Lechmere Continuation Thread

[Fisherman]

Whoops!

Re: post 733, the last line should, of course, read,

"That he testified that he did NOT continue knocking up is a reported fact."

Ah, just saw this one. And I would not want to criticize you for something you did not mean. We all make errors.

Hereīs an example: Mizen could not have BOTH denied that he continued knocking up people and stated that he DID continue to knock people up. The reasonable solution to this enigma you perceive is that he was asked:
-Did you continue knocking people up after having spoken to carman Cross?
whereupon he answered
-No, I did not. I only finished the errand I had started, and then I immediately set off for Bucks Row.

And as I have already said, Mizen seems to have acted properly and accordoing to protocol. This is further strengthened by how he was never reprimanded in any shape or form.

Of course, we need to consider that there were TWO versions of what he was told, Lechmeres version and Mizens own.

If Lechmere was telling the truth, then Mizen was told "Officer, we just found a woman lying in Bucks Row, and we believe that she is probably dead or dying!". In such a case, it would be reasonable to suggest that Mizen should set off double quick, and perhaps skip the finishing of the knocking up errand.

But if Mizen was telling the truth, then he was only told that there was a woman lying in Bucks Row, and that there was already a PC attending to the errand. In such a case, it would be very understandable if he finished the ongoing errand before he set off to assist his colleague with what seemed to be a very trivial errand. We should also ask ourselves how long time it would take to finish the ongoing errand - presumably, Mizen had knocked on the door or window and only awaited a response, something that may have been over in three seconds flat.

Jonas Mizen may therefore have acted totaly diligently and quickly, tending to exactly the matters he was supposed to tend to. My guess is that this is a fair description of the matter.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
Neither Cross nor Paul speaks of a crime having being committed.Only of a woman who appeared to be dead,or drunk,and in distress..Cross did seek aid from Paul,He w aited on Paul's arrival and accosted him.Their responsibility ended on meeting Mizen.Both,on knowing it was a crime ,came forward and gave evidence under oath.Appears innocent behaviour to me.Nothing odd or suspicious.

If you think that Mizen was told that the woman was either dead, drunk or in distress, then you have chosen Lechmeres version over a serving PC:s. For HE only says he was told that the woman as lying in the street. Not a word about having been told that it could be a question of death.

And to you, that discrepancy is "nothing odd or suspicious".

No ****, Sherlock.

[Fisherman]

>>When Lechmere heard footsteps coming down the street, his fight-or-flight response didn't kick in, when he could've fled the scene but instead he brazened it out like a stone-cold sociopath and duped Paul. <<

Christer is very fond of quoting his "experts" but, one quote his not so fond of repeating is that Andy Griffiths thought their was nothing odd about Xmere's behaviour in his encounter with Paul.

Then how do you know that this was so?

Does he say so in the docu? Nope.

So exactly why do you know this? Iīll tell you why: because somebody TOLD you about it.

Guess who that somebody was?

You really should not dig these holes for yourself. Blind as you are, there is every risk you will end up in one.

[Fisherman]

And then there is Mizen's rather odd answer in the Star,
"He did not say anything about murder or suicide."

Why didn't he just say, "he did not say anything about her being dead."?
His answer seems to imply he knew she might be dead , but didn't know she had been potentially murdered or committed suicide.

He knew at the inquest that the woman had had her neck cut and her abdomen ripped. You DO realize this?

He therefore would have been amazed that a carman who had been approached by a (fake) police who had found the body did not know anything about that at all.

Consequentially, he must have asked himself why his colleague kept the murder/suicide under wraps when sending the carman to look for him. The logical thing to do would be to say "Good Lord, this woman has had her neck cut. Run at one and find me some assistance!"

But not in your parallel universe. There, Mizens consternation was "rather odd".

[Fisherman]

>Thatīs some interesting dribbling there. But letīs go with the basics, your post:<<

Yes let's do.

Basic re: point one -"initiated"

Presumably you did look it up as you've dropped all mention of it.

Basic re: point two - That I wrote Xmere and Paul told Mizen they were the first to find the body.

No where in the sentence you underlined did I write that Xmere and Paul told Mizen they were first to find the body.

Indisputable fact.

I see now you're trying to distancing your self from your original post and are now trying to claim I implied it instead.

One has to wonder, if The Xmere case is so strong, why you need to keep falsifying things?

