Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    He DID tell the inquest about how Lechmere said nothing about suicide or murder. He DID tell the inquest about how the carman said that a woman had been found in Bucks Row. He DID tell the inquest that Lechmere spoke of another PC.
    That's not what I meant, Fisherman, but I think you understood that already.


    You say Lechmere only told Mizen that the woman lying in Buck's Row was probably drunk, even though he also told him that a PC was waiting for him there. This alone should already have made him wonder ("Why does this colleague call for me, if she's only drunk?"), but it didn't. Unless, of course, we’d know it was common practice for policemen to send passers-by for a fellow officer’s help without having them pass on why they needed help, it’s odd that Mizen didn’t wonder about it. Then, he went over to Buck's Row and when arriving there and discovering that the woman actually had her throat severely cut instead of just probably being drunk, it wouldn't have been odd at all if he would have tried to clear up the contradiction. Yet, apparently, he didn't wonder and didn't say a thing about it to either Neil or Spratling (who put him in his report as (Jona)”Smizen”). It would have been far from odd if, in fact, he had done so.

    So Mizen did NOTHING until he, quite likely not of his own volition, helped to clear things up more than 2 days after the murder. He may have done everything “by the book” on the night of the murder, but 'on a human level', if you will, he was apathic. He didn’t ask a question when he was told so very little by Lechmere, he didn’t say what he was going to do about it (just “allright” or something), he didn’t clear things up directly after the murder and he didn’t take any action after learning he’d been lied to, not directly after and not after every next murder.

    And I leave it here.
    "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
    Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

      Wasps nests are often glued to supporting structures.
      From the net:

      "The wasp nest is a fascinating piece of engineering."

      I humby blush.

      "The start of a wasp nest is a centre stalk that is built somewhere secure and dry."

      Anyone wanna guess the name of that centre stalk? Or maybe I should say "two names", in case that stalk is in the habit of using more than just the one name?

      Then again, it is also said that "a wasp nest is a dangerous business that you dont want to tackle on your own" ...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

        Wasps nests are often glued to supporting structures.


        You cut that branch and the whole thing comes tumbling down.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
          That's not what I meant, Fisherman, but I think you understood that already.

          You say Lechmere only told Mizen that the woman lying in Buck's Row was probably drunk, even though he also told him that a PC was waiting for him there. This alone should already have made him wonder ("Why does this colleague call for me, if she's only drunk?"), but it didn't. Unless, of course, we’d know it was common practice for policemen to send passers-by for a fellow officer’s help without having them pass on why they needed help, it’s odd that Mizen didn’t wonder about it. Then, he went over to Buck's Row and when arriving there and discovering that the woman actually had her throat severely cut instead of just probably being drunk, it wouldn't have been odd at all if he would have tried to clear up the contradiction. Yet, apparently, he didn't wonder and didn't say a thing about it to either Neil or Spratling (who put him in his report as (Jona)”Smizen”). It would have been far from odd if, in fact, he had done so.

          So Mizen did NOTHING until he, quite likely not of his own volition, helped to clear things up more than 2 days after the murder. He may have done everything “by the book” on the night of the murder, but 'on a human level', if you will, he was apathic. He didn’t ask a question when he was told so very little by Lechmere, he didn’t say what he was going to do about it (just “allright” or something), he didn’t clear things up directly after the murder and he didn’t take any action after learning he’d been lied to, not directly after and not after every next murder.

          And I leave it here.
          Hi Frank,

          You’ll remember, I’m sure, that PC Robinson required assistance to take the drunken Catherine Eddowes to Bishopsgate police station.

          City-constable Lewis Robinson, 931, deposed: At half-past eight, on the night of Saturday, Sept. 29, while on duty in High-street, Aldgate, I saw a crowd of persons outside No. 29, surrounding a woman whom I have since recognised as the deceased.
          The Coroner: What state was she in? - Drunk. Lying on the footway? - Yes. I asked the crowd if any of them knew her or where she lived, but got no answer. I then picked her up and sat her against the shutters, but she fell down sideways. With the aid of a fellow-constable I took her to Bishopsgate Police-station.


