Was Lech known as Cross at Pickfords??

[Elamarna]

Steve, I am tiring of your very long posts with very little to say.

In a case where there is no decisive proof, we are left to look at probabilities.

When we look at probabilitites, statistical realities enter the picture.

No person can be convicted on statistical realities only, since each case is unique and may well deviate from the statistics.

So all we can do is to say that since X normally applies, our best guess is that it applies here too.

This is what I am saying - and what you seem unable to take in.

That is all there is to say.

No problem, we agree to disagree.


Steve

[Fisherman]

No problem, we agree to disagree.


Steve

Does that mean that you disagree with my last post?

[Elamarna]

Does that mean that you disagree with my last post?

Yes and no, and I am not trying to awkward, or argumentative

You said you were tiring of my long posts which had little to say, I disagree.(obviously not that you are tiring of them)


Much of what you say in that post is of course true, and where there is no definitive proof it is all about the analysis and interpretation of what we do have.

We do not agree on the interpretation of the sources in this particular instance, we may well do in others, I do not see that changing unless you at some later date provide something new.

I will happily carry on, but are we achieving anything?

That was what I meant by agree to disagree.




Steve

[Fisherman]

Yes and no, and I am not trying to awkward, or argumentative

You said you were tiring of my long posts which had little to say, I disagree.(obviously not that you are tiring of them)


Much of what you say in that post is of course true, and where there is no definitive proof it is all about the analysis and interpretation of what we do have.

We do not agree on the interpretation of the sources in this particular instance, we may well do in others, I do not see that changing unless you at some later date provide something new.

I will happily carry on, but are we achieving anything?

That was what I meant by agree to disagree.

Steve

If we only look at this:

In a case where there is no decisive proof, we are left to look at probabilities.
When we look at probabilitites, statistical realities enter the picture.
No person can be convicted on statistical realities only, since each case is unique and may well deviate from the statistics.
So all we can do is to say that since X normally applies, our best guess is that it applies here too.

... is there anything in there that you disagree with?

[Elamarna]

If we only look at this:

In a case where there is no decisive proof, we are left to look at probabilities.
When we look at probabilitites, statistical realities enter the picture.
No person can be convicted on statistical realities only, since each case is unique and may well deviate from the statistics.
So all we can do is to say that since X normally applies, our best guess is that it applies here too.

... is there anything in there that you disagree with?

Fisherman

you must know, or at least suspect that I do not agree with the final line of the quoted text, in this particular case.

If I did, there would have been no debate would there?


We read the evidence of all, and we draw a conclusion on which, if any, we believe to be truthful/untruthful or which contain issues which may raise other questions.

If we follow the above suggestion in your post, it follows that in a case of different views from Police and witnesses, unless we have decisive proof the police are being untruthful, we must always accept that the Police are both truthful and accurate in their testimony.

Different people will asses data/sources in different ways, we all have out bias, both you and I.


To go any further would be to rehash what we have already discussed.


Of course i will be happy to read what your friend has to say, it may change things, it may not.




Steve

[Fisherman]

Fisherman

you must know, or at least suspect that I do not agree with the final line of the quoted text, in this particular case.

If I did, there would have been no debate would there?


We read the evidence of all, and we draw a conclusion on which, if any, we believe to be truthful/untruthful or which contain issues which may raise other questions.

If we follow the above suggestion in your post, it follows that in a case of different views from Police and witnesses, unless we have decisive proof the police are being untruthful, we must always accept that the Police are both truthful and accurate in their testimony.

Different people will asses data/sources in different ways, we all have out bias, both you and I.


To go any further would be to rehash what we have already discussed.


Of course i will be happy to read what your friend has to say, it may change things, it may not.




Steve

Fine. Then I can only conclude that you are of the meaning that if X normally applies, there is no reason to think that our best guess is that it applies in any randomly chosen case. There are better guesses available.

Or?

[Elamarna]

Fine. Then I can only conclude that you are of the meaning that if X normally applies, there is no reason to think that our best guess is that it applies in any randomly chosen case.

