Lechmere Continuation Thread

[Fisherman]

Perhaps even more to the point, they didn't think it suspicious at the time, but oh I keep forgetting the police were too stupid/biased/unexperienced (whatever you may choose) to find their backside with a mirror on a stick.

And they never are, we all know that.

[drstrange169]

>>If it was that easy, you would win every argument. <<

There’s an argument I haven’t won?

>>There can always be levelled more than one suggestion of innocence but only one of guilt. It is therefore the QUALITY of the argument that rules the day, not the number of conjured-up innocent explanations.<<

I agree, but why wouldn’t I because it is the very point I was making. The “odds” are in favour of innocence.


>>In this case, the idea that Lechmere wanted to get to work with not disturbance is not a very good one - it would involve great risk. If he lied about the extra PC and Mizen found out that it was a lie, then he would have out himself at peril. <<

I agree again. It is not a great lie, but in the real world, there are very few of us who have not come up with a bad lie at least once in our life.


>>Your other suggestion does not take into account the part about the extra PC, does it? <<

Yes, it does, it goes to the heart of the debate.

Mizen misunderstood the situation. It remains the simplest and most obvious answer. I appreciate some might disagree with it, but none can prove it wrong.

It also has the advantage that it fits in with why all the authorities went with Xmere and Paul’s version of events.


>>As for the second alternative, that Lechmere thought that he had offered sufficient information, it is up to everyone to try and establish whether the suggestion is a good one or not. On the surface of things, it perhaps sounds reasonable - but I think you are forgetting about Mizen. If he was told that there was a possibly (or even probably) dead woman lying in Bucks Row, then he should have taken a profession interest in who found her<<.

Quite so, and why he didn’t remains a mystery or at the very least a subject of debate.

If Mizen was told there was a dead woman lying in Buck’s Row, he was duty bound to go.

If Mizen was told there was an insensible woman in Buck’s Row he was duty bound to go.

If Mizen was told a policeman was in need of his assistance he was duty bound to go.

Yet by his own words he finished “knocking up” before attending the scene. Mizen may have had a perfectly good reason to do what he did, but we don’t know what it was, consequently a question mark remains over PC Mizen’s action on that night. And questions remains whether Lechmere lied about another policeman or not.

>>My contention is that the carman never left the question open - he said that there was another PC in place, leding on that this PC was the finder.<<

In which case, Mizen was duty bound to render immediate assistance.

He didn’t.

Again, we must question Mizen’s actions.


>>So, as you see, it is all about the QUALITY of the suggestions we make. And not about the number of them. <<

As I said, that’s exactly my point, it’s not about the “odds” as you first suggested.


>>There is evidence that directly disputes it(That Paul was present). The Star wrote that Mizen spoke of "The other man (Paul), who went down Hanbury Street".<<

I afraid that doesn’t dispute it. Far from it, quite the opposite. It proves (according to them) Paul was present.
There is no reference in your version of the Star quote that places the time “the other man went down Hanbury Street”.

However, if we take the WHOLE grab from the Star in context and quote it accurately,

“Cross, when he spoke to witness about the affair, was accompanied by another man. Both went down Hanbury-street.”

So there is a specific reference to Paul being present when the conversation took place.
And there is a specific reference to when Paul went down Hanbury Street.
He went afterwards.
And there is a specific reference to who went with him. He went with Xmere.
And then there is your favourite, most accurate report in the Echo,

“By the Coroner - There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness."

So Paul was present and left to go down Hanbury Street after, accompanied by Xmere.

Of course, we can argue semantics, but the actual facts are that the newspapers reported Paul was present when the conversation took place.


>>Mizen apparently readily accepted Neils claim to be the finder, …<<<

We have absolutely no way of knowing if that is true or not.

>>… in spite of how he must have known that it was not correct –<<

See above answer.

>>UNLESS he had been lied to about that extra PC.<<

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. The truth would only have been apparent once he heard that Neil had denied there were two men involved. And according to the newspapers, he still denied it then, placing yet another question mark over Mizen's story.