I do not falsify things, but you reoccruringly seem to lack the ability to grasp both what you yourself say and what I say. I will therefore once again remind you what you said, and what this issue is actually about:

"Not so, even if the two carmen didn’t mention another PC, Mizen had no obvious reason to suppose Neil could not have been the first to discover Mrs. Nichols body"

That is where you stepped in it, since there is no way that could have happened. I asked you to explain how such a thing could have gone down. Typically, I received no answer.

No, go wash your mouth with soap, please. And answer my question instead of conjuring up something that was never under discussion. Please?

[Fisherman]

>>Dear me. That is a totally unsubstainable and rather shocking statement.<<

One of the advantages of being honest is I don't need to keep making things up.

That Mizen's testimony was confusing is a reported fact.
That Baxter had to qualify it, is a reported fact.
That Mizen said he did continue knocking up is a reported fact.
That he testified that he did continue knocking up is a reported fact.

Next.

Here you go changing goalposts again. You NOW say that Mizens testimony was "confusing", but you leave out that it was only so in combination with the carmans ditto.

And of course, this was not what you said in your original post. Not at all, in fact, sonce in that one, you wrote: "Reading the reports there is little doubt that Mizen was not an accurate witness."

In other words, you lead on that Mizen was either lying or mistaken, most likely the first alternative.

That is another thing altogether from delivering a testimony that differed from another mans words on the same subject. And in all honesty, since Mizen testified forst, it was Lechmere who caused the confusion, mot Jonas Mizen.

You say "That Mizen said he did continue knocking up is a reported fact" and that "That he testified that he did continue knocking up is a reported fact", and as far as I can tell, these two sentences tell the exact same story.

At the end of the day, it matters not which version you prefer, since knocking up was part of his duties, and since he did nothing wrong by finishing his ongoing errand. It may have taken all of three seconds, we donīt know. But we DO know that it was a duty of his and that he was not reprimanded for it, so if you want to pass it off as a negligence on Mizens behalf, then think again.

Maybe that "again" is superfluos, though.

"Not an accurate witness", balderdash.

[Fisherman]

Perhaps. However, people don't always act logically in stressful situations. Thus, if he was the killer we might hypothesize that he would be desperate not to be closely scrutinized by Mizen, i.e. in respect of questioning, or regarding his clothing, which may have been blood stained. And, of course, he might still have the murder weapon in his possession. Moreover, he wouldn't have wanted Mizen to converse with Paul for too long, particularly as his account might differ fundamentally from his own, such as whether Nichols was seriously injured.

Informing Mizen that another PC was already in attendance, and wanted to see him, would have the advantage of giving the officer the clear impression that another constable had already questioned him [Cross] and was satisfied with his account-as well as diverting Mizen's attention by encouraging him to depart for Bucks Row, where he was apparently wanted by the other officer. Of course, if Mizen's account is correct he also played down the incident, by merely stating that "a woman had been found there" [Bucks Row], not mentioning that she might be dead or seriously injured, which would have given Mizen no reason to detain him for further questioning anyway.

Of course, in retrospect such a strategy might be regarded as risky-because Mizen would certainly contradict his account at the inquest-but with Paul alongside him he obviously had no alternative but to speak to the officer and, in this regard, his options were limited. Of course, subsequently he could simply argue that Mizen must have misunderstood him.

He would also be absolutely certain that Paul would corroborate his own stance that there had been no other PC in Bucks Row. That is where the question ended up: Was there another PC in Bucks Row or not?

Of course, it should have ended up: Did the carman tell Mizen that there was another PC in Bucks Row or not?

That is the impressive thing about this ruse (if indeed it was a ruse, something I myself am convinced about): The carman made it look as if he had one view and Mizen another about whether there was an extra PC. Of course, if Lechmere lied, then BOTH versions of the answer were his only.

[harry]

Dave,
I do not think now there is any disagreement between us.

Fisherman,
Neither Cross nor Paul speaks of a crime having being committed.Only of a woman who appeared to be dead,or drunk,and in distress..Cross did seek aid from Paul,He w aited on Paul's arrival and accosted him.Their responsibility ended on meeting Mizen.Both,on knowing it was a crime ,came forward and gave evidence under oath.Appears innocent behaviour to me.Nothing odd or suspicious.

[drstrange169]

Whoops!

Re: post 733, the last line should, of course, read,

"That he testified that he did NOT continue knocking up is a reported fact."

