If

[harry]

There could be a normal discussion,but is it normal to inject trick questions,and use present day devices,to present a result.
So what is your point Fisherman.W hat have you achieved?

[Fisherman]

There could be a normal discussion,but is it normal to inject trick questions,and use present day devices,to present a result.
So what is your point Fisherman.W hat have you achieved?

I have so far not yet achieved the decency on behalf of posters like you not to talk of "trick questions".

There have been no trick questions. There has been a theoretical suggestion to look at the case from a certain angle, well defined and explained.

The "trick questions" you speak of are therefore brainghosts.

As for what I have "achieved", it would make no difference what I suggested, you would disagree anyway. But letīs see:

I have achieved a theoretically interesting perspective that enables us to test our perceptions of the case.

[Pcdunn]

A bit confused

Itīs not that I donīt think that there is a dearth of threads about Lechmere - there really is not.
But I would nevertheless want to open a new thread.

I want to have your view on this question:

Make the assumption that there was a CCTV camera in Bucks Row in 1888, combined with a microphone that picked up what was said by the people in the street.

Now imagine that we have a camera recording showing how Charles Lechmere walked up to Jonas Mizen and said:
-Officer, you are needed in Bucks Row. A woman has been found there. She is lying in the street, flat on her back. Another PC sent me, he wants your help.

Letīs assume that we had all this on tape, and that we knew that it was the truth.

What conclusions would you draw from it?

Would you think that it was pointing to guilt or not?

Maybe I am not reading your question right, but you say "we knew that it was the truth"-- does that mean Lechmere is correct when he tells Mizen there is an another PC waiting for him with woman? If this assumption is made, then clearly Lechmere does tell the truth, with no indication of guilt.

However, I can tell from some of the other responses you have received that people are assuming the rest of the circumstances in the hold, and no other PC had spoken to Lechmere. If "we knew it was the truth" refers just to what Lechmere said to Mizen, and the tape eliminates the "he said, he said" debate over the words spoken-- then, yes, Lechmere is guilty of lying about the other officer wanting help. I do not know if he is necessarily guilty of the crime, but it would make him more of a person of interest, who should have been questioned more closely by the police.

[Pcdunn]

Missed a word in my previous post... Should read "circumstances in the case hold" instead of "circumstances in the hold"

[Fisherman]

Maybe I am not reading your question right, but you say "we knew that it was the truth"-- does that mean Lechmere is correct when he tells Mizen there is an another PC waiting for him with woman? If this assumption is made, then clearly Lechmere does tell the truth, with no indication of guilt.

However, I can tell from some of the other responses you have received that people are assuming the rest of the circumstances in the hold, and no other PC had spoken to Lechmere. If "we knew it was the truth" refers just to what Lechmere said to Mizen, and the tape eliminates the "he said, he said" debate over the words spoken-- then, yes, Lechmere is guilty of lying about the other officer wanting help. I do not know if he is necessarily guilty of the crime, but it would make him more of a person of interest, who should have been questioned more closely by the police.

Many thanks, PC Dunn! The question is of course what you think it would mean if we could be certain that Lechmere told Mizen what Mizen said he was told.

[Patrick S]

God this is getting boring.

Mizen lied. That much is perfectly clear. Both Thain and Mizen misrepresented their actions in and around Bucks Row in order to protect their jobs, reputations. In my opinion, the Met likely played along becuase their actions reflected poorly on the department as a whole and they didn't need that.

This thing is on it's death bed. Perhaps a nice debate in Baltimore may help it to rally!

Really, Christer? CCTV? This is what you are resorting to these days to sell this stinker?

[caz]

However, I would be very inclined to think that it was deeply suspicious and a good indicator of guilt. I feel certain that the police would reason in the exact same manner.

