Lawende was silenced

[David Orsam]

Perhaps PC Mizen lied to give PC Neil an alibi.

It doesn't even make sense.

If Mizen had, for some strange reason, wanted to give Neil "an alibi" it was stupid to do it by claiming that one of the carmen had told him he was wanted by a policeman. The carman would obviously say he said no such thing when questioned, as Lechmere did.

All Mizen had to do was say he found Neil by the body when he arrived at Bucks Row. That was good enough. So there was no reason at all for Mizen to lie about what Lechmere told him

It's a ludicrous theory really.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Would you care for another try?

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

You must be talking about your own post Simon. My responses make perfect sense. Your theory makes none at all.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

You are nothing if not a constant source of amusement.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

You are nothing if not a constant source of amusement.

Surely the amusing factor here is that you think P.C. Neil might have been in need of "an alibi".

I mean, alibi for what?

It's ridiculous isn't it, Simon?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

You're too smart for your own good.

Think for a few moments about the Mizen/Neil dynamic.

It's very easy.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

You're too smart for your own good.

Think for a few moments about the Mizen/Neil dynamic.

It's very easy.

I really don't need to think about "the Mizen/Neil dynamic" because I've already explained (without contradiction) why your notion makes absolutely no sense.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Sorry, I must have blinked and missed that particular revelation.

Regards,

Simon

[Pierre]

You caused confusion, Pierre, by claiming that Lechmere changed his "testimony". But he didn't. He wasn't giving his testimony to Mizen. He simply spoke to him. So when you said that Lechmere changed his testimony this was both inaccurate and confusing.

Hi David,

You are easily confused, I must say.

This is what I wrote:

"There are two events in the whole case where witnesses gave the same type of statement but changed their testimony as soon as they came to the court room or to the police - Lechmere and Arnold."

Lechmere came to the court room, should have given the testimony corresponding to the statement made to Mizen but did not. He changed the testimony in court. Not confusing at all.

But of course, if you only want to cause problems there is always something you do to achieve that.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

You are easily confused, I must say.

This is what I wrote:

"There are two events in the whole case where witnesses gave the same type of statement but changed their testimony as soon as they came to the court room or to the police - Lechmere and Arnold."

Lechmere came to the court room, should have given the testimony corresponding to the statement made to Mizen but did not. He changed the testimony in court. Not confusing at all.

But of course, if you only want to cause problems there is always something you do to achieve that.

He didn't change his testimony then Pierre. You are compounding your original error by now refusing to admit the mistake.

The first time Lechmere testified about what he said to Mizen was at the inquest. He didn't change anything in that testimony.

And it's utterly ridiculous for you to say that Lechmere "should have given the testimony corresponding to the statement made to Mizen but did not". Mizen could simply have been mistaken.

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Sorry, I must have blinked and missed that particular revelation.

No problem Simon, posts #75 and #76.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;384718]

You ask this question as if it's never been answered on this forum. I answered it myself for you a few days ago.

David. You donīt have to understand my position. But I have nothing else to do right now than to think what I am thinking. Believe me, I would prefer not to. But actually, I must consider the sources. So the hypothesis about Lechmere is naturally compared to the statements made by Arnold and by the fact that Lawende did not tell the court what dress the man he saw had.

I understand that you do not like this. And I hear what you say about the sources. But we are in two different positions. One day, perhaps, I will be in the same position as you. Who knows? But right now, that is 100 percent impossible. Sorry, David.

Lechmere might have lied in order that Mizen would allow him to continue to work without him having to accompany the officer back to where the woman was lying in Bucks Row.

Lechmere might have lied - m i g h t - for many reasons. But see above: there are reasons, from my specific position, to think that he lied for one reason.

Equally, it must be possible that Lechmere actually said "You are wanted in Bucks Row" and Mizen naturally enough assumed that Lechmere was telling him that he was wanted by another police officer, an assumption confirmed in his mind when he found PC Neil at the scene.

Many things might have been possible, let us call it an endless set of possible events p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8, p9...All of these possibilities could be real, they might (!) have been a part of the past.

One possibility might even have been that Lechmere was a killer.

But from my position, there is one possibility right now. As long as that possibility can not be disproved, I can not do anything about it. Sorry.

What definitely never happened is that Lechmere definitely never saw a police officer in Bucks Row.

We have sources for the historical fact that Lechmere was a liar.

We have no sources for the historical fact that Mizen was a liar.

We can not establish as a historical fact an event in the past for which there is no source.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

I understand that you do not like this. And I hear what you say about the sources. But we are in two different positions. One day, perhaps, I will be in the same position as you. Who knows? But right now, that is 100 percent impossible. Sorry, David.

It's got nothing to do whether I like it or not.

Even if you are right, and the murderer turns out to be a police officer (which, in theory, is perfectly possible) I would still be sure that are completely wrong in thinking that Lechmere saw a police officer in Bucks Row.

Your whole theory makes as little sense as Simon's nonsense about Neil needing an alibi.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;384727]

It doesn't even make sense.

If Mizen had, for some strange reason, wanted to give Neil "an alibi" it was stupid to do it by claiming that one of the carmen had told him he was wanted by a policeman. The carman would obviously say he said no such thing when questioned, as Lechmere did.

I agree.

All Mizen had to do was say he found Neil by the body when he arrived at Bucks Row. That was good enough. So there was no reason at all for Mizen to lie about what Lechmere told him

I agree.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

We have sources for the historical fact that Lechmere was a liar.

You are quite wrong about this Pierre and it simply shows your tendency to twist the facts to fit in with your theory.

What we have is a source which shows an inconsistency between the evidence of Mizen and the evidence of Lechmere.

There is no "historical fact" that Lechmere was a liar.