Was Lech known as Cross at Pickfords??

[John Wheat]

But the historical problem with that comparison is that some people during the lifetime of Hitler did think he was a nice guy.

That is just an historical fact for which there are historical sources.

But there are no historical sources showing us that anyone thought that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper.

I agree Pierre I was merely pointing out how ridiculous it is to say Lechmere was JTR.

Cheers John

[Elamarna]

Plausible? Not totally implausible, perhaps. But the gist of the matter is that it is LESS plausible than ny suggestion. People NORMALLY do not mishear, and PC:s with excellent records NORMALLY do not make themselves guilty of protocol breach.

.

It is less plausible to you. Not to others

People do mishear, often in my experience

I am not however claiming just mishearing, but of course that can come into play; rather I am talking about comprehension,understanding.


People in all walks of life make protocol mistakes everyday. That includes those with previously clean records.

However, it is complelety disingenuous to claim that we simply cannot weigh the matter beforehand - because we CAN do so, based on experience. The exact same applies here.

I would agree completely and of course no one is claiming anything like that.

Why you raise such a unrealistic example I do not know? It is certainly not comparable in any sense to scenario I proposed

I could be right. You could be right. But I stand the much better chance of being right.

Simple opinion

I can argue that Hitler was a nice guy, that black bears can fly and that Mount Everest was built by Dutch settlers, and you wonīt be able to decisively prove me wrong. Big deal!

Fisherman, what really poor examples to quote:



Bears cannot fly, they do not have the required anatomical appendages to do so, or even to be able to glide.

Physics will demonstrate that such a claim is impossible.

And experience will show that this event has never been recorded, except where they are transported by plane as cargo.




Mount Everest can demonstrably be shown to have once been on the sea floor, sea fossils are found in its rocks, and this once ocean floor area can by the study of geology /tectonics be shown to have been forced up to its present height by the immense forces produced by the movement of the Indian subcontinental land mass north in to the Asian land mass.

Science will prove both examples are easily demonstrated to be untrue. And yes it is no big deal, its just reality.




your first example is far better, being a personal observation on an historic person,and using a subjective term such as "nice".
There is indeed anecdotal evidence that he was nice to Dogs and children.

However the evidence of the 1946 War Crimes trials would suggest that given he was the head of a regime which conducted crimes against humanity he was extremely unlikely to have been "nice" in an overall sense, as judge by most people.



Steve

[Pierre]

Arguing Hitler is a nice guy is like arguing Lechmere was the Ripper.

But the historical problem with that comparison is that some people during the lifetime of Hitler did think he was a nice guy.

That is just an historical fact for which there are historical sources.

But there are no historical sources showing us that anyone thought that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;398979]

A misunderstanding explains that equally as well, as does simple dereliction of duty.

However I settle for the misunderstanding:

Mizen misunderstands what he is told, and believes it to be unimportant, probably just another drunk, he carries on knocking up.

When he does arrive he finds police on site, and realizes his mistake, and tries to blur the events.

Hi Steve,

Some questions for you here, if you do not mind.

1. What was the "mistake" made by Mizen, according to you - continuing to knock up people?

2. Do you think that this idea / historical fact (if you want to establish it as such), i.e. that he did so, has a substancial significance, or is the significance a lightweight significance?

3. Based on what statements in the sources - i.e. what do you base the significance on exactly and why?

4. How extensive in time was that continuation to knock up people?

5. Based on what statements in the sources?

Thank you, Steve.

Best wishes, Pierre

[John Wheat]

I can argue that Hitler was a nice guy

Arguing Hitler is a nice guy is like arguing Lechmere was the Ripper.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: A misunderstanding explains that equally as well, as does simple dereliction of duty.

However I settle for the misunderstanding:

Mizen misunderstands what he is told, and believes it to be unimportant, probably just another drunk, he carries on knocking up.

When he does arrive he finds police on site, and realizes his mistake, and tries to blur the events.

You will not agree I am sure, but the above allows for all the actions of those involved, and is plausible.

Plausible? Not totally implausible, perhaps. But the gist of the matter is that it is LESS plausible than ny suggestion. People NORMALLY do not mishear, and PC:s with excellent records NORMALLY do not make themselves guilty of protocol breach.

And this is what the whole debate is about - likelihoods. If Mike Tyson takes a punch at the chin of a ten year old girl, it is more likely that she will go down than that she will keep standing.

But she MAY keep standing.

However, it is complelety disingenuous to claim that we simply cannot weigh the matter beforehand - because we CAN do so, based on experience. The exact same applies here.

I could be right. You could be right. But I stand the much better chance of being right.

I can argue that Hitler was a nice guy, that black bears can fly and that Mount Everest was built by Dutch settlers, and you wonīt be able to decisively prove me wrong. Big deal!

[Fisherman]

I stated I accepted it and I do. It's up to others decide if it holds water or not.

I already apologized. I read into something. No sarcasm. No taunt. My bad.

