Lies or memory fallibility

[Fisherman]

OK, I see.

And since you say they can, why do you chose the other alternative? / What are the reasons for that?

(A question about why we interpret historical sources the way we do. The most important one perhaps).

Thanks Fisherman.

Regards Pierre

There is mainly one reason: Lechmere and Mizen disagree on many different points.

They do not only disagree on the other PC:s presence in Bucks Row.

They also disagree on how serious the carman disclosed the errand to be.

They also disagree on whether one or two of the carmen spoke to Mizen.

They also disagree about what was said about the background to the errand (Lechmere says that he told the PC what had happened, but Mizen says that the carman had told him that a woman "had been found" in Bucks Row, not that the carman himself had found her).

Further to this, Mizen is absolutely certain that the carman said nothing about any murder or suicide. It is therefore clear that Mizen seems to be sure that he was able to hear and interpret what the carman said.

In the end, if they had disagreed on ONE matter, it would be easier to swallow that it was a mishearing. But once we have a significant number of "mishearings", we need to accept that one of the two probably lied.

It is also of interest that the lies that were produced IF Mizen was correct, were all lies that would be optimised to take the carman past the PC.

It is also of interest that it was said that it was a totally silent noght with no people on the streets, minimizing disturbances.

[Pierre]

They can. I never said anything else.

OK, I see.

And since you say they can, why do you chose the other alternative? / What are the reasons for that?

(A question about why we interpret historical sources the way we do. The most important one perhaps).

Thanks Fisherman.

Regards Pierre

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

As youīve probably understood Iīm rather interested in your theory of Lechmere-Cross. And there has been a lot of threads on the subject but that also makes it more difficult for me to get a grip on it.

I was thinking about the case and realized that I only have one important question concearning your way of interpreting the sources from the inquest.

You have this hypothesis that either Lechmere-Cross or Mizen lied during the inquest.

I donīt know if you have read any research on the subject of witness psychology and memory. Research show there are a lot of problems concearning the memory of testifying witnesses (se for example http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue...er&tversky.htm)

So my simple question is: Why do you choose to presume that one person must be a liar - why canīt their different statements just be a matter of fallibility of human memory?

Regards Pierre

They can. I never said anything else.

[Patrick S]

Hi Fisherman,

As youīve probably understood Iīm rather interested in your theory of Lechmere-Cross. And there has been a lot of threads on the subject but that also makes it more difficult for me to get a grip on it.

I was thinking about the case and realized that I only have one important question concearning your way of interpreting the sources from the inquest.

You have this hypothesis that either Lechmere-Cross or Mizen lied during the inquest.

I donīt know if you have read any research on the subject of witness psychology and memory. Research show there are a lot of problems concearning the memory of testifying witnesses (se for example http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue...er&tversky.htm)

So my simple question is: Why do you choose to presume that one person must be a liar - why canīt their different statements just be a matter of fallibility of human memory?

Regards Pierre

Hi, Pierre! I'm Christers pal. So, let me take a stab at this. First, Christer does not entertain any idea that Mizen lied. None. In a bit of irony, Christer has presented Mizen as unassailable based upon two criteria: 1. He had a long and "distinguished" record of service to the Met; 2: He was a Christian. Now, this is ironic because Christer not only discounts Lechmere's apparent positive traits that may dissuade one from viewing him as a serial killer (lifelong stable employment, 11 kids, married to the same woman for 50 years, raised productive children who had families of their own, left a respectable estate to his wife, no crimnal record, no history of violence, showed of his own accord at the inquest, was never suspected by police, etc.) he actually presents them as reasons why he WAS (I say 'was' because in Christer's mind there is no longer a question) Jack the Ripper, the Toso Killer, etc., etc.

So, to clarify...Christer does not believe that good, honest, noble, Christian Jonas could ever tell a lie. Even as any researcher worth a dime can see that both he and Thain told what amounted to harmless lies (that were in all likelyhood accepted and tacitly endorsed by the Met in order to avoid FURTHER scrutiny and embarassment directed at them and their officers). He believes only that the man who he has killing Nichols in Bucks Row, calling Paul's attention to the body, going on an errand to tell a policeman that a woman was lying in Bucks Row, and showing up voluntarily at the inquest....was Jack the Ripper.

Got it? Makes perfect sense to me.

[Pierre]

Hi Fisherman,

As youīve probably understood Iīm rather interested in your theory of Lechmere-Cross. And there has been a lot of threads on the subject but that also makes it more difficult for me to get a grip on it.

I was thinking about the case and realized that I only have one important question concearning your way of interpreting the sources from the inquest.

You have this hypothesis that either Lechmere-Cross or Mizen lied during the inquest.

I donīt know if you have read any research on the subject of witness psychology and memory. Research show there are a lot of problems concearning the memory of testifying witnesses (se for example http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue...er&tversky.htm)

So my simple question is: Why do you choose to presume that one person must be a liar - why canīt their different statements just be a matter of fallibility of human memory?

Regards Pierre