Hi Fish,

But Mizen was a policeman and he must have realised it was a blatant lie if we have it on CCTV that Cross told him a PC wanted him in Buck's Row - and a second blatant lie at the inquest when Cross flatly denied saying anything of the sort. If this wonderful example of honest policing reasoned that Cross's lies were 'deeply suspicious and a good indicator of guilt', I'll eat my hat. But in the wonderful world of Mad Hatter make-believe, let's assume I've digested the hat and share your certainty that Mizen 'would reason in the exact same manner' as you. So what happened? Did his superiors unaccountably fail to agree that Cross's lies were cause for suspicion? Or did he unaccountably fail to push it, in case his own actions would reflect badly under such a spotlight?

It of course applies that if he just thought that he was late for work, he would be taking an immense risk by fooling the police. There would have been only a very faint chance that there WAS a PC in place when Mizen arrived. And if Mizen had arrived up at the murder site to see that he had been fooled, there is zero chance that the hunt for the carmen would not be on. And it would be a hunt for the possible killer/s!

To me, such a totally reckless lie was never to be expected. I donīt know how much value you ascribe to the suggestion yourself, Abby?

It of course nevertheless applies that it IS an option, just as you say.

The same applies - and arguably more so - if he killed Nichols and Mizen had not found a PC at the scene. With zero chance that Cross would not be sought in that event, it would still have been a totally reckless lie, made worse if he let either Paul or Mizen get a good enough butcher's at him to recognise him again. Of course, Cross's attendance at the inquest would have been insane if Mizen had found no policeman and knew he had been fooled by the possible murderer. Oh wait, Mizen did know he had been fooled - when Neil and Cross both denied the whole thing. So what hold did Cross have over Mizen, to stop him crying "Foul!"?

And the judge is... you, Harry?

There are other judges here. I would say that it totally admissible and potentially very important evidence. But you recommend that we forget all about it?

Hang on a minute, Fish. Only for the purpose of this theoretical thread is it evidence which is potentially very important. I'll give you that much. (Don't mention it. ) But it's still only theoretical evidence in the real world because, as you concede yourself by starting such a thread, you wouldn't need CCTV if you had any other means of demonstrating the Mizen Scam in action.

The most important thing you write here is that the question I put can only be answered with a yes. Incidentally, I donīt think it proves him guilty - but it certainly implies that this seems to have been the case.

In all probability, that is why you are afraid of touching it. Or having it touching you.
Letīs deny it instead.

In fairness to Harry, you are now perilously close to imagining you have somehow shown him, with your imaginary footage from your equally imaginary CCTV, something which 'certainly implies' Lechmere's guilt.

You may as well have begun the thread with: 'Let's pretend Paul saw Lechmere all over Nichols like a rash, knife in hand. Does anyone think he was innocent now???

If Paul saw nothing untoward, and Mizen was saying nothing, even after hearing something untoward, the theoretical untowardness (is that a word? It is now) of Lechmere in his dealings with either is not supported by human or robotic intelligence.

Well, if he said what Mizen said, he certainly lied, we now that much.

If he did x, he 'certainly' did y, we 'know that much'.

So we certainly know precisely nothing, then, without that CCTV showing what you want it to show. And if we 'certainly' knew Lechmere lied, we wouldn't be relying on your CCTV to show it.

Can this get any more pointless, Fish?

Yes, it can:

Plus we know that Lechmere was a suspect as per Connor and Osborne long before it was even known that he swopped names, long before the Mizen scam was considered and long before it was pointed lout that the blood evidence is in line with Lechmere being the killer.
When we consider the scam, it must be considered against this backdrop.

What's the 'plus' doing there? If you recall, Fish, THE MIZEN SCAM IS PURE THEORY, and not backed up in any way independently, which you obviously know, or you wouldn't be wheeling in this CCTV scam to try and fool us into thinking otherwise.

If we find that all of the matters surrounding the carman are useful examples of a perfectly sound, unsuspicious and law-abiding behaviour, then we should of course vote for a not guilty decision. And we must regard the so called Mizen scam accordingly.

But we were asked to assume the so called Mizen scam was real (as proved by the CCTV) and to consider where that would leave all other matters surrounding the lying carman.

