Was Lech known as Cross at Pickfords??

[Fisherman]

Steve, some poster who calls himself Pierre has concluded that I have lost and that my fishing expedition is over.

There īs a cliff for you to lean against! For me, all that remains is to pack up my stuff and leave. "Pierre" has brought me down.

Farewell, cruel world!

[Pierre]

Steve, some poster who calls himself Pierre has concluded that I have lost and that my fishing expedition is over.

There īs a cliff for you to lean against! For me, all that remains is to pack up my stuff and leave. "Pierre" has brought me down.

Farewell, cruel world!

On the contrary. You have been miracoulously saved by data from the past. You need not spend another meaningless hour, day, week, year or decade on an inoocent man in history. You are free. Use your precious time well to find the real killer. I hereby invite you. Or do some good journalism.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Rambling. Texan you know, Fisherman .

Not that Paul dis- and re- appeared. That the whole story may have been concocted by both men. I,m thinking through the assertion of Lechmere as a liar, and how far that lie may have run. I,ve been picking up from the board of Paul,s story being at odds with Mizen,s too. Those things, and Schwartz, belief that he encountered two men.

Aside. If Cross is the man, he must have been extremely cautious of getting blood on his hands since there weren,t any prints found on her face or hands.

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!

[Pierre]

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!

It is called gloves.

[Fisherman]

It is called gloves.

And he probably forgot to use them in the cases where there were clear palm- and fingerprints on the bodies.

Itīs called logic.

Thatīs 23 words wasted on you. Iīll try to avoid it in the future.

[Pierre]

And he probably forgot to use them in the cases where there were clear palm- and fingerprints on the bodies.

Itīs called logic.

You donīt understand. They must have been used after the murders.

[Fisherman]

You donīt understand. They must have been used after the murders.

Avoiding to answer - avoiding to answer - avoiding to answer - avoi....

[Pierre]

Avoiding to answer - avoiding to answer - avoiding to answer - avoi....

OK. The fingerprints. Using fingerprints to find the killer. A method not used in the case. Or?

[Fisherman]

OK. The fingerprints. Using fingerprints to find the killer. A method not used in the case. Or?

Avoiding to answer - avoiding to answer - avoiding to answer - avoi....

[Pierre]

And he probably forgot to use them in the cases where there were clear palm- and fingerprints on the bodies.

Itīs called logic.

Thatīs 23 words wasted on you. Iīll try to avoid it in the future.

Letīs try again. Murdering and mutilating a woman > blood on the hands. Putting on gloves after the murder > covering the blood on the hands.

OK?

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: Not sure what that means to be honest the "not" is causing confusion.

It would. Sorry. Here īs a clearer version:

Of course. But which is the most rational answer in each case? Do PC:s who are informed that they may have a case of murder on their hands normally take the name of the informant? Surely, that answers itself?

That's a little bit belittling, putting down in such terms ideas you do not agree with?

OK maybe it the language issue.

Once more, these are straightforward, easy questions.


Possibly, but why not do his duty correctly and at least get names, after all he was not in hurry, he carried on knocking up.

It was NOT his duty to take the names of informants who passed on information from another PC, or so Monty says, as far as I understand. And he is supposedly the number one authority on the issue.
The misunderstanding is a common one, but it would be nice to have it dispelled once and for all.

No there are suspicions which you have, others do not..

Maybe now that the misunderatanding is cleared up, you may reconsider. Mizen was dutybound to take the names if he was told that the carmen were the finders of a postentially murdered woman. He was not dutybound to take the names if the informants passed on unalarming information from another PC.

Mizen did not take the names. Which description does that dovetail with?


No, but it appears to be what happen.
It all depends on what one believes.
My view is that he did not understand what he was told, and that is why he carried on . only later realizing what it all meant.

And you base that view on how we normally misunderstand what we are told in a quiet street, I take it? Why not go with the absolute fact that we normally do NOT misunderstand what we are told in a quiet street?


If any were going to run, they would not logically have sort him out.

No comprendre.


Point proven, one accepts and believes what one wants, you are somewhat passionate about this, i understand, but it does give you a particular viewpoint.

Nope, you have not proven that I am not making the correct decision, in which case it need have nothing to do with believing what I want but instead what I logically and correctly deem to be the more probable thing.

So much for proving matters. You do say a lot, but I am less and less convinced that it is worth listening to. We shall see.

Fisherman,

I see it very clearly

If Mizen was told there was a Policeman on site your case is far more sustainable and jumps considerably on the scale of possible.

If he was not told there was a policeman on site the case you make fails, on that issue at least.


That is the Mizen case in a nutshell.

I am far from convinced Mizen is telling the whole truth, you are of a completely opposite viewpoint.


I would not be too worried by Pierre telling you it is over, well at least not until he lands his own catch and lets us see it.



Steve

[Fisherman]

Letīs try again. Murdering and mutilating a woman > blood on the hands. Putting on gloves after the murder > covering the blood on the hands.

OK?

Avoiding to answer - avoiding to answer - avoiding to answer - avoi....

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Fisherman,

I see it very clearly

If Mizen was told there was a Policeman on site your case is far more sustainable and jumps considerably on the scale of possible.

If he was not told there was a policeman on site the case you make fails, on that issue at least.

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...!


That is the Mizen case in a nutshell.

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

I am far from convinced Mizen is telling the whole truth, you are of a completely opposite viewpoint.

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.

I would not be too worried by Pierre telling you it is over, well at least not until he lands his own catch and lets us see it.

Thank God - I was fearing for my sleep.

[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.

[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