[GUT]

It's not too subtle at all.Mizen makes a claim that Cross denies.The onus is on Mizen to substanciate that claim with evidence.He does not.Cross is entitled under law to be considered innocent unless proven guilty.It appears he was so considered.A hundred and some years later people claim the authorities of that time got it wrong,and allowed a serial killer to go free. With them is the arrogance.

Perhaps even more to the point, they didn't think it suspicious at the time, but oh I keep forgetting the police were too stupid/biased/unexperienced (whatever you may choose) to find their backside with a mirror on a stick.

[John Wheat]

It's not too subtle at all.Mizen makes a claim that Cross denies.The onus is on Mizen to substanciate that claim with evidence.He does not.Cross is entitled under law to be considered innocent unless proven guilty.It appears he was so considered.A hundred and some years later people claim the authorities of that time got it wrong,and allowed a serial killer to go free. With them is the arrogance.

Your not wrong harry.

Cheers John

[harry]

It's not too subtle at all.Mizen makes a claim that Cross denies.The onus is on Mizen to substanciate that claim with evidence.He does not.Cross is entitled under law to be considered innocent unless proven guilty.It appears he was so considered.A hundred and some years later people claim the authorities of that time got it wrong,and allowed a serial killer to go free. With them is the arrogance.

[Columbo]

Columbo: I would agree as well except didn't Paul testify he told Mizen he thought Nichols was drunk or dead? I believe that was posted on this thread.

At the inquest, it seems Paul said nothing at all about having informed Mizen about whether he thought Nichols was dead or drunk. The Times serves to tell the story:
Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen.

In the Lloyds interview, Paul claims to have done all the walking and talking himself, and that does not dovetail with the inquest evidence. In that interview, he says he told Mizen that the woman was long dead and cold.


We then fall back on the argument about Neil. I don't recall (as there is too much to process at this point for me) Neil saying he was the first person to discover her only that he discovered her, which he did, he just wasn't the first.

It would seem to me in the excitement of it all it would be very easy for Mizen to not mention the two carman that morning as they were getting doctors and ambulance carts. They probaby didn't have enough time to have a meaningful chat about details at that point, and as per Fisherman's theory Cross was out of the picture until his interview for the inquest.

But the excitement must have subsided at some point. And it is far from unreasonable to suggest that Mizen would have been aware of Neils claim to fame. So why did he not correct his colleague and set the investigation on the right track? Because, I would suggest, he thought it already WAS on the right track, since he was convinced that Neil had found the body and sent the carmen to him. As per a lying Lechmere.

Because the vocabulary was so different back then from now, I don't think Neil would correct Mizen if he testified that he discovered the body of Nichols. It's symantics at that point.

It was the other way around, Columbo - Mizen would be the one to correct Neil. And I fail to see your point about semantics. To me "I was the one to find the body" meant the same thing back then as it does today.

And Pierre may have a point of a misunderstanding or Neil mishearing something.

There is always the chance of mishearing things. But in Mizens case, he would have misheard the bit about the extra PC, he would have misheard the bit about the severity of the errand and he would have missed out on how Paul also spoke to him. Combined, I find that a bit rich.

And to play devil's advocate, Cross or Paul, I don't think, were in any danger of being taken back to the crime scene. They didn't say they thought she was murdered, just that she was drunk or dead.

According to Lechmere, that is. I donīt think Lechmere said anything at all about death. But letīs suppose he did - in such a case, with no established cause of death, it would arguably rest upon Mizen to clarify things and not allow a potentially very important witness to slip away.

I imagine that may have been a common occurence for police to come across some poor soul who expired in the streets. As a matter of fact all they had to say was she was passed out on the road.

Ah! But that was not what Lechmere claimed, was it? He said that he informed the PC that the woman was probably dead, as far as he understood! And THAT should have Mizen in his toes!!
However, if Lechmere did NOT inform Mizen about the potential severity of the errand, the PC had no reason to detain the carmen.

They didn't have to be that specific if the goal was to not get taken back to the crime scene.

Lechmere claimed that they WERE specific. But Mizen said that he was only informed that a woman "had been found" on the broad of her back in Bucks Row.
Now, Lechmere being the finder, what business did he have to say that the woman "had been found" there? Is that not a very strange thing to say when you have found the woman yourself?