Perhaps you should start another thread to ask:

'If... you were to accept, for argument's sake, that all other matters surrounding the carman are perfect examples of deeply suspicious behaviour, where would you stand on the so called Mizen scam?'

And with a bit of luck, nobody will answer:

'All over it, in dirty great hobnail boots.'

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

caz: Hi Fish,

But Mizen was a policeman and he must have realised it was a blatant lie if we have it on CCTV that Cross told him a PC wanted him in Buck's Row - and a second blatant lie at the inquest when Cross flatly denied saying anything of the sort. If this wonderful example of honest policing reasoned that Cross's lies were 'deeply suspicious and a good indicator of guilt', I'll eat my hat. But in the wonderful world of Mad Hatter make-believe, let's assume I've digested the hat and share your certainty that Mizen 'would reason in the exact same manner' as you. So what happened? Did his superiors unaccountably fail to agree that Cross's lies were cause for suspicion? Or did he unaccountably fail to push it, in case his own actions would reflect badly under such a spotlight?

You seemingly missed the whole premise. The exercise is to make the assumption that Lechmere DID say what Mizen claimed he said, and then to state where such a certinty would put Lechmere on the suspicious/guilty scale according to you.

The same applies - and arguably more so - if he killed Nichols and Mizen had not found a PC at the scene. With zero chance that Cross would not be sought in that event, it would still have been a totally reckless lie, made worse if he let either Paul or Mizen get a good enough butcher's at him to recognise him again. Of course, Cross's attendance at the inquest would have been insane if Mizen had found no policeman and knew he had been fooled by the possible murderer. Oh wait, Mizen did know he had been fooled - when Neil and Cross both denied the whole thing. So what hold did Cross have over Mizen, to stop him crying "Foul!"?

Been over this ground a million times before, so letīs not resort to more of the same. However, it is vital that you understand that we cannot establish that Mizen knew that the carman lied. It may be that Mizen became uncertain about what he had been told, if he had heard correctly etc. We are not deling with black and white, we are dealing with greyscales.

Hang on a minute, Fish. For the purpose of this theoretical thread it is evidence which is potentially very important. I'll give you that much. (Don't mention it. ) But it's still only theoretical evidence in the real world because, as you concede yourself in the original post, you wouldn't need CCTV if you had any other means of demonstrating the Mizen Scam in action.

Eh? I totally fail to remember that I had stated anything else. In fact, the very reason that I suggested a theoretical CCTV was BECAUSE I am very well aware that we cannot demonstrate the scam in action.

In fairness to Harry, you are now perilously close to imagining you have somehow shown him, with your imaginary footage from your equally imaginary CCTV, something which 'certainly implies' Lechmere's guilt.

Letīs not get carried away here, Caz. If YOU are prelously near to get swayed, so be it - but the very fact of the matter is that this is a theoretical suggestion, very clearly spelt out in the premise.
Just how many people do you think there are who will go "Whoa, so they had CCTV back then - cool!"

All theories rest - and must rest - on supposition, or, if you will, a reasoning that relies much on a combination of the two little words "if" and "so". I do not think it is a good idea to call anybody who suggests a scenario a liar and deceiver for doing so. Or coming perilously close to it, for that matter.

You may as well have begun the thread with: 'Let's pretend Paul saw Lechmere all over Nichols like a rash, knife in hand. Does anyone think he was innocent now???

No, I could not have begun like that, since it was the Mizen scam as such I wanted to have evaluated from a theoretical perspective.
And the implications of the two contenders, one where he stands over the body, knife in hand and one where he tells the police a lie are RADICALLY different, unless you cannot see that yourself.
Your reasoning is beginning to get VERY coarse, Caz. You need to do something about that, if you hope to be ble to follow the finer points of a theoretical reasoning.

If Paul saw nothing untoward, and Mizen was saying nothing, even after hearing something untoward, the theoretical untowardness (is that a word? It is now) of Lechmere in his dealings with either is not supported by human or robotic intelligence.