Or?

It means To always to accept a veiw, because of the type of person giving that view, which is a part of the position proposed is wrong.


The debate started that people do not mishear, it then progressed to Mizen was police man of good record, it was unlikely he would make mistakes,
and he was more reliable than lechmere because he was a policeman of good record and Lechmere lied about his name.

So while the debate has not been wholly about the type of person, it has played a significant part in it.


And no not better guesses, but interpretations drawing on the sources are always to be prefer of a guess.

steve

[Fisherman]

It means To always to accept a veiw, because of the type of person giving that view, which is the position proposed is wrong.


steve

That shot went waaayyyyy over my head, Steve. What are you trying to say? I am not speaking of the Lechmere case specifically, I am saying that if we know that X normally applies, and if we do not know anything at all about a random case, then is not our best guess that X applies in that case too?

I honestly fail to see how that proposition could be faulted. Itīs along the lines "If we do not know whether a person if right- or lefthanded, then our best guess must be that the person is righthanded, since that is the normal thing, whereas lefthandedness is less common".

[Elamarna]

That shot went waaayyyyy over my head, Steve. What are you trying to say? I am not speaking of the Lechmere case specifically, I am saying that if we know that X normally applies, and if we do not know anything at all about a random case, then is not our best guess that X applies in that case too?

I honestly fail to see how that proposition could be faulted. Itīs along the lines "If we do not know whether a person if right- or lefthanded, then our best guess must be that the person is righthanded, since that is the normal thing, whereas lefthandedness is less common".

Ah Fisherman

I am talking about the specific case, so obviously we will be confusing to each other in that case.


Yes as a general point there it can be used to construct an hypothesis, which is what you have done, however in any random case that hypothesis may be wrong.

So unless we have a zero or 100% chance of something, such as a stone not falling to the floor, in any random case if we are using stats we may be wrong.



Its about how much significance one puts on the statistical chance.


Maybe that is where we differ.


Steve

off to the beach now, won't be reply for a few hours.

[Fisherman]

Ah Fisherman

I am talking about the specific case, so obviously we will be confusing to each other in that case.


Yes as a general point there it can be used to construct an hypothesis, which is what you have done, however in any random case that hypothesis may be wrong.

So unless we have a zero or 100% chance of something, such as a stone not falling to the floor, in any random case if we are using stats we may be wrong.



Its about how much significance one puts on the statistical chance.


Maybe that is where we differ.


Steve

off to the beach now, won't be reply for a few hours.

Well then, there we are - that is all and exactly what I am saying: generally speaking, a hypothesis can - and indeed should - be constructed to allow for people to see what is more or less probable.
And if it applies that people normally are able to hear and understand what they are told, then the probable thing is that Mizen heard and understood what he was told by Lechmere, all other things unconsidered.

It is no certain thing, but for it to adjust to the normal outcome, this is what we should posit.

You are going to have to go to the beach on your own. Itīs zero degrees celsius over here, and the only sea baths I take under those circumstances is when I accidentally trip and fall when wader fishing for seatrout.

[Pierre]

That shot went waaayyyyy over my head, Steve. What are you trying to say? I am not speaking of the Lechmere case specifically, I am saying that if we know that X normally applies, and if we do not know anything at all about a random case, then is not our best guess that X applies in that case too?

I honestly fail to see how that proposition could be faulted. Itīs along the lines "If we do not know whether a person if right- or lefthanded, then our best guess must be that the person is righthanded, since that is the normal thing, whereas lefthandedness is less common".

The idiographic perspective must rule in this particular case.

The killer was extremely rare. Therefore you should not be surprised if the murders are surrounded by historical events like strange witness statements and strange and contradictory data. The killer created the basis for that situation. Therefore you should not assume the normal and common.

To understand the rare and the incomprihensible we must instead use an idiographic historical approach.

Regards, Pierre

[John Wheat]

The idiographic perspective must rule in this particular case.