Still, that doesn't take away suspicion from Cross.

It most definitely does not. Itīs good to have the matters challenged in a friendly manner, by the way!

I appreciate the compliment, thanks.

I think this has been a good thread about Lechmere.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

Columbo: I would agree as well except didn't Paul testify he told Mizen he thought Nichols was drunk or dead? I believe that was posted on this thread.

At the inquest, it seems Paul said nothing at all about having informed Mizen about whether he thought Nichols was dead or drunk. The Times serves to tell the story:
Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen.

In the Lloyds interview, Paul claims to have done all the walking and talking himself, and that does not dovetail with the inquest evidence. In that interview, he says he told Mizen that the woman was long dead and cold.


We then fall back on the argument about Neil. I don't recall (as there is too much to process at this point for me) Neil saying he was the first person to discover her only that he discovered her, which he did, he just wasn't the first.

It would seem to me in the excitement of it all it would be very easy for Mizen to not mention the two carman that morning as they were getting doctors and ambulance carts. They probaby didn't have enough time to have a meaningful chat about details at that point, and as per Fisherman's theory Cross was out of the picture until his interview for the inquest.

But the excitement must have subsided at some point. And it is far from unreasonable to suggest that Mizen would have been aware of Neils claim to fame. So why did he not correct his colleague and set the investigation on the right track? Because, I would suggest, he thought it already WAS on the right track, since he was convinced that Neil had found the body and sent the carmen to him. As per a lying Lechmere.

Because the vocabulary was so different back then from now, I don't think Neil would correct Mizen if he testified that he discovered the body of Nichols. It's symantics at that point.

It was the other way around, Columbo - Mizen would be the one to correct Neil. And I fail to see your point about semantics. To me "I was the one to find the body" meant the same thing back then as it does today.

And Pierre may have a point of a misunderstanding or Neil mishearing something.

There is always the chance of mishearing things. But in Mizens case, he would have misheard the bit about the extra PC, he would have misheard the bit about the severity of the errand and he would have missed out on how Paul also spoke to him. Combined, I find that a bit rich.

And to play devil's advocate, Cross or Paul, I don't think, were in any danger of being taken back to the crime scene. They didn't say they thought she was murdered, just that she was drunk or dead.

According to Lechmere, that is. I donīt think Lechmere said anything at all about death. But letīs suppose he did - in such a case, with no established cause of death, it would arguably rest upon Mizen to clarify things and not allow a potentially very important witness to slip away.

I imagine that may have been a common occurence for police to come across some poor soul who expired in the streets. As a matter of fact all they had to say was she was passed out on the road.

Ah! But that was not what Lechmere claimed, was it? He said that he informed the PC that the woman was probably dead, as far as he understood! And THAT should have Mizen in his toes!!
However, if Lechmere did NOT inform Mizen about the potential severity of the errand, the PC had no reason to detain the carmen.

They didn't have to be that specific if the goal was to not get taken back to the crime scene.

Lechmere claimed that they WERE specific. But Mizen said that he was only informed that a woman "had been found" on the broad of her back in Bucks Row.
Now, Lechmere being the finder, what business did he have to say that the woman "had been found" there? Is that not a very strange thing to say when you have found the woman yourself?

Still, that doesn't take away suspicion from Cross.

It most definitely does not. Itīs good to have the matters challenged in a friendly manner, by the way!

[Columbo]

Since there seems to be a lot of confusion going on, I may as well reiterate what I have said before about the differences inbetween what Lechmere said and what Mizen said. There are three major issues where the two differ.
1. Mizen says that he was told that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row, whereas Lechmere denies that such a thing was stated.
2. Mizen says that he was told that there was a woman lying flat on her back in Bucks Row, whereas Lechmere claims that Mizen was told that she could be drunk or dead, but his own best guess was that the woman was dead.
3. Mizen says that "a man" came up and spoke to him in the junction of Hanbury Street and Bakers Row, whereas Lechmere claims that both he and Robert Paul spoke to the PC.