Donīt ask ME about YOUR language, Caz! And donīt forget Mizen. It is with him - a highly appreciated police officer - the main points of accusation lie. Plus there was little reason to believe that Paul would see through the name swop, for example...

If he did x, he 'certainly' did y, we 'know that much'.

Who is "we"? And what is it "we" know? That you are about to speak of circular reasoning again?

So we certainly know precisely nothing, then, without that CCTV showing what you want it to show. And if we 'certainly' knew Lechmere lied, we wouldn't be relying on your CCTV to show it.

Can this get any more pointless, Fish?

With you on the boards, there is always hope!

What's the 'plus' doing there? If you recall, Fish, THE MIZEN SCAM IS PURE THEORY, and not backed up in any way independently, which you obviously know, or you wouldn't be wheeling in this CCTV scam to try and fool us into thinking otherwise.

Shame on you, Caz. You are beginning to loose it. Do NOT accuse me of trying to fool anybody! There was a VERY clear premise given, and if you fail to read or understand such things, then that falls back on you, not me.

But we were asked to assume the so called Mizen scam was real (as proved by the CCTV) and to consider where that would leave all other matters surrounding the lying carman.

That is almost true - the question was whether we would consider him guilty or suspicious if we knew that he DID say what Mizen claimed he said. And the reason I asked is that so many refuse to even consider it.
It is on these boards even claimed that it is a given that Mizen lied. It is presented as a fact. An established truth. Which is of course moronic and dishonest.

Is it a fact? Really? Or could it be that the carman did the lying?

That is what we need to ask ourselves.

Perhaps you should start another thread to ask:

'If... you were to accept, for argument's sake, that all other matters surrounding the carman are perfect examples of deeply suspicious behaviour, where would you stand on the so called Mizen scam?'

And with a bit of luck, nobody will answer:

'All over it, in dirty great hobnail boots.'

Perhaps you should grow up and try to refrain from childish accusations like this. I know that many women like to think of themselves as younger than they are, but this is pushing it back to preschool days.

[caz]

I want to have your view on this question:

Make the assumption that there was a CCTV camera in Bucks Row in 1888, combined with a microphone that picked up what was said by the people in the street.

Now imagine that we have a camera recording showing how Charles Lechmere walked up to Jonas Mizen and said:
-Officer, you are needed in Bucks Row. A woman has been found there. She is lying in the street, flat on her back. Another PC sent me, he wants your help.

Letīs assume that we had all this on tape, and that we knew that it was the truth.

What conclusions would you draw from it?

Would you think that it was pointing to guilt or not?

Okay, I'll bite. I would conclude that Mizen was not thinking clearly, either at the time or when he found Neil with the woman, who had been nearly decapitated. 1) A woman had been found on her back, viciously murdered, just over three weeks previously in the near vicinity. 2) Why didn't either carman appear to know Nichols was dead or badly injured, and why would any PC sending them for assistance not have impressed upon them the urgency of the errand, since Mizen was apparently being asked to drop everything and leave his beat?

The story does appear to be missing some answers, yet Mizen remained strangely incurious for a policeman who should have been asking the questions.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Okay, I'll bite. I would conclude that Mizen was not thinking clearly, either at the time or when he found Neil with the woman, who had been nearly decapitated. 1) A woman had been found on her back, viciously murdered, just over three weeks previously in the near vicinity. 2) Why didn't either carman appear to know Nichols was dead or badly injured, and why would any PC sending them for assistance not have impressed upon them the urgency of the errand, since Mizen was apparently being asked to drop everything and leave his beat?

The story does appear to be missing some answers, yet Mizen remained strangely incurious for a policeman who should have been asking the questions.

Love,

Caz
X

You are joining many others who have failed to answer the question I put: You are supposed to assume that we know that Lechmere DID tell Mizen what Mizen claimed to have been told.
If you make this assumption, then does that in any way affect the way you look upon Lechmere? Does it make you think that he looks suspicious/guilty?

That is the question. You are not supposed to reason that Mizen may have been confused or lying.