[drstrange169]

>>When Lechmere heard footsteps coming down the street, his fight-or-flight response didn't kick in, when he could've fled the scene but instead he brazened it out like a stone-cold sociopath and duped Paul. <<

Christer is very fond of quoting his "experts" but, one quote his not so fond of repeating is that Andy Griffiths thought their was nothing odd about Xmere's behaviour in his encounter with Paul.

[drstrange169]

>>Perhaps. However, people don't always act logically in stressful situations. <<

As Christer noted in post 723, he thinks Xmere wasn't stressed. If that's true he could have avoided the need to lie to Mizen, infact he could have avoided Mizen alltogether.


"Thus, if he was the killer we might hypothesize that he would be desperate not to be closely scrutinized by Mizen, i.e. in respect of questioning, or regarding his clothing, which may have been blood stained. And, of course, he might still have the murder weapon in his possession. Moreover, he wouldn't have wanted Mizen to converse with Paul for too long, particularly as his account might differ fundamentally from his own, such as whether Nichols was seriously injured."

If Xmere was desperate enough to avoid all of the above, all he had to do, when he was in Buck's Row, was to say to Paul, "You look for a copper that way, Ill go and see if I can get one the other way."

If Xmere was a cold and calculating killer who wanted to involve himself in the investigation, he then have hidden the knife, found Thain and Bingo!

Or he could have then simply disappeared into the night.



>>... if Mizen's account is correct he also played down the incident, by merely stating that "a woman had been found there" [Bucks Row], not mentioning that she might be dead or seriously injured ...<<

The problem with this is Paul specifically said in his Lloyds interview that Mizen was told Paul thought she was dead. Xmere stated the same thing under oath at the inquest.

And then there is Mizen's rather odd answer in the Star,
"He did not say anything about murder or suicide."

Why didn't he just say, "he did not say anything about her being dead."?
His answer seems to imply he knew she might be dead , but didn't know she had been potentially murdered or committed suicide.

[drstrange169]

>>Dear me. That is a totally unsubstainable and rather shocking statement.<<

One of the advantages of being honest is I don't need to keep making things up.

That Mizen's testimony was confusing is a reported fact.
That Baxter had to qualify it, is a reported fact.
That Mizen said he did continue knocking up is a reported fact.
That he testified that he did continue knocking up is a reported fact.

Next.

[drstrange169]

>Thatīs some interesting dribbling there. But letīs go with the basics, your post:<<

Yes let's do.

Basic re: point one -"initiated"

Presumably you did look it up as you've dropped all mention of it.

Basic re: point two - That I wrote Xmere and Paul told Mizen they were the first to find the body.

No where in the sentence you underlined did I write that Xmere and Paul told Mizen they were first to find the body.

Indisputable fact.

I see now you're trying to distancing your self from your original post and are now trying to claim I implied it instead.

One has to wonder, if The Xmere case is so strong, why you need to keep falsifying things?

[Harry D]

Perhaps. However, people don't always act logically in stressful situations.

Oh, but they do. Lechmere was still on a high from a fresh kill before he stepped back, dusted himself off, and used his Jedi mind powers on Paul.

[John G]

If Lechmere had fled the scene of the crime, bumped into a PC and told him he was wanted by a fellow copper in Buck's Row, now that would be congruent with a suspicious man who was trying to pull a fast one. I just don't see what Lechmere had to gain from lying to Mizen, when this had the potential to incriminate him at the inquest.

Perhaps. However, people don't always act logically in stressful situations. Thus, if he was the killer we might hypothesize that he would be desperate not to be closely scrutinized by Mizen, i.e. in respect of questioning, or regarding his clothing, which may have been blood stained. And, of course, he might still have the murder weapon in his possession. Moreover, he wouldn't have wanted Mizen to converse with Paul for too long, particularly as his account might differ fundamentally from his own, such as whether Nichols was seriously injured.

Informing Mizen that another PC was already in attendance, and wanted to see him, would have the advantage of giving the officer the clear impression that another constable had already questioned him [Cross] and was satisfied with his account-as well as diverting Mizen's attention by encouraging him to depart for Bucks Row, where he was apparently wanted by the other officer. Of course, if Mizen's account is correct he also played down the incident, by merely stating that "a woman had been found there" [Bucks Row], not mentioning that she might be dead or seriously injured, which would have given Mizen no reason to detain him for further questioning anyway.

Of course, in retrospect such a strategy might be regarded as risky-because Mizen would certainly contradict his account at the inquest-but with Paul alongside him he obviously had no alternative but to speak to the officer and, in this regard, his options were limited. Of course, subsequently he could simply argue that Mizen must have misunderstood him.