These three points are troublesome for the carman, and they must be a fair ground for suspicion against him. Together, they form a logical pattern of action on the carmans behalf if he was the killer.
In case 1, it would have been of immense importance to Lechmere to be able to pass by the police instead of being taken back to the murder site as the discoverer of the body.
In case 2, it would have been vital to the carmans chances of being able to pass by the police that the severity of the errand was played down.
In case 3, the carman stood to gain a lot if he could convince the inquest that both himself and Paul had spoken to, or been within earshot of, PC Mizen, since that would have spoken in favour of the carman not having lied to the constable.

These three points all represent lies to my mind. When discussing them, it deserves mentioning that Jonas Mizen would have known from the outset that he stood the risk of being outnumbered by the carmen when the errand was discussed, provided that both carmen came forward. Consequently, if Mizen claimed at the inquest that he had been told that there was another PC in Bucks Row, and that he had not been told about the severity of the errand and that he had been spoken to by one man only (which was more or less exactly what he DID say at the inquest), then the combination of Lechmere and Paul would be able to disclose him as a liar if he was not telling the truth about the three points.
That in itself serves as a useful indication that the PC was indeed truthful. Why would he run the risk of being exposed as a liar? To conceal that he had been lacking in his duties on the murder night? Nope - since he was never such a thing at all, and consequently, he suffered no criticism at all at the inquest.
Another indication of who was the liar lies in how Mizen does not seem to have come forward to correct Neil about having been the first man to find the body. It would seem that Mizen thought that this was true. But how could he do that, if the carman had told how HE was the finder? Maybe because the carman never did tell him that - but instead said that there was a PC in place in Bucks Row, a man who Mizen understandably came to identify with Neil the moment he met him by the body?

The odds are therefore heavily stacked against the carman, regardless of the fact that we cannot conclusively prove that he lied at the inquest.

I would agree as well except didn't Paul testify he told Mizen he thought Nichols was drunk or dead? I believe that was posted on this thread.

We then fall back on the argument about Neil. I don't recall (as there is too much to process at this point for me) Neil saying he was the first person to discover her only that he discovered her, which he did, he just wasn't the first.

It would seem to me in the excitement of it all it would be very easy for Mizen to not mention the two carman that morning as they were getting doctors and ambulance carts. They probaby didn't have enough time to have a meaningful chat about details at that point, and as per Fisherman's theory Cross was out of the picture until his interview for the inquest.

Because the vocabulary was so different back then from now, I don't think Neil would correct Mizen if he testified that he discovered the body of Nichols. It's symantics at that point.

And Pierre may have a point of a misunderstanding or Neil mishearing something.

And to play devil's advocate, Cross or Paul, I don't think, were in any danger of being taken back to the crime scene. They didn't say they thought she was murdered, just that she was drunk or dead. I imagine that may have been a common occurence for police to come across some poor soul who expired in the streets. As a matter of fact all they had to say was she was passed out on the road. They didn't have to be that specific if the goal was to not get taken back to the crime scene.

Still, that doesn't take away suspicion from Cross.

Columbo

[Abby Normal]

The irony of this statement is unbelievable. You are the one who is saying that a policeman of 1888 gave incorrect evidence in the witness box. Furthermore only a few posts ago you referred to that same officer as 'PC Plod'. So who is really being arrogant?

The fact of the matter is that there is a discrepancy in the evidence of Mizen and Cross. I have no idea if that discrepancy was investigated and/or resolved by the police in 1888. It depends if they regarded that discrepancy as significant. But the discrepancy exists and there is no evidence of any attempt by anyone to resolve it.

Bingo-the point seems to be a bit too subtle for some.

[David Orsam]

It is only persons today,who must feel they are superior to the policemen of 1888,who insist Cross must be suspect,of both murder and lying. Such arrogance.

The irony of this statement is unbelievable. You are the one who is saying that a policeman of 1888 gave incorrect evidence in the witness box. Furthermore only a few posts ago you referred to that same officer as 'PC Plod'. So who is really being arrogant?