The killer was extremely rare. Therefore you should not be surprised if the murders are surrounded by historical events like strange witness statements and strange and contradictory data. The killer created the basis for that situation. Therefore you should not assume the normal and common.

To understand the rare and the incomprihensible we must instead use an idiographic historical approach.

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre

Fisherman only assumes the normal and common when it suits his pet theory.

Cheers John

[drstrange169]

What is so curious about Mizen, is his very lack of curiosity.

If he was told a fellow policeman needed his help, without clarification the matter is obviously potentially urgent.

Was he colleague and/or member of the public's life in danger?

What exactly was the problem?

To ignore a possible serious incident and continue "knocking up" without clarifying the exact situation is a serious breach of conduct, surely?

Mizen's lack of follow up questions are consistent with a claim of " they informed that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row..."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."

Sad fact that it is, a someone lying in an East End street is a sight he would surely have seen on almost a daily basis and worth the punt of finishing his "knocking up" before attending. Who was there to complain to the contary?

[Fisherman]

What is so curious about Mizen, is his very lack of curiosity.

If he was told a fellow policeman needed his help, without clarification the matter is obviously potentially urgent.

Was he colleague and/or member of the public's life in danger?

What exactly was the problem?

To ignore a possible serious incident and continue "knocking up" without clarifying the exact situation is a serious breach of conduct, surely?

Mizen's lack of follow up questions are consistent with a claim of " they informed that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row..."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."

Sad fact that it is, a someone lying in an East End street is a sight he would surely have seen on almost a daily basis and worth the punt of finishing his "knocking up" before attending. Who was there to complain to the contary?

Dusty!

Letīs try to look a bit deeper at this!

You say that Mizen displayed a lack of curiosity. Ask yourself this question: "Where do I know this from?"

There were three people who could describe the PC:s actions and his level of curiosity: Lechmere, Paul and Mizen.

The somewhat unflattering picture that is presented of Mizen is the result of two menīs efforts: Robert Paul and Charles Lechmere.

To begin with, letīs look at what Paul says, and letīs do so by looking at not only the inquest material but also the Lloyds Weekly interview. We begin with the latter, and here is the relevant part:

"I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one 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."

Here, we can clearly see how Paul paints a very bleak picture of Mizen and his actions. But what happens when we look at the inquest testimony? Well, here it is, from the Times:

By the CORONER. - The morning was rather a chilly one. Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen.

As you can see, there is no accusation points at all against Mizen. All we are told is that the couple walked on until they met Mizen, and they subsequently informed him what they had seen.
"They" informed him. Not "I" informed him. So here, we have it hinted at that BOTH carmen spoke to Mizen. But we know perfectly well that Mizen said that Lechmere was the one who did the talking. And we know that when a group of people inform a PC of something, it suffices that one person in the group does the informing - any member of that group can afterwards still say "we informed the PC".
So can we get closer to what really happened? Yes, perhaps we can. There is a paper that always reports ad verbatim, and that is the Morning Advertiser. And here is how they recorded it all, Robert Paul speaking:

"I am a carman, and on the morning of the murder I left home just before a quarter to four. As I was passing up Buck's-row I saw a man standing in the roadway. When I got close up to him, he said, "Come and look at this woman;" and together we went across the road. There was a woman lying across the gateway, with her clothes disarranged. I felt her hands and face; they were cold. I sent the other man for a policeman."

I sent the other man for a policeman. This works extremely well with the suggestion that Lechmere persuaded Paul into letting himself do the talking with any PC they met. Perhaps Lechmere said to Paul "When we meet a PC, I will do the talking", or perhaps Paul said "I donīt want to talk to the police, youīd better do it".
And then, when they saw Mizen, Paul said "Thereīs a PC - you go and talk to him!". Ergo, he "sent the other man for a policeman".
And then thereīs the Echo, where Paul is described as "the other man, who walked down Hanbury Street".

We can easily conclude that the Lloyds Weekly interview was spiced up, and it really does not matter very much if it was the doing of Paul or of the reporter (although I vote for Paul myself); it remains that the interview is in total conflict with the evidence given at the inquest.