[Fisherman]

I know I have asked this question on an adjacent thread but I do not remember having seen an answer, Caz, so I am asking it here too:

Out of all the things that have been argued as militating against Lechmere being the killer of Polly Nichols, which isolated point do you think is the best argument for the "Lechmere is innocent" side?

I am much interested to get an answer to that one.

[caz]

- the question was whether we would consider him guilty or suspicious if we knew that he DID say what Mizen claimed he said. And the reason I asked is that so many refuse to even consider it.

As I said, completely pointless.

If we KNEW he lied about something, would we consider him guilty or suspicious?

If we KNEW a little boy had chocolate round his mouth, would we consider him guilty of stealing a missing chocolate cake, or at least suspicious?

Could it be that the carman did the lying?

Could it be that the little boy did the stealing?

That is what we need to ask ourselves.

But without that CCTV we do not have the means to answer either question. Fact. And that's a simple enough obstacle to taking things any further, because we cannot point to the carman as a proven liar, or the little boy as a proven thief, and use this as evidence of worse naughtiness. It's not and never will be supporting evidence for some other wrongdoing you suspect he was involved in.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I know I have asked this question on an adjacent thread but I do not remember having seen an answer, Caz, so I am asking it here too:

Out of all the things that have been argued as militating against Lechmere being the killer of Polly Nichols, which isolated point do you think is the best argument for the "Lechmere is innocent" side?

I am much interested to get an answer to that one.

I thought we'd been through all this before, Fish. He decided to attend the inquest and associate himself with the Nichols case, which in my view (I know it's not your view) he had no need to do, and might have been taking a huge risk by doing so, if he had been the killer and wanted to remain free and anonymous to do it again - and again - and again.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=caz;356557]As I said, completely pointless.

If we KNEW he lied about something, would we consider him guilty or suspicious?

Neither, if I am not much mistaken - a number of posters out here work from the assumption that he lied to get quicker to work - a totally innocent thing to do.

If we KNEW a little boy had chocolate round his mouth, would we consider him guilty of stealing a missing chocolate cake, or at least suspicious?

Not the same thing, as you may understand from what I just wrote.

But without that CCTV we do not have the means to answer either question. Fact. And that's a simple enough obstacle to taking things any further, because we cannot point to the carman as a proven liar, or the little boy as a proven thief, and use this as evidence of worse naughtiness. It's not and never will be supporting evidence for some other wrongdoing you suspect he was involved in.

Of course it is supporting evidence for him as the killer.

Mizen claimed he said it - evidence.

Then there is evidence to the contrary - Lechmereīs own testimony.

One of these men was a PC who has never been proven to do anything at all that was not in keeping with upholding the law to the best of his ability and knowledge, a man who had an excellent service record.

The other man gave the police a name that was not the one he was registered by and otherwise used in all authority contacts we know of (more thn a hudred of them), when witnessing in a case where he had been found alone with a freshly killed woman.

The implications could not be clearer. That is also why James Scobie said that he was a man who acted suspiciously, and a jury would not like that.

He was speaking of Lechmere then, not of Mizen.

To claim that there never will be supporting evidence for any wrongdoing is just ignorant. It is already in place.
Would it be enough to convict? I am not a legal man, so I will not give an answer. It was enough to form a prima faciae case that suggested that he was guilty in the eyes of Scobie.

Letīs get real here, shall we?

[Fisherman]

I thought we'd been through all this before, Fish. He decided to attend the inquest and associate himself with the Nichols case, which in my view (I know it's not your view) he had no need to do, and might have been taking a huge risk by doing so, if he had been the killer and wanted to remain free and anonymous to do it again - and again - and again.

Love,

Caz
X

So that is it. The best reason to free Lechmere is that you personally donīt think that he would have gone to the inquest. Although it has been explained to you that he would otherwise in all probability have become the prime suspect, you still think you have a great point here.

A bit shoddy, is it not, that all the blustering about how the carman is innocent has nothing more substantial to stand on?

I of course already knew that there was no effective objections to offer. But I wanted you to step forward and confirm it.

Many thanks.