The fact of the matter is that there is a discrepancy in the evidence of Mizen and Cross. I have no idea if that discrepancy was investigated and/or resolved by the police in 1888. It depends if they regarded that discrepancy as significant. But the discrepancy exists and there is no evidence of any attempt by anyone to resolve it.

[David Orsam]

To David

Because it's relevant. I don't see anything particularly suspicious about anything Cross did.

But that wasn't the point you made in your post. You said firstly "The British justice system is based on the idea that someone is innocent until proven guilty". That's got nothing whatsoever to do with suspicion in general - of course you can suspect people of a crime who have not been proven guilty of that crime - nor does it have anything to do with whether Cross did anything suspicious.

Then you said "Cross used a name that could easily be traced back to him. Big deal it indicates nothing." But Lechmere's use of the name Cross is nothing to do with the point under discussion. The point is whether he lied about speaking to a policeman in Bucks Row.

So nothing you said in your post, I'm afraid, was relevant.

[Fisherman]

harry: Cross does appear to have convinced the inquest he was no liar.

I donīt think we can word it like that - it makes it sound as if the question was up on the table, and it was not, quite apparently.
Nevertheless, I would quite agree that the carman would not have come across as a liar or a dishonest person. When he was asked by a juror if he had really told Mizen about an extra PC, his answer in the negative seems to have satisfied the inquest. And Dew remembered him as a typical East-Ender, rough around the corners but not giving any dishonest impression as such.
The problem is that very many serial killers have been very accomplished liars and quite able to sway people into thinking that they were innocent. So there is nothing much to be gained by our agreement that Lechmere was not looked upon with suspicion. Furthermore, this was an era of criminal anthropology, and Lechmere was arguably about as far removed from the archetypical criminal as one could get. So saying that if the inquest did not suspect him, then neither should we is - with the utmost respect - a tad silly. There are things that we know about him that they did not know, to begin with, so in many a way we are better equipped to judge whther suspicion should attach to him than they were.

Even had he not known that perjury,a serious crime, could be levelled at him,it was the duty of the coroner,if that person felt Cross was lying,to caution Cross of the consequencies.No such thing happened.(Maxwell was cautioned).Ditto for the police,they would have needed to caution Cross,if they suspected him of lying.

So they did not suspect that, apparently. But as I have said, that is of little use unless we can prove that they had evidence to free Lechmere. If any such evidence ever existed, then it has gone VERY lost. But we may conclude that if there was suspicion enough against him to justify an investigation to clear him, then he would have been known by the name of Lechmere long before the 21:st century...

No such thing happened.He was never suspect either of murder or lying.

No, he was not. And no, that is not equivalent with innocence.

It is only persons today,who must feel they are superior to the policemen of 1888,who insist Cross must be suspect,of both murder and lying. Such arrogance.

Thanks, Harry - one can always rely on you to be decent. Let me counter in the same vein:

It is idiotic to claim that I feel superior to the police of 1888. They would have represented a group of people that held men that were less smart than I am, and people who are as smart as I am, and people who are smarter than I am. Thatīs how it always tends to end up.
If I was transferred to 1888 and given the upbringing and education that was open to these men, I would in all probablity have ended up where they ended up - with no catch.

Can you see what I am saying here? If so, I would advice you not to touch your keyboard before you engage your brain the next time.

We know more about Lechmere today than the investigating force did back then in many a way, and less in others. The point being that we have DIFFERENT information and DIFFERENT angles to work from, coupled with insights abut serialists that were unknown to the Victorians. We may therefore look over the case again and shed new light on it (or bitterly puke over other peopleīs efforts, itīs anybodys choice).

As for arrogance, I think the utmost arrogance that can be traced here is the one working from the assumption that if THEY could not solve it, then WE cannot solve it either - meaning that nobody should come and say to you that they may have advanced further than you have, since that would be utterly ridiculous to suggest.

Thereīs arrogance for you. And thereīs suggesting some sort of superiority.

[Fisherman]

The general points you make cannot be ruled out. But to suggest that the odds are heavily stacked against Xmere is to ignore the other perfectly valid alternatives.