          Comment


          • Originally posted by Harry D View Post



            You cut that branch and the whole thing comes tumbling down.
            Not if it’s glued at several points to your roof beams.
            Last edited by MrBarnett; 10-27-2021, 12:31 PM.

            Comment


            • Comment


              • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                Not if it’s glued at several points to your roof beams.
                That's a proper infestation. I take it the roof beams are Casebook?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                  That's not what I meant, Fisherman, but I think you understood that already.

                  You say Lechmere only told Mizen that the woman lying in Buck's Row was probably drunk, even though he also told him that a PC was waiting for him there.

                  Of course Mizen was told more than the status of the woman. I should have been clear that it was that status I commented on. Only.

                  This alone should already have made him wonder ("Why does this colleague call for me, if she's only drunk?"), but it didn't.

                  The thing is, we donīt know that Lechmere said that she was drunk. Mizen says nothing about that either, he only (oops!) says that he was informed that there was a woman lying in Bucks Row. And so the reason for her doing so was not revealed, if we are to beleive the PC.

                  Unless, of course, we’d know it was common practice for policemen to send passers-by for a fellow officer’s help without having them pass on why they needed help, it’s odd that Mizen didn’t wonder about it.

                  See the above.

                  Then, he went over to Buck's Row and when arriving there and discovering that the woman actually had her throat severely cut instead of just probably being drunk, it wouldn't have been odd at all if he would have tried to clear up the contradiction.

                  Indeed it wouldnīt. But he was sent to fetch an ambulance ASAP by Neil, and so whatever resoning he may or may not have done would have taken place along the lonesome walk to the police station.

                  Yet, apparently, he didn't wonder and didn't say a thing about it to either Neil or Spratling (who put him in his report as (Jona)”Smizen”). It would have been far from odd if, in fact, he had done so.

                  In a perfect world, people will act and say how we think is logical for them to act and say. In the one we are living in, that is not always so. When it comes to Mizens stance about what he was told, we do not know how he reasoned about it. We do know that he stood up at the inquest and said that the carman had told him about another PC, that he had been told that a woman "had been found" in Bucks Row, that he was told that she was lying in Bucks Row and that he was not told that she was a case of either murder or suicide. Itīs not as if he kept quiet about these things. Why they were not followed up on is another matter - you can only shine what light you havce on somethinbg and hope that others are able to see through the darkness.

                  So Mizen did NOTHING until he, quite likely not of his own volition, helped to clear things up more than 2 days after the murder.

                  That seems true enough. And why should he do something? He was told that another PC was present in Bucks Row and the implication was that this PC was the finder of the body. Then the press wrote that Neil had rejected the idea that two men had been the original finders of the body, stating than he himself was.
                  That was exactly what Mizen had been told too, so why would he object?


                  He may have done everything “by the book” on the night of the murder, but 'on a human level', if you will, he was apathic.

                  On any level, he did what he was supposed to and then he reported why he did what he did at the inquest.

                  He didn’t ask a question when he was told so very little by Lechmere, he didn’t say what he was going to do about it (just “allright” or something), he didn’t clear things up directly after the murder and he didn’t take any action after learning he’d been lied to, not directly after and not after every next murder.

