Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Fisherman]

The Good Michael:

...you are blinded, while I can see pretty clearly.

Lucky you! I am ever so envious!

Cross said that they spoke to Mizen because he and Paul were together. That's quite clear.

If he was the killer, Iīd warn about thinking that anything he says is pretty clear. Killers sometimes lie (yes!).

If they were together (and they were) it addresses your first point about Paul being in earshot of everything. This is all quite simple. 2 down.

But we canīt tell that they WERE physically close together - we have to cherrypick sentences like "when the latter spoke to PC Mizen, he was accompanied by", while looking away from the rest of the evidence. "Accompanied by" says NOTHING about the distance between Lechmere and Paul. It could have been 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, 14 or 22 yards and Mizen would still be of the meaning that the two were in company.
But "the other man, who went down Hanbury Street" DOES say a lot about the distribution of the carmen: The man who was in company with "Cross" walked ahead down Hanbury Street.

The 3rd point is irrelevant. During Cross and Paul's conversation when they both discovered the body together and not the tarpaulin that Cross surmised, they thought she was dead or drunk.

Yes - but did Lechmere tell Mizen this? Not according to the PC! According to him, he was only told about how a woman was lying in the street. But of course, Mike, such things are "irrelevant".

Being such a clearsighted fellow, one would otherwise have hoped that you could see the difference.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

It's looking like according to Fish, Paul was dead or drunk.

Or 14 yards away.

You "forgot" that.

Fisherman

[Robert]

14 yards? If you say so, Fish.

But wait!

Yes, I agree that Neil would no doubt have heard Lechmere if he was still in Bucks Row when Neil turned into it.
However, I make the distance from Thomas Street up to Bakers Row around 70 yards +.
And Lechmere did not hear Paul earlier until the latter was half of that distance away from him...?

I guess Crossmere was whispering to Mizen, because he didn't want to wake anyone up. That was Mizen's job.

[Trevor Marriott]

The Good Michael:

...you are blinded, while I can see pretty clearly.

Lucky you! I am ever so envious!

Cross said that they spoke to Mizen because he and Paul were together. That's quite clear.

If he was the killer, Iīd warn about thinking that anything he says is pretty clear. Killers sometimes lie (yes!).

If they were together (and they were) it addresses your first point about Paul being in earshot of everything. This is all quite simple. 2 down.

But we canīt tell that they WERE physically close together - we have to cherrypick sentences like "when the latter spoke to PC Mizen, he was accompanied by", while looking away from the rest of the evidence. "Accompanied by" says NOTHING about the distance between Lechmere and Paul. It could have been 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, 14 or 22 yards and Mizen would still be of the meaning that the two were in company.
But "the other man, who went down Hanbury Street" DOES say a lot about the distribution of the carmen: The man who was in company with "Cross" walked ahead down Hanbury Street.

The 3rd point is irrelevant. During Cross and Paul's conversation when they both discovered the body together and not the tarpaulin that Cross surmised, they thought she was dead or drunk.

Yes - but did Lechmere tell Mizen this? Not according to the PC! According to him, he was only told about how a woman was lying in the street. But of course, Mike, such things are "irrelevant".

Being such a clearsighted fellow, one would otherwise have hoped that you could see the difference.

The best,
Fisherman

This is where you fall down all the time the unreliability of the conversations

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[eighty-eighter]

It just doesn't rest on the conversations though does it? I've yet to hear any convincing evidence as to why Cross/Lechmere categorically couldn't have killed Nichols, and its Nichols I'm talking about here.
To the contrary Fish/Christer has produced a lot than is actually more compelling, unless you happen to believe in multiple coincidences bordering on the unlikely plus the fact that being found beside a body literally slain within minutes is not suspicious? Add to that the fact that he must have tip-toed down Bucks Row for Paul not to hear his footsteps ahead - or did Paul conveniently forget to mention that?
If Lechmere didn't do it then by god he must have almost fallen over the real killer!

[Robert]

" plus the fact that being found beside a body literally slain within minutes is not suspicious? "

Careful, Eighty Eighter - even Fish has stopped saying this.

[Trevor Marriott]

It just doesn't rest on the conversations though does it? I've yet to hear any convincing evidence as to why Cross/Lechmere categorically couldn't have killed Nichols, and its Nichols I'm talking about here.
To the contrary Fish/Christer has produced a lot than is actually more compelling, unless you happen to believe in multiple coincidences bordering on the unlikely plus the fact that being found beside a body literally slain within minutes is not suspicious? Add to that the fact that he must have tip-toed down Bucks Row for Paul not to hear his footsteps ahead - or did Paul conveniently forget to mention that?
If Lechmere didn't do it then by god he must have almost fallen over the real killer!

This is reliant on timings and honesty and both seem to be lacking
The Pc who stated that he passed by the spot 30 minutes before body was found at 3.15am. We have to take that on face value he may not have, but if he did that could put the time of death as early as 3.20am

Then we have the doctors estimated time of death 3.30am now how reliable is that to the minute its not, and as has been said that only needs to be 5-10 minutes or so out and out the window goes the theory

The doctor states the top half of the body was cold and the lower part warm. The body cools at the same time according to clothing worn and what skin is exposed. How was the lower part warmer than the top? Having regard for the fact that the bottom half had been left exposed by the killer. So this statement of the doctor is a cause for concern with regards to estimating the time of death.