Apology accepted - it happens. Good to have it cleared up.

[Fisherman]

Leopold and Lobe. One liked talking to the press and cops which helped them get caught.

Columbo

Yes, but not only is it a total exception, it didnīt go down as they made their escape, did it?

[Columbo]

If they were in cahoots with each other, Robert - why would Paul speak to the press and give away the story...? Why would they seek out a PC and tell him about the woman in Bucks Row?

I donīt think there was any blood on the killers hands, to be honest. The abdominal blood would have sunk into the abdominal cavity, and the pressure would go away. And just like you say, if Lechmere was the killer, then he had no blood on his palms, given that there was no blood found on Nicholsī face or hands - a good observation!

Leopold and Lobe. One liked talking to the press and cops which helped them get caught.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Why would a concerned citizen not come forward immediately?

Why would a concerned citizen not give the name he otherways always gave when speaking to the authorities?

If he was anxious to make sure that the night was truthfully recorded, why is it that he differs very much in his version from Mizens version? What if a PC made his best to have the night truthfully recorded?

I don't really have a good answer to your questions, other than if he didn't kill Nichols I would speculate the following:

1. He didn't know she was dead until he saw the article.

2. Mizen obviously didn't believe them and thought Nichols was just drunk. Besides why would he rush if he thought another PC was there?

Columbo

[Pcdunn]

I don,t have the answers to your questions, Fisherman . Suspicions became audible while reading thru The Echo press reports.

3 September 1888, Mary Nichol,s inquest: The Carman's Story

Charles Cross states, " I heard a man come up behind, in the same direction as I was going. He was about thirty or forty yards behind then. I stepped back to await his arrival. When he came, I said to him, "Come and look over here. There's a woman." We then both went over to the body. He stooped one side of her, and I stooped the other, and took hold of her hand, which was cold. Her face was warm. I said to the man, "I believe the woman is dead." The other man at the same time, put his hand on her breast over her heart..." (emphasis my own)

That should be physically impossible unless i,m not understanding ,stooping,. Polly is lying lengthwise aside Mr. Brown,s gate. According to PC Neil, her left hand is touching the gate.

In this positioning of her body against the gate, how is one man feeling her face and hands while the other man feels her heart and arranges her clothes?

I think the illustration from the time showed Polly lying at least an arm's length distance from the gate to the yard.
Stooping may mean standing, but bending at the waist to reach something on the ground. I don't think it means kneeling or squatting, in this context.

[Robert St Devil]

I don,t have the answers to your questions, Fisherman . Suspicions became audible while reading thru The Echo press reports.

3 September 1888, Mary Nichol,s inquest: The Carman's Story

Charles Cross states, " I heard a man come up behind, in the same direction as I was going. He was about thirty or forty yards behind then. I stepped back to await his arrival. When he came, I said to him, "Come and look over here. There's a woman." We then both went over to the body. He stooped one side of her, and I stooped the other, and took hold of her hand, which was cold. Her face was warm. I said to the man, "I believe the woman is dead." The other man at the same time, put his hand on her breast over her heart..." (emphasis my own)

That should be physically impossible unless i,m not understanding ,stooping,. Polly is lying lengthwise aside Mr. Brown,s gate. According to PC Neil, her left hand is touching the gate.

In this positioning of her body against the gate, how is one man feeling her face and hands while the other man feels her heart and arranges her clothes?

[harry]

If Cross had said to Paul,"There is a drunken woman lying there",I doubt Paul would have stopped.That's all the clever kiler Cross had to do.Instead we are led to believe he did the opposite.He stopped Paul and drew attention to a dead or dying woman,and in consequence to himself.
What Cross did is indicative of innocence,not guilt.

[Elamarna]

I
And since Mizen took no action to detain the carmen and since he did not take their names as he should have done to follow protocol, the logical deduction is... yes...? It is...? Come now, Steve...!

A misunderstanding explains that equally as well, as does simple dereliction of duty.

However I settle for the misunderstanding:

Mizen misunderstands what he is told, and believes it to be unimportant, probably just another drunk, he carries on knocking up.

When he does arrive he finds police on site, and realizes his mistake, and tries to blur the events.

You will not agree I am sure, but the above allows for all the actions of those involved, and is plausible.

The Mizen scam cannot be contained inside a nutshell. Itīs too large.

No, any problem can be reduced to its bare elements.

That you ARE convinced that Mizen is telling the truth...? Nah, just kidding. Yes, I am very convinced that Mizen told the truth, since otherwise all his actions are in conflict with protocol and the evidence.

As they would also be if it started as a simple mistake.




steve

[Patrick S]

As I said, I want a closure on the first issue before I make any decision about moving on. Do you accept my answer in that department, or do you find it wanting in any way?
I would also like for you to exemplify how I would have been sarcastic and taunting, a suggestion I find very odd.

I stated I accepted it and I do. It's up to others decide if it holds water or not.

I already apologized. I read into something. No sarcasm. No taunt. My bad.