                  And I leave it here.
                  When he was informed by Lechmere, for all he knew, the phantom PC could have called out to the carmen from the other side of the street and said "Hey, you there - I need help with this woman. Can you please ask any PC you meet to come over here?" Why would Mizen ask the carmen for more information? Why not just say "Got it!" and go to Bucks Row? Which was what he did.
                  Why would he inform the carmen about what he intended to do about it? He said "Alright" and he walked off. And that WAS what he was going to do about it.
                  As for clearing things up after the murder, he did go for an ambulance and when he returned he helped put Nichols on it. If he was suspicious of the carmen, he could have asked Neil - who he believed was the phantom PC - about it, but what was he to ask? "Why did the men you sent not tell me that the woman was the victim of a murder or a suicide?" He would have thought that it was Neils business to report the details of the encounter with the carmen, not his.
                  And why would he be suspicious of the carmen in the first place? The woman WAS there in Bucks Row, the other PC WAS there in Bucks Row and everything seemed to pan out. The one and only thing he found odd was that the carman did not speak of murder or suicide, but maybe he thought that this information had not been passed on to Lechmere. It is a common enough answer when we ask bobbies in the street about what has happened even today: "Nothing has happened, move on please".
                  Mizens observations would have gone into his notebook and he revealed what Lechmere had told him at the inquest. None of it had researchers of the case think that it was a scam on Lechmeres behalf until more than a hundred years afterwards. And maybe Mizen thought that he could have misheard the carman, we just donīt know.

                  All we know is that we donīt live in a perfect world.
                  Last edited by Fisherman; 10-27-2021, 01:07 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Harry D View Post



                    You cut that branch and the whole thing comes tumbling down.
                    You cut that branch and youīll regret it.

                    By the way, if nobody has succeeded to cut the brach for a decade, what makes you think it will happen in the future? Maybe itīs just a forlorn hope?
                    Last edited by Fisherman; 10-27-2021, 01:12 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post


                      What you’ve provided us with there, RJ is evidence of how even the poorest Eastender wanted to look smart when it was appropriate to do so.

                      And yet ‘V. Decent’ Charles Lechmere didn’t even bother to remove his apron when giving evidence at an inquest - or to use his ‘Sunday best’ name.

                      I wonder how many of those who had to hock their suits every week would end up running several businesses or had wealthy relatives dotted about the country?
                      That he later went on to be a grocer is evidence of....? What exactly? Upward mobility?

                      What I provided is a perfectly plausible reason why an East Ender might show up in his work clothes: the kids were sick, the budget was broke, and his missus pawned his suit the previous week and it was still 'up the spout.'

                      Or, on the other hand, it could be something as deeply sinister as Lechmere had planned to clean up, but underestimated the extent of his morning routes, and had to rush to the inquest at the last moment.

                      We don't know; we weren't there.

                      But why do I get the funny feeling that had Lechmere showed up in his Sunday duds it would be evidence of a glib, narcissistic psychopath putting on a show for the coroner?

                      Once the stench of suspicion is on him, it no longer matters what he does.

                      And this is what would be my prime evidence of Lechmere's innocence: the zeal in which his accusers use the most trivial matters as evidence of a guilty mind. It has a 'Witchfinder General' aspect to it. 'We can see the sinister behavior that the Teflon crowd refuses to see.'

                      Happy Halloween.

                      R P

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                        Hi Frank,

                        You’ll remember, I’m sure, that PC Robinson required assistance to take the drunken Catherine Eddowes to Bishopsgate police station.

                        City-constable Lewis Robinson, 931, deposed: At half-past eight, on the night of Saturday, Sept. 29, while on duty in High-street, Aldgate, I saw a crowd of persons outside No. 29, surrounding a woman whom I have since recognised as the deceased.
                        The Coroner: What state was she in? - Drunk. Lying on the footway? - Yes. I asked the crowd if any of them knew her or where she lived, but got no answer. I then picked her up and sat her against the shutters, but she fell down sideways. With the aid of a fellow-constable I took her to Bishopsgate Police-station.