Itīs a game of likelihoods, viabilities, probabilities. There will always be disagreements, of course. I will comment on your post in order to show what I am talking about.

>>In case 1, it would have been of immense importance to Lechmere to be able to pass by the police instead of being taken back to the murder site as the discoverer of the body.<<

True, IF he was the killer and IF he still had the knife on him.

There are however numerous variations that are equally applicable if he was innocent. If we, for the sake of argument, just take two;

Xmere considered getting to work more important than getting involved.

Xmere thought that he had passed on all the information that he considered relevant to the situation as he saw it.

With these two alone the “odds” are already two to one in favour of Xmere’s innocence.

If it was that easy, you would win every argument. There can always be levelled more than one suggestion of innocence but only one of guilt. It is therefore the QUALITY of the argument that rules the day, not the number of conjured-up innocent explanations.
In this case, the idea that Lechmere wanted to get to work with not disturbance is not a very good one - it would involve great risk. If he lied about the extra PC and Mizen found out that it was a lie, then he would have out himself at peril.
Your other suggestion does not take into account the part about the extra PC, does it?


>>In Case2<<

Case two is exactly the same as case one.

No, it is not. It is a separate issue, so I can only reason that you are offering the same innocent alternatives. Which is another thing.
As for the second alternative, that Lechmere thought that he had offered sufficient information, it is up to everyone to try and establish whether the suggestion is a good one or not. On the surface of things, it perhaps sounds reasonable - but I think you are forgetting about Mizen. If he was told that there was a possibly (or even probably) dead woman lying in Bucks Row, then he should have taken a profession interest in who found her. So if Lechmere was not clear on the point, I am suggestion that Mizen would have asked him to be so.
My contention is that the carman never left the question open - he said that there was another PC in place, leding on that this PC was the finder.

So, as you see, it is all about the QUALITY of the suggestions we make. And not about the number of them. I could suggest that Mizen misheard, that Mizen lied, that Lechmere spoke sloppily, that Lechmere wanted to get to work, that Mizen liked to con PC:s for the hell of it, that Lechmere made a bet with Paul etcetera, etcetera, and all of these suggestions would be possible - but they would to my mind not be as viable as the suggestion that he lied.


>> In case 3, the carman stood to gain a lot if he could convince the inquest that both himself and Paul had spoken to, or been within earshot of, PC Mizen, since that would have spoken in favour of the carman not having lied to the constable.<<

If Paul was with Xmere when he spoke to Mizen, and there is no evidence that directly disputes it, then that’s a point in Xmere’s favour.

There is evidence that directly disputes it. The Star wrote that Mizen spoke of "The other man (Paul), who went down Hanbury Street".
What there is not is any other distinction that allows us to place Paul at any established distance from the event.
Otherwise, you are of course correct: IF Paul was with Lechmere when he spoke to Mizen, than that is in favour of Lechmere. Your one and only problem is that this has not been established and it would seem it cannot be established either.

If Xmere committed the murder, spoke to Mizen out of earshot of Paul and lied to the inquest, he ran a significate risk of being caught, as he would have no way of knowing if Paul would appear at the inquest and call him a liar.

If he was the killer, then he was also a risktaker. And what was his choice? To say at the inquest "I made sure the other carman could not overhear what I told the PC"?
I donīt think so. Do you?

Letīs say that the Star is correct, and that Paul was not within earshot of the conversation between Mizen and Lechmere. How hard would it be for Lechmere to afterwards say "Oh, so you did not hear that? My impression was that you were there...?"
And then Paul would say "Nah, I was some little way ahead of you, so I heard nothing".
Does that sound like the revealing of a lie to you, or as a very understandable mistake?

If Xmere committed the murder and spoke to Mizen out of earshot of Paul, he lied knowing that Mizen would call him a liar.

You seem very bent on applying the term lie to what would probably be experienced as a misunderstanding. It was only if the issue was rehashed and scrutinized that the term lie would enter the issue. Mizen had his say, and he said that "a man" spoke to him and that there was another man present at the scene, but that this other man went down Hanbury Street. He may well have accepted that both men arrived with the intention to tell him about Nichols, and so it would not be a hard pill to swallow if Lechmere said that he and Paul informed Mizen.