Of course if the police officers were not where they said they were, or their timings were wrong, they had ample time to make their statements fit before the inquest to cover up their wrongdoings, because by then they would have know the estimated time of death given by the doctor. That`s why we now have these anomalies with regards to the statements and press reports.

I say again 5-10 minutes out and the theory is blown out of the water

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Patrick S]

The Good Michael:

...you are blinded, while I can see pretty clearly.

Lucky you! I am ever so envious!

Cross said that they spoke to Mizen because he and Paul were together. That's quite clear.

If he was the killer, Iīd warn about thinking that anything he says is pretty clear. Killers sometimes lie (yes!).

IF HE WAS THE KILLER. You seem to have trouble understanding that you must proceed from this premise for anything proposed by you and your sychophants to implicate Cross in the slightest. This is the same absurd logic you employed when you posted "View (Lechmere's) behavior with an eye on him being guilty and you'll see things in a different light." Luckily for most of us, this is not the way that most legal systems function on planet Earth.

If they were together (and they were) it addresses your first point about Paul being in earshot of everything. This is all quite simple. 2 down.

But we canīt tell that they WERE physically close together - we have to cherrypick sentences like "when the latter spoke to PC Mizen, he was accompanied by", while looking away from the rest of the evidence. "Accompanied by" says NOTHING about the distance between Lechmere and Paul. It could have been 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, 14 or 22 yards and Mizen would still be of the meaning that the two were in company.
But "the other man, who went down Hanbury Street" DOES say a lot about the distribution of the carmen: The man who was in company with "Cross" walked ahead down Hanbury Street.

There are MANY things we can't tell. That's sort of understandable in that this was a converstation between two WITNESSES (not suspects) and police officer. As with all things Cross, when it's not literally spelled out in back and white you assume whatever position implicates your fantasy suspect. Since the documentation of the Paul, Mizen, Cross conversation does not explicitly state that Paul was standing right there, not ten feet away, you assume that he was not close and did not hear, thus, your idiotic 'Mizen Scam' can be minted and sold to the niave fools willing to buy it.

The 3rd point is irrelevant. During Cross and Paul's conversation when they both discovered the body together and not the tarpaulin that Cross surmised, they thought she was dead or drunk.

Yes - but did Lechmere tell Mizen this? Not according to the PC! According to him, he was only told about how a woman was lying in the street. But of course, Mike, such things are "irrelevant".

You understand that this conversation was not recorded, correct? You know that there was no stenographer present, capturing every word? You understand, also, that recounting a conversation VERBATIM, for most human beings, is not something typically happens. Try it sometime. Regardless what what we may think we hear, we form impressions and retain the information we need. The human mind does not actively record and retain each word spoken. In order for your crackpot theory to work, one must ignore typical human behavior and read into it, then exract meaning that supports your laughable 'Mizen Scam'.

Being such a clearsighted fellow, one would otherwise have hoped that you could see the difference.

AAAAAAAAND the classic Fisherman parting shot. What a clever fellow you are, Fish.

The best,
Fisherman

There is only some much foolishness one can abide before entering the fray once again, for better or worse. See above bold.

[Fisherman]

Robert: 14 yards? If you say so, Fish.

I think itīs a better assessment than dead or drunk.

But wait!

Yes, I agree that Neil would no doubt have heard Lechmere if he was still in Bucks Row when Neil turned into it.
However, I make the distance from Thomas Street up to Bakers Row around 70 yards +.
And Lechmere did not hear Paul earlier until the latter was half of that distance away from him...?

I guess Crossmere was whispering to Mizen, because he didn't want to wake anyone up. That was Mizen's job.

He would have kept his voice low, I think. And that could have been enough to keep Paul out of the picture. Paul may well have heard that words were exchanged, but he would not necessarily have been able to make them out.

There is also the possibility that Lechmere actualy told Paul "Hey, when we come up to that PC, Iīll tell him that thereīs another PC waiting for him in Buckīs Row - that way, he wonīt detain us, and weīll be in time for work".

Paul would perhaps have been none to keen to divulge having approved of that later.

You se, Robert - all of your naysaying does not get you very far, does it?

Answer me this: IF Lechmere DID lie consciously about his name and if he lied about the other PC and if he played down the seriousness of the errand - where would that put you? If you knew this to be true, what would your reasoning about it be?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

" plus the fact that being found beside a body literally slain within minutes is not suspicious? "

Careful, Eighty Eighter - even Fish has stopped saying this.

No, I have not. He was found beside a body literally slain within minutes.

And that freaks you out totally.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott:

This is reliant on timings and honesty and both seem to be lacking

Are you calling me dishonest, Trevor?

Fisherman

[eighty-eighter]

" plus the fact that being found beside a body literally slain within minutes is not suspicious? "

Careful, Eighty Eighter - even Fish has stopped saying this.

Evidence to the contrary please.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott:

This is reliant on timings and honesty and both seem to be lacking

Are you calling me dishonest, Trevor?

Fisherman

No i was referring to the police

[Robert]

Hi Fish

IF Crossmere lied to Mizen.
IF the police never investigated Crossmere.
IF Paul was round the corner.
Or IF Crossmere and Paul made a secret agreement.
IF Crossmere whispered to Mizen.
IF the police never knew Crossmere's 'real' name.
IF Crossmere was a psychopath.
IF Crossmere can be linked to the other murders
IF.....
Then Crossmere could be the man, my son.

Regards

Mr Kipling

[Robert]

Fish, we're back to 'beside,' I see.

That didn't last long, did it?