                        Hi Gary,

                        Thanks for sharing PC Robinson's testimony, which tells us clearly that PC's did ask fellow officers for help to take drunken persons to the police station. However, that isn't really the issue. According to Mizen's statement versions, Lechmere didn't tell him about the seriousness of the state the woman was in and that he, therefore, expected that the woman lying in Buck's Row wasn't seriously hurt, let alone that she was dead with her throat cut. Or so, this is how Fisherman presents it. The issue is that, when Mizen arrived at the crime scene expecting to find a woman lying drunk, fainted or asleep there, he found out that the woman was, in fact, dead with her throat cut. So, he ahd every reason to be very surprised and it wouldn't have been odd if he'd tried to clear up how this could have come about. But, if he was, he did nothing about it. Which, in my view, goes very well with him asking no question after having been told so very little, responding with just something like "Alright" and then continuing to knock up at one house.
                        "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                        Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                          That he later went on to be a grocer is evidence of....? What exactly? Upward mobility?

                          What I provided is a perfectly plausible reason why an East Ender might show up in his work clothes: the kids were sick, the budget was broke, and his missus pawned his suit the previous week and it was still 'up the spout.'

                          Or, on the other hand, it could be something as deeply sinister as Lechmere had planned to clean up, but underestimated the extent of his morning routes, and had to rush to the inquest at the last moment.

                          We don't know; we weren't there.

                          But why do I get the funny feeling that had Lechmere showed up in his Sunday duds it would be evidence of a glib, narcissistic psychopath putting on a show for the coroner?

                          Once the stench of suspicion is on him, it no longer matters what he does.

                          And this is what would be my prime evidence of Lechmere's innocence: the zeal in which his accusers use the most trivial matters as evidence of a guilty mind. It has a 'Witchfinder General' aspect to it. 'We can see the sinister behavior that the Teflon crowd refuses to see.'

                          Happy Halloween.

                          R P
                          How does someone who is so poor that his wife has to hock his best suit at the beginning of the week become upwardly mobile?

                          The families you are describing do not tally with the admittedly limited facts we have about the Lechmeres. That his Sunday suit was in the pawn shop is possible, but not likely.









                          Last edited by MrBarnett; 10-27-2021, 02:08 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                            ... why do I get the funny feeling that had Lechmere showed up in his Sunday duds it would be evidence of a glib, narcissistic psychopath putting on a show for the coroner?

                            Once the stench of suspicion is on him, it no longer matters what he does.

                            R P
                            That reminds me of Harry D, who does not like how Lechmereīs seemingly innocent moves after Paul arrived may actually have been nothing but theatre. Harry says just about the same thing: whatever Lechmere does, he is still looked upon with suspicion.

                            It must be terribly frustrating.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                              As I have said four times now, the police had his address. However, as he took the stand at the inquest, all papers but one quote him as not stating his home address, and so it seems a very likely thing that he withheld his address from the ones attending the inquest. And, of course, the ones attending the inquest were to a large degree reporters. So if Lechmere withheld his adress, oit was NOT from the police but instead from the ones taking part of the inquest information via the newspapers.
                              So what is your point ? You say yourself the police had Lech's address . They were the ones primarily investigating the murders . So much for hiding his ID

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                                How does someone who is so poor that his wife has to hock his best suit at the beginning of the week become upwardly mobile?

                                The families you are describing do not tally with the admittedly limited facts we have about the Lechmeres. That his Sunday suit was in the pawn shop is possible, but not likely.
                                It was always the name of the game; whereas the naysayers can always loftily think up a thousand alternative innocent explanations, those who suspect Lechmere can only offer the one guilty alternative. The strength of the theory, though, lies in how that guilty alternative is so often in better sync with the facts than the innocent alternatives.

                                It was for example always more likely that Mizen heard Lechmere correctly, for the simple reason that we normally do get such things right. And it was always more likely that Mizen did not lie,because most of the time, PC:s do not. We MAY mishear. We MAY lie. But that is not the norm (luckily).

                                But the nasysayers nevertheless favour the plethora of mishearing, misinterpreting and lying possibilities. And they revel in how it is - rather unamazingly - less likely that somebody is a serial killer than a friendly, benevolent carman. Heureka!!

                                Such is life, and there is very little to do about it.
                                Last edited by Fisherman; 10-27-2021, 02:32 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X