With those three explanations alone, the odds are three to one in favour of Xmere being truthful.

I am sorry, but I am never going to be able to produce more than one suggestion of guilt, so this whe game of "I have twentythree innocent explanations and you only have one guilty explanation, so I win!" is completely moot.
Give it some afterthought, and I am sure you will see what I mean. It should hopefully elevate the discussion somewhat when (if) you do! Accusing somebody of serial murder is to walk on the edge of a knifeblade. It is a very thin and demanding pathway to walk. Conjuring up alternative innocent explanations is to use the rest of the space in the room, all of it but the sharp knifeīs edge.
It is infinitely easier, and allows for just about anything. As you are showing us all right now.

These explanations are off the top of my head I’m sure others could come up with more, so in fact, the odds are distinctly in favour of Xmere being innocent.

There was just the one accusation against Ridgway, Dahmer, Sutcliffe - and anybody with an active brain cell could think up ten innocent alternative explanations for each man. Ridgway could have enjoyed the scenery of the Green River, he could have been a peeping Tom, he could have had a doppelganger, he could...

The suggestion of guilt will always be unchangeably just the one - he did it. I am content with that, though, and I would not swop it for your plethora of alternative innocent explanations, since - as I said - quality should govern our thinking, not quantity.

That doesn’t prove he is innocent, but it definitely doesn’t prove he is guilty or increase the odds of him being guilty.

Mizen apparently readily accepted Neils claim to be the finder, in spite of how he must have known that it was not correct - UNLESS he had been lied to about that extra PC.

That dramatically changes the odds for guilt.

Mizen would have known that if he lied, Paul would potentially be able to point him out as a liar.

That has the same effect on the odds. They remain heavily stacked against the carman. He is significantly more likely to be guilty than innocent on this score.

[harry]

Cross does appear to have convinced the inquest he was no liar.Even had he not known that perjury,a serious crime, could be levelled at him,it was the duty of the coroner,if that person felt Cross was lying,to caution Cross of the consequencies.No such thing happened.(Maxwell was cautioned).Ditto for the police,they would have needed to caution Cross,if they suspected him of lying.
No such thing happened.He was never suspect either of murder or lying.
It is only persons today,who must feel they are superior to the policemen of 1888,who insist Cross must be suspect,of both murder and lying. Such arrogance.

[drstrange169]

The general points you make cannot be ruled out. But to suggest that the odds are heavily stacked against Xmere is to ignore the other perfectly valid alternatives.

>>In case 1, it would have been of immense importance to Lechmere to be able to pass by the police instead of being taken back to the murder site as the discoverer of the body.<<

True, IF he was the killer and IF he still had the knife on him.

There are however numerous variations that are equally applicable if he was innocent. If we, for the sake of argument, just take two;

Xmere considered getting to work more important than getting involved.

Xmere thought that he had passed on all the information that he considered relevant to the situation as he saw it.

With these two alone the “odds” are already two to one in favour of Xmere’s innocence.


>>In Case2<<

Case two is exactly the same as case one.


>> In case 3, the carman stood to gain a lot if he could convince the inquest that both himself and Paul had spoken to, or been within earshot of, PC Mizen, since that would have spoken in favour of the carman not having lied to the constable.<<

If Paul was with Xmere when he spoke to Mizen, and there is no evidence that directly disputes it, then that’s a point in Xmere’s favour.

If Xmere committed the murder, spoke to Mizen out of earshot of Paul and lied to the inquest, he ran a significate risk of being caught, as he would have no way of knowing if Paul would appear at the inquest and call him a liar.

If Xmere committed the murder and spoke to Mizen out of earshot of Paul, he lied knowing that Mizen would call him a liar.


With those three explanations alone, the odds are three to one in favour of Xmere being truthful.

These explanations are off the top of my head I’m sure others could come up with more, so in fact, the odds are distinctly in favour of Xmere being innocent.

That doesn’t prove he is innocent, but it definitely doesn’t prove he is guilty or increase the odds of him being guilty.