So if Paul did not speak to Mizen, and was out of earshot, why is it then that he says in the interview that Mizen was told that the woman was dead and that the PC acted with no gusto at all - and that the woman was so cold that she must have been long dead?

Hereīs my suggestion: Because Lechmere - who DID speak to Mizen - afterwards told Paul that he had said to Mizen that the woman in Bucks Row could very well be dead, and you know what - that lazy son of a bitch PC didnīt seem to care; he proceeded to knock people up as if nothing had happened!
And by the side of Nicholsī body, I believe Lechmere said to Paul that the limbs were so cold that the woman must have been lying dead on the pavement for a very long time.
Afterwards, Paul parroted this information to the Lloyds Weekly reporter, since he thought that this was what had gone down.

That is how a perfect ruse is construed. And then, at the inquest, Lechmere only had to repeat the information: The PC had been told about how urgent the errand could be, and he had only grunted "Alright" and morosely trodded on, with no apparent urge to help at all.

The two carmen thus work in tandem, all of it orchestrated by Lechmere. And against it stands Mizen, one man against two men. And Mizen says that he was only told that there was a woman lying in the street, that she was furthermore already in the care of a fellow PC, and that not a word was said about any murder or suicide.
To me, it is very understandable - if this was what Mizen was told - if he wondered why his fellow PC wanted him there, with what was probably just another drunkard. Then he thought to himself "Well, Iīd better go and check it out, anyways", waited until his latest knocking-up errand appeared in the window, and then he set off for Bucks Row.

Exactly what could be expected by an experienced and diligent PC. And once again, there was no breach of protocol at all on his behalf.

It is all very simple, and itīs been said before: If a diligent PC is told "Hey, I found a woman lying in the street down there, and I think she may be dead!", his actions will be to say "Alright, Sir, come with me!" and to hurry to the spot, where the informants name and address is taken, and where he is detained. If a diligent PC is told "Excuse me officer, one of your colleagues is trying to help a woman lying in the street down there, and he asked me to run for help", then he will probably go "Okay, thanks mate!", and set off for his colleague - which seems to me to be exactly what happened.

Only one of these versions of the event is in accordance with police regulations and sound behaviour. And sadly, that version points clearly to Lechmere having lied to Mizen.

[Fisherman]

Steve!

I have had word from my linguist friend (who is titled Professor Psycholinguistics and Director of the Humanities Lab of the University of Lund).

She tells me that the research always focuses on what in Swedish is called "negativ evidens" - it would translate into negative evidence or something such, at it means that what is quantified and examined is where it goes wrong, not where people get things right.

She also tells me that I am of course correct - the reason that people getting things right are of little interest to the research is because they represent "normalfallet" - the normal outcome. So getting it right is the normal outcome, just as I say.

I tried to find some sort of research to bolster what I am saying and I found an experiment (or a number of them, but I am quoting just the one here). The thesis it comes from is called "PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN", and it is written by Naomi Norsworthy, Ph.D.

What was named an a-t test was performed on a number of children, most of them with normal gifts of perception, but a number of them "feeble-minded". The test works like this: Instructions are given to look in a text for words that have both an a and a t in them, to mark these words, and then the text is handed over to the kids.

Hereīs a quotation of how many comprehended the instrucions and carried them out correctly:

"Out of 68 feeble-minded children, 28, or 41 per cent, misunderstood the directions and either marked the words containing either a or t, or marked the letters a and t. Among 159 normal children under twelve years of age only 13, or roughly 8 per cent, misunderstood."

The author tells us that there will have been feeble-minded children who may not have understood the instructions fully, and so that group is harder to fairly quantify, but I think the overall outcome is very clear: Children under 12 will be able to hear and understand verbal instructions (because they were verbal) of this kind in 92 per cent of the cases, and even feeble-minded children will do so in a majority (59-41) of the cases.

I will not delve any further into this, since I think I have proven my point by now.