on him and the Met appeared in Lloyd's is hardly the same as saying that "the carman" was Jack the Ripper.


          I really AM a partycrasher, am I not?
          Above bold.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
            Like normal insults are the fault of those who are insulted.

            Steve
            Yeah, sort of - any which way, Steve, it DOES take two to tango, and I think that neither of us has something to win by claiming that we are nothing but unfortunate victims.

            For some reason we have descended into this bickering instead of concentrating on the case only. Presumably, it is because one or both of us find it hard to live with how we are not accepted as winners of the debate by our opponents.
            Last edited by Fisherman; 06-21-2017, 08:04 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
              Not at all. Same old over and over.

              Steve
              Well, you can only wish for so much ...

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Patrick S View Post
                I shall let this post stand uncommented upon by me. I happy enough to simply have Christer's answers posted and available here. I encourage everyone who would like believe in this theory to read it, read it again, and then ask themselves if this is something they feel is worth believing in.
                "...like believe in..." ?

                Well, thanks anyway - I also hope people will read the theory as much as possible. And I hope they will question it properly, just as I hope they will take along look at the traditional picture of the case.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Patrick S View Post
                  Above bold.
                  Yes, very bold - I would never myself...

                  As for it being more in line with a good upbringing to accuse Mizen of "bending the truth" than accusing Lechmere of being a killer, I think you are perhaps loosing sight of the parameter of viability. An accusation on no grounds at all is never a good accusation.

                  As for Mizen being able to both have lied at the inquest and still be a wonderful guy: No. Decidedly no.People who lie at inquests, whether it is in order to gain advantages for themselves or an unfair conviction for others are not wonderful guys.
                  I am genuinely flabbergasted by the suggestion, but I suspect that will only buy me an accusation of being pious. Last time over, it was Gareth who used the expression, and who knows - if enough many people do it, it may become a truth as time wears on.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    "...like believe in..." ?

                    Well, thanks anyway - I also hope people will read the theory as much as possible. And I hope they will question it properly, just as I hope they will take along look at the traditional picture of the case.
                    So now you're focusing on typos? Weren't you just crying recently about people mean "rude" to you, Christer? Anyway, I've seen a few of those from you recently. A sign things aren't going well for you and what few "Lechmerians" remain on that tiny little raft of yours.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      Yes, very bold - I would never myself...

                      As for it being more in line with a good upbringing to accuse Mizen of "bending the truth" than accusing Lechmere of being a killer, I think you are perhaps loosing sight of the parameter of viability. An accusation on no grounds at all is never a good accusation.

                      As for Mizen being able to both have lied at the inquest and still be a wonderful guy: No. Decidedly no.People who lie at inquests, whether it is in order to gain advantages for themselves or an unfair conviction for others are not wonderful guys.
                      I am genuinely flabbergasted by the suggestion, but I suspect that will only buy me an accusation of being pious. Last time over, it was Gareth who used the expression, and who knows - if enough many people do it, it may become a truth as time wears on.
                      I'm flabbergasted too. For other reasons. If you're goal is to help this thing go down easier.......you're not doing yourself any favors.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Patrick S View Post
                        So now you're focusing on typos? Weren't you just crying recently about people mean "rude" to you, Christer? Anyway, I've seen a few of those from you recently. A sign things aren't going well for you and what few "Lechmerians" remain on that tiny little raft of yours.
                        I wasnīt even aware that it WAS a typo. I was wondering if it was similar to the Swedish expression "typ", meaning something like "just about".

                        So, are we now going to turn back into the old ways? I leave that choice up to you. You have been ridiculing my theory a few times lately, and I sometimes feel that you are having to restrain yourself not to fire away like in the bad old days.

                        If that is the case, go ahead and letīs get it overwith.

                        If not, letīs both try and be as balanced as we can.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Patrick S View Post
                          I'm flabbergasted too. For other reasons. If you're goal is to help this thing go down easier.......you're not doing yourself any favors.
                          Thereīs that generalistic "you are hurting yourself" thing again.

                          I really donīt think I am - it seems more like something you are marketing than like the truth. You are welcome to a different opinion, of course, but you may want to consider that not all will agree with you. I find it likelier that you are loosing out on the support side yourself.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                            I wasnīt even aware that it WAS a typo. I was wondering if it was similar to the Swedish expression "typ", meaning something like "just about".

                            So, are we now going to turn back into the old ways? I leave that choice up to you. You have been ridiculing my theory a few times lately, and I sometimes feel that you are having to restrain yourself not to fire away like in the bad old days.

                            If that is the case, go ahead and letīs get it overwith.

                            If not, letīs both try and be as balanced as we can.
                            Look. If you're going to throw punches you have to learn to take punches. And you throw plenty of punches. That said, I'm not insulting you as a person in any way. I haven't insulted your intellect, your good looks, your work ethic, or the work itself (in fact, I've repeatedly PRAISED your work). It's the conclusions you've drawn, the Lechmere theory itself, that I target for attack. I don't engage with you out of malice. I'm not angry or filled with hatred. I'm interested and critical and I'm having fun. Otherwise I wouldn't post.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                              Thereīs that generalistic "you are hurting yourself" thing again.

                              I really donīt think I am - it seems more like something you are marketing than like the truth. You are welcome to a different opinion, of course, but you may want to consider that not all will agree with you. I find it likelier that you are loosing out on the support side yourself.
                              What's clear is this: I won't change your mind. You won't change my mind. But, that doesn't mean the debate isn't worthwhile. Thus, when you post something that I think the average frequenter of these pages may find somewhat....hard to accept, I'll point that out. You DO NOT feel as if these things harm your argument. You feel that they help your argument. You post. You stand behind what you post. Admirable indeed. But, I think that there is very much to be gained through debate on these points, however seemingly small.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Patrick S View Post
                                Look. If you're going to throw punches you have to learn to take punches. And you throw plenty of punches. That said, I'm not insulting you as a person in any way. I haven't insulted your intellect, your good looks, your work ethic, or the work itself (in fact, I've repeatedly PRAISED your work). It's the conclusions you've drawn, the Lechmere theory itself, that I target for attack. I don't engage with you out of malice. I'm not angry or filled with hatred. I'm interested and critical and I'm having fun. Otherwise I wouldn't post.
                                I am fine when it comes to taking punches, Patrick. But having boxed as a young man, I am aware that not all punches are legal punches. Some will get you disqualified, as you may be aware.

                                As you are definitely aware, you and I have a history of throwing such illegal punches. And we have a more recent agreement not to go there again. And call me sensitive, but I have a not very nice gut feeling that tells me that we may be headed that way just the same.

                                Punch away, by all means. But keep it clean, and I will try my best to do the same.

                                I much prefer being able to have a debate than to be forced